Were Schumer and Pelosi involved in assisting Obama in providing $150 billion to a nation regarded as an adversary of the United States?
As President Donald Trump prepared on 8 January 2019 to deliver a televised speech to the nation making the case for billions of dollars to construct a wall along the roughly 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico, some social media users circulated an inaccurate meme containing the claim that the preceding Obama administration, with the help of Democratic lawmakers Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, had given Iran $150 billion in cash.   President Trump battled Congress over his request for $5.7 billion to fulfill a 2016 campaign promise to "build the wall." The resulting impasse over budget appropriations for the wall's construction led to a protracted shutdown of the federal government. build the wall impasse shutdown As with many memes, the one above paired two topics that were unrelated to each other, along with a generous helping of inaccuracy. The "enemy of the U.S." referred to Iran, which was never given a $150 billion cash payment by President Barack Obama with the help of Pelosi and Schumer. Instead, billions of dollars worth of Iranian assets were unfrozen as a result of the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated with that country, which had nothing to do with the U.S. federal budget or border wall construction. nuclear deal Trump floated the "$150 billion" figure in conjunction with his desired border wall construction in a 12 December 2018 Twitter post: The Democrats and President Obama gave Iran 150 Billion Dollars and got nothing, but they cant give 5 Billion Dollars for National Security and a Wall?  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2018 December 12, 2018 The $150 billion figure is an estimate of the value of Iranian assets that were unfrozen as a result of Iran's agreeing to the terms of the nuclear agreement reached with seven nations in 2015, including the U.S., an agreement formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In other words, Iran gained access to assets that already belonged to them, assets that had been frozen in various financial institutions around the world due to sanctions imposed to curb Irans nuclear program. But Iran didn't get $150 billion in cash, nor did they receive any money at all from U.S. taxpayers -- they only regained access to assets that had been frozen in several different countries (not just the U.S.), and the $150 billion figure was merely an upper estimate. agreement Moreover, that $150 billion figure was the highest estimate of the value of Iran's frozen assets, with multiple sources reporting much lower figures. For example, Adam J. Szubin, Acting Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, supplied written testimony to a U.S. Senate committee in August 2015 stating that U.S. assessment of the total liquid assets Iran would regain control of as a result of the nuclear agreement was "a little more than $50 billion": testimony We must also be measured and realistic in understanding what sanctions relief will really mean to Iran. Estimates of total Central Bank of Iran (CBI) foreign exchange assets worldwide are in the range of $100 to $125 billion. Our assessment is that Irans usable liquid assets after sanctions relief will be much lower, at a little more than $50 billion. The other $50-70 billion of total CBI foreign exchange assets are either obligated in illiquid projects (such as over 50 projects with China) that cannot be monetized quickly, if at all, or are composed of outstanding loans to Iranian entities that cannot repay them. These assets would not become accessible following sanctions relief. Nader Habibi, professor of economics of the Middle East at Brandeis University, told us via email his best estimate was that between $30 billion and $50 billion of unfrozen funds were made available to Iran as a result of the deal. On 8 May 2018, President Trump announced that he was pulling the U.S. out of the nuclear deal with Iran, which had been negotiated over the course of two years. Associated Press.  "Democrats and Obama Did Not Give $150 Billion to Iran."
  14 December 2018. Hirschfeld Davis, Julie.  "Schumer and Pelosi Tap Themselves to Respond to Trump Speech."
  The New York Times.  8 January 2019. Bozorgmehr, Najmeh.  "Iran to Keep Most Unfrozen Overseas Assets in Foreign Banks."
  Financial Times.  8 February 2016. Cunningham, Erin, and Bijan Sabbagh.  "Iran to Negotiate with Europeans, Russia and China About Remaining in Nuclear Deal."
  The Washington Post. 8 May 2018. Dahl, Fredrik.  "Iran Has $100 Billion Abroad, Can Draw $4.2 Billion: U.S. Official."
  Reuters.  17 January 2014. Habibi, Nader. " Irans Frozen Funds: How Much Is Really There and How Will They Be Used?"
  The Conversation.  11 August 2015.
As if Americans hadn't accumulated enough dark suspicions about their government over the past 50-odd years, along comes an Internet factoid holding that the United States government intentionally (and fatally) poisoned more than 10,000 of its own citizens between 1926 and 1933:   The alarming claim is that the U.S. government added poison to alcohol to discourage people from drinking it during Prohibition, the period from 1920 to 1933 in which it was illegal to produce, transport, or sell alcoholic beverages anywhere in the United States. That didn't mean people stopped making, buying, and drinking booze  they just did it illegally. As noted in virtually every U.S. history textbook ever written, one of the many negative unintended consequences of Prohibition was a booming black market in alcohol that law enforcement was never able to subdue. Prohibition To the question at hand: Did the federal government really add poison to alcohol to discourage people from drinking it? It did, in fact. The government did purposely add poisonous substances to alcohol, and this did result in thousands of deaths during Prohibition. The story of how that came to pass is longer and more nuanced than the Internet meme suggests, however. And it began well before the passage of the 18th Amendment, which made Prohibition the law of the land. According to Deborah Blum, author of The Poisoner's Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York (Penguin Press, 2010), the practice was called "denaturing". It consisted of adding noxious chemicals to alcohol sold for industrial purposes to make it unfit for human consumption. The process, long used in Europe, was introduced in the United States in 1906 as a means of exempting producers of alcohol used in paints, solvents, and the like from having to pay the taxes levied on potable spirits. 2010 Mainly, this was done by adding some methyl alcohol ("wood alcohol") to grain alcohol, rendering it poisonous. Some formulas also contained substances that made the product taste too awful to drink. One of the ways crime syndicates tried to flout Prohibition, Blum explained in a 2010 Slate article, was stealing industrial alcohol and finding ways to make it potable. The government, in turn, resorted to making it more poisonous: article To sell the stolen industrial alcohol, the liquor syndicates employed chemists to "renature" the products, returning them to a drinkable state. The bootleggers paid their chemists a lot more than the government did, and they excelled at their job. Stolen and redistilled alcohol became the primary source of liquor in the country. So federal officials ordered manufacturers to make their products far more deadly. By mid-1927, the new denaturing formulas included some notable poisonskerosene and brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone. The Treasury Department also demanded more methyl alcohol be addedup to 10 percent of total product. It was the last that proved most deadly. TIME magazine's 2008 Prohibition retrospective described the horrendous consequences of an unregulated  and, in many instances, purposely adulterated  black-market liquor supply: retrospective It wasn't just the violent Prohibition-era gang wars that were dangerous to Americans drinking homemade moonshine and bathtub gin. According to the Dec. 26, 1922 edition of the New York Times, five people were killed in the city on Christmas Day from drinking "poisoned rum." That was only the beginning. By 1926, according to Prohibition, by Edward Behr, 750 New Yorkers perished from such poisoning and hundreds of thousands more suffered irreversible injuries including blindness and paralysis. On New Year's Day 1927, 41 people died at New York's Bellevue Hospital from alcohol-related poisonings. Oftentimes, they were drinking industrial methanol, otherwise known as wood alcohol, which was a legal but extremely dangerous poison. One government report said that of 480,000 gallons of liquor confiscated in New York in 1927, nearly all contained poisons. Although it is inaccurate in the sense that none of this deadly business began in 1926, the factoid we set out to investigate wasn't entirely wrong in citing that year as a pivotal one. Blum points out that the spate of alcohol-related poisonings that culminated in so many fatalities on New Year's Day 1927 actually commenced a week earlier, on Christmas: It was Christmas Eve 1926, the streets aglitter with snow and lights, when the man afraid of Santa Claus stumbled into the emergency room at New York City's Bellevue Hospital. He was flushed, gasping with fear: Santa Claus, he kept telling the nurses, was just behind him, wielding a baseball bat. Before hospital staff realized how sick he wasthe alcohol-induced hallucination was just a symptomthe man died. So did another holiday partygoer. And another. As dusk fell on Christmas, the hospital staff tallied up more than 60 people made desperately ill by alcohol and eight dead from it. Within the next two days, yet another 23 people died in the city from celebrating the season. As for the claim that some 10,000 people died of alcohol poisoning during the course of Prohibition through its repeal in 1933, that, too, is a figure we can source to Blum (who did not, in the Slate article, specify where this estimate came from): Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people. In sum, federal attempts to reduce the palatability of industrial alcohol came well before Prohibition, and efforts to intensify the risks of consuming it were both well-known and controversial at the time. Such evidence as we've seen does not support the the implication that the government set out to purposely kill drinkers of alcohol, although Prohibition-era lawmakers and public health experts decried what they described as a callous disregard for those who died as result of drinking denatured alcohol. before known Andrews, Evan.  "10 Things You Should Know About Prohibition."
  History.  16 January 2015. Blum, Deborah.  "The Chemist's War."
  Slate.  19 February 2010. Damrau, Frederic, M.D.  "The Truth About Poison Liquor."
  Popular Science Monthly.  April 1927. Norris, Charles, M.D.  "Our Essay In Extermination."
  The North American Review.  December 1928. Rothman, Lily.  "The History of Poisoned Alcohol Includes an Unlikely Culprit: The U.S. Government."
  TIME.  14 January 2015. TIME.  "Top 10 Prohibition Tales: Mortal Moonshine."
  2008. Chicago Tribune.  "Alcohol Gets Double Poison Ration Jan. 1."
  30 December 1926. Wikipedia.  "Prohibition In The United States."
  Accessed 11 May 2017. Wikipedia.  "Prohibition In The United States."
  Accessed 11 May 2017. On 2 June 2015, New York firefighter Michael O'Connell took to Facebook to ask social media users for help in locating a helmet that had been stolen from his house a few years prior. O'Connell posted a photograph of his son with the helmet and explained that he had worn it throughout his FDNY career, including during 9/11 and its aftermath: Facebook   This was my FDNY helmet I wore my entire career including 9/11/01. It was stolen from my home a while back. I know it's a long shot but if enough people share maybe it turns up or is sent back so I can keep it in my family! Thanks! The NYC Wire Fire Facebook page helped spread O'Connell's message by resharing his post with the caption, "In case anyone comes across this ... maybe the thief is stupid enough to try to sell on eBay." Within a week, the message reportedly reached more than 8 million people and had been reshared hundreds of thousands of times. Unfortunately, despite the wide dissemination of this Facebook post, it did not result in the return of O'Connell's FDNY helmet. Facebook reportedly AM New York reported on 24 June 2015, a few weeks after the Facebook post went viral, that while O'Connell had not been reunited with his helmet, he did receive an outpouring of support from the community and two replica helmets from "good Samaritans hoping to sooth the sting" of his loss: reported Retired firefighter Michael O'Connell's social media campaign to retrieve his stolen FDNY helmet has gotten him the next best thing -- two replicas thanks to some good Samaritans. "There are still amazing people in this world!," O'Connell said. O'Connell, 39, recently turned to Facebook to track down the significant memento that he wore at Ground Zero following 9/11 and hoped to leave to his three children. What came back instead were two painstakingly created replica helmets from good Samaritans hoping to soothe the sting of his loss and an avalanche of human kindness and compassion. "I'm taking the good out of this story, not the bad," said O'Connell, who was forced to retire from the FDNY after being diagnosed with sarcoidosis, an inflammatory disease that attacks the lungs and lymphatic system, in 2007. "We live in an amazing world. So many people are willing to help. I hope people recognize this more than all the hate out there," he said. Although this FDNY firefighter's message was originally posted in June 2015, social media users have continued to share his plea on Facebook over the ensuing years. In April 2019, for example, a screenshot of O'Connell's message that was posted by the "Ramsey, New Jersey Volunteer Fire Department" racked up more than 600,000 shares. Ramsey, New Jersey Volunteer Fire Department When viewers learned that this message was nearly four years old by the time they encountered it in April 2019, they were left wondering if O'Connell had ever been reunited with his firefighter helmet. Unfortunately, that's not the case. O'Connell told us in April 2019: "I appreciate everyones support in this matter. Unfortunately, my helmet was never returned! Hoping that it will make its way back home one day as I am a retired FF who has fallen sick to my work on September 11th and this was the helmet that I wore that day and throughout my career!" Stepansky, Joseph.  "FDNY Firefighter's Helmet Worn During 9/11 Stolen from Long Island Home."
  New York Daily Post.  3 June 2015. Feeney, Sheila Anne.  "Retired FDNY Firefighter Michael O'Connell Searching for 9/11 Helmet."
  AM New York.  3 June 2015. Feeney, Sheila Anne.  "Retired FDNY Smoke Eater Michael O'Connell Receives Two Helmets for the One He Lost."
  AM New York.  24 June 2015. On Dec. 27, 2023, readers emailed Snopes to ask if it was true that former U.S. President Donald Trump had written a post on Christmas Day that included the words, "May they rot in hell." A check of Trump's posts on his social media platform, Truth Social, showed dozens of new posts ("Truths") and reposts ("Retruths") in the previous two days. Buried below all of the more recent shared posts was a "trending" post in which Trump had offered a "Merry Christmas" message on Dec. 25. That post truly did include the words, "May they rot in hell," which appeared in all capital letters. The imprecation was aimed at so-called "thugs" Trump claimed were "looking to destroy our once great USA."  The full post (archived) read as follows: post archived Merry Christmas to all, including Crooked Joe Bidens ONLY HOPE, Deranged Jack Smith, the out of control Lunatic who just hired outside attorneys, fresh from the SWAMP (unprecedented!), to help him with his poorly executed WITCH HUNT against TRUMP and MAGA. Included also are World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and sick as the THUGS we have inside our Country who, with their Open Borders, INFLATION, Afghanistan Surrender, Green New Scam, High Taxes, No Energy Independence, Woke Military, Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, All Electric Car Lunacy, and so much more, are looking to destroy our once great USA. MAY THEY ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS! Snopes has previously published a wealth of reporting about claims mentioned in the above post: "open borders," worldwide inflation, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Green New Deal, U.S. President Joe Biden's plans for taxes, Biden's record on energy independence, the idea of the U.S. military being "woke," Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the war in Israel and Gaza and electric-powered vehicles. open borders worldwide inflation U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan Green New Deal taxes energy independence woke Russia's invasion of Ukraine war in Israel and Gaza electric-powered vehicles On the same day that Trump posted his Christmas message on Truth Social, a Biden-Harris campaign spokesperson named Seth Schuster responded by calling it an "erratic Christmas Day rant," according to reporting from Washington Examiner. Washington Examiner We reached out to the Trump campaign by email to ask about the statement and will update this story if we receive a response. In addition to the Truth Social post on Christmas Day, Trump also released a video message on Christmas Eve that did not include the words, "May they rot in hell." Rather, the video simply showed Trump offering positive, forward-looking sentiments about Christmas, U.S. military servicemembers and the upcoming 2024 U.S. presidential election.  Dapcevich, Madison. Does Biden Support the Green New Deal? Snopes, 1 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Datoc, Christian. MSN.MSN.Com, Washington Examiner, 26 Dec. 2023, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-campaign-rebukes-trump-s-rot-in-hell-christmas-wish/ar-AA1m43Pg. Electric Vehicles Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/electric-vehicles/. Huberman, Bond. About That Biden Tax Plan Meme. Snopes, 29 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/collections/about-that-biden-tax-plan-meme/. Ibrahim, Nur. Do Democrats Want Open Borders? Snopes, 17 June 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/17/do-democrats-want-open-borders/. Inflation Is Spiking Around the World  Not Just in US. Snopes via The Conversation, 1 Aug. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/08/01/inflation-us-world/. Israel Hamas War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/israel-hamas_war/. Kasprak, Alex. Did Biden Set US Back 50 Years on Energy Independence Progress? Snopes, 15 Feb. 2021, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-energy-independence/. Liles, Jordan. Did the Trump Admin Agree to Free 5,000 Taliban Prisoners? Snopes, 12 Dec. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-5000-taliban-prisoners/. Palma, Bethania. Top General Blasts Rep. Matt Gaetz for Offensive Comment About Military Being Woke. Snopes, 24 June 2021, https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/06/24/matt-gaetz-mark-milley-woke/. Ukraine War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/russia-ukraine/. The Trump administration and Senate and House leaders have revealed a framework for tax legislation that proposes tax cuts for business, a reduction in tax brackets, and the elimination of several tax breaks. What the plan means for Americans remains to be determined. But Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., recently said that the amount of tax relief working families receive under the plan is entirely dependent on one thing: what happens to the child tax credit. The child tax credit, if we don't do it, there will be no tax relief for working families, Rubio said on WFLA on Oct. 15. How much tax relief working families get under tax reform is entirely dependent on whether or not we put in place an increase to the child tax credit. We wondered whether increasing the child tax credit will be the only way that working families can gain under the framework. What we found is that the child tax credit is indeed central in the current tax proposal. However, the plan is so tentative that its premature to say that will be the only way working families will see relief. Rubios team sought to back up his assertion with apress releasethat included two charts. Both charts relayed the same message: In order to help working families, a tax plan must increase the child tax credit and make the credit refundable. So in Rubios mind, expanding  not just increasing   the child tax credit is key in seeing working families prosper. The Trump-backed tax frameworkproposes increasing the creditfrom the current amount of $1,000 and raising the current income threshold at which the credit phases out. Experts agreed that expanding the child tax credit is one of the central provisions that will shape the impact that middle-income households will experience under the framework. Scott Greenberg, a senior analyst at the Tax Foundation, said the existing, $1,000 child tax credit is already quite large. Parents with children under the age of 17 are eligible for a tax credit of up to $1,000 per child. If they owe more than $1,000 in taxes, then the credit lowers their tax liability, or the total amount of tax left on their income. If parents owe less than $1,000 in taxes then the tax liability is reduced to zero. In its current form this tax credit is nonrefundable. Greenberg said that under current law, a married household with two children making $60,000 would owe about $3,733 in individual income taxes before taking the child credit into account. After taking the child credit into account, the households individual income tax burden would fall to about $1,733. (His math assumes that the household takes the standard deduction and does not claim any other major credits, exclusions, or other provisions.) Still, its not just about increasing the credit. Transforming it into a refundable credit is also important. In 2015, Rubio and Mike Lee, R-Utah, releaseda tax planthat connected the child tax credit to the payroll tax, which would have increased the refundability rate.At the time, experts were unsure whether this would have benefitted low-income families because it didnt include an expansion for them. Another reason why expanding the child tax credit is important is because the current framework eliminates the personal exemption  that is, the untaxed income pegged to the number of dependents on their return. This provision disproportionately benefits households with children. To compensate for eliminating it, the plan proposes increasing the child tax credit. It looks like theyll pay more under the current framework, but thats where the child tax credit comes into play, said Elaine Maag, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute. It does its magic and wipes away that tax liability. Its worth emphasizing that the details of the child tax credit are a work in progress. Right now, the plan does not specify how much the credit would increase or which incomes level would qualify. More broadly,little is knownabout the thresholds of new income tax brackets, which could greatly affect the distribution of benefits. From the sketchy details we have of the basic (framework), its pretty fair to say the child tax credit is key, said Edward McCaffrey, a tax law professor at the University of Southern California. As a result, the credit has emerged as one of few options available to policymakers looking to change the tax burden on middle-income households. Chris Edwards, the director of tax policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, bemoaned the focus on a specific tax break such as the child credit, favoring instead overall tax simplification. In that context, Edwards said, policymakers have lots of ways to cut taxes on moderate-income Americans. Maag, meanwhile, pointed to proposals outside the framework that would expand the earned income tax credit. For example, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced a very large increase in that credit -- a refundable credit targeted at low-income working Americans -- that would provide benefits to low- and middle-income families Rubio said if tax reform efforts dont expand the child tax credit, there will be no tax relief for working families. Thats a bit overstated, since the tax proposal is in its early stages. That said, judging by whats in the initial framework, experts say that the child tax credit is one of the few levers that could significantly affect the size of the tax burden for middle-income households. We rate this claim Mostly True. Scam:  Callers pretend to be fraud investigation agents for Visa and MasterCard in order to obtain credit card security codes. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2003] We all receive emails all the time regarding one scam or another; but last week I REALLY DID get scammed! Both VISA and MasterCard told me that this scam is currently being worked throughout the Midwest, with some variance as to the product or amount, and if you are called, just hang up. My husband was called on Wednesday from "VISA" and I was called in Thursday from "MasterCard". It worked like this: Person calling says, "This is Carl Patterson (any name) and I'm calling from the Security and Fraud department at VISA. My Badge number is 12460. Your card has been flagged for an unusual purchase pattern, and I'm calling to verify. This would be on your VISA card issued by 5/3 bank. Did you purchase an Anti-Telemarketing Device for $497.99 from a marketing company based in Arizona?" When you say "No". The caller continues with, "Then we will be issuing a credit to your account. This is a company we have been watching and the charges range from $297 to $497, just under the $500 purchase pattern that flags most cards. Before your next statement, the credit will be sent to (gives you your address), is that correct?" You say, "Yes". The caller continues ... "I will be starting a fraud investigation. If you have any questions, you should call the 800 number listed on your card 1-800-VISA and ask for Security. you will need to refer to this Control #". Then gives you a 6 digit number. "Do you need me to read it again?" Caller then says he "needs to verify you are in possession of your card. Turn the card over. There are 7 numbers; first 4 are 1234 (whatever) the next 3 are the security numbers that verify you are in possession of the card. These are the numbers you use to make internet purchases to prove you have the card. Read me the 3 numbers." Then he says "That is correct. I just needed toverify that the card has not been lost or stolen, and that you still have your card. Do you have any other questions? Don't hesitate to call back if you do." You actually say very little, and they never ask for or tell you the card number. But after we were called on Wednesday, we called back within 20 minutes to ask a question. Are we glad we did! The REAL VISA security dept. told us it was a scam and in the last 15 minutes a new purchase of $497.99 WAS put on our card. Long story made short ... we made a real fraud report and closed the VISA card and they are reissuing as a new number. What the scam wants is the 3 digit number and that once the charge goes through, they keep charging every few days. By the time you get your statement, you think the credit is coming, and then its harder to actually file a fraud report. The real VISA reinforced that they will never ask for anything on the card (they already know). What makes this more remarkable is that on Thursday, I got a call from "Jason Richardson of MasterCard" with a word for word repeat of the VISA Scam. This time I didn't let him finish. I hung up. We filed a police report (as instructed by VISA), and they said they are taking several of these reports daily and to tell friends, relatives and coworkers.  Origins:  There are five points we generally try to apply in evaluating warnings about possible criminal schemes or activities: 1)  Is the phenomenon outlined in the warning technically possible as described? 2)   Is the phenomenon outlined in the warning plausible?  (That is, some criminal schemes are technically possible, but they're too difficult, cumbersome, or expensive to plausibly enact on anything more than a very limited basis.) 3)  Are there any verifiable instances of people having been victimized in the manner described by the warning? 4)  Is there evidence that the criminal activity described in the warning is widespread? 5)  Is the criminal activity described in the warning something the average person might fall victim to? The scheme outlined in the message quoted above might be categorized as a "social engineering" scam  a technique which preys upon people's unquestioning acceptance of authority and willingness to cooperate   in order to extract from them sensitive information (such as computer passwords or credit card numbers). In this case the scammers' target data are the three-digit security codes found on the back of MasterCard and Visa cards.  Just as the Internet and other technologies have greatly expanded the possibilities for making credit card purchases without the need to physically present a card to the seller, so have they created additional opportunities for identity thieves to make profitable use of purloined credit card numbers. After getting their hands on credit card numbers (often through such simple expedients as rummaging through trash to find discarded receipts or statements), crooks can then employ a variety of means (e.g., mail order, phone order, Internet purchases, posing as merchants) in order to obtain money and merchandise by charging against the cardholder's account  even though the credit card itself remains snugly inside the cardholder's wallet.  The victim may not even know anything is amiss until he receives his next statement in the mail several weeks later.   Although safeguards have been enacted to catch most of these types of fraud, they're often defeated by a combination of lax security and clever crooks who know how to work around them.    One of the those safeguards is the addition of three-digit security codes (known as CVC2 or CVV2 codes) to every MasterCard and Visa card, codes which are indent-printed in the signature panels on the backs of the cards  but are not encoded in the magnetic stripes and do not print on sales receipts.  Many vendors cannot process credit card transactions without obtaining these security codes from their customers, thereby ensuring that persons placing orders have physical possession of the cards being used (and haven't simply scammed the sixteen-digit account numbers imprinted on the front of cards somehow).  Thus the scheme described above might be used by identity thieves who have managed to collect credit card numbers but need to obtain the associated security codes in order to process charges against the accounts. So, back to our five points: 1) Is this possible?  Yes, it's possible that scammers might  get hold of credit card numbers and then use the technique described above to obtain security codes and process phony transactions against the accounts. 2) Is this plausible?  The scam as described above is not extraordinarily difficult or expensive to pull off; all it requires is access to a telephone and the establishment of a merchant account for processing credit card transactions.  It also assumes the scammer already has the names, addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers (plus expiration dates) of his victims, but that information might be obtained in a variety of ways (such as breaking into and stealing customer data from merchant web sites).  Whether the same scammer could process more than a handful of phony charges before complaints caused his merchant account to be shut down is problematic, though, and most credit card issuers now have checks in place to prevent the shipping of merchandise to anywhere other than the card's registered billing address and other "card not present" (CNP scams). CNP 3) Are there known instances of this occurring?  We talked with a representative of MasterCard, who told us that although she couldn't verify the specific details of the message reproduced above, this type of scam does occur and isn't new; it's been going on ever since MasterCard started putting CVC2 security codes on all its cards back in 1997.  (Visa did not add CVV2 codes on all their credit cards until 2001.)  She also reiterated that MasterCard would not ask a cardholder to disclose security codes or provide any information verifying physical possession of a card; any such inquiries regarding security matters would come from the financial institution that issued the credit card, not from MasterCard itself. 4) Is this a widespread phenomenon?  Unfortunately, neither MasterCard nor VISA would provide us with any statistics regarding the specific scam described here or confirm any actual instances of its occurrence (other than to note that using the telephone to trick cardholders into divulging their security codes is a type of fraud that has been occurring for several years and is ongoing).  However, numerous readers have informed us they've received calls from persons identifying themselves as fraud investigation agents and asking for sensitive personal data, so (even allowing for the possibility that some of those calls were actually legitimate) we'd have to say anecdotal evidence indicates this scam is still being perpetrated, if only infrequently. 5) Is this something that might affect the average person?  Yes, anyone who holds a credit card is a potential victim of this type of fraud. The best protection against these types of telephone schemes for obtaining sensitive credit card information is to always verify the identities of the people with whom you speak.  If you have security questions or concerns about your credit card, call the financial institution who issued your card directly.  If someone contacts you by phone about your credit card, ask the caller to provide his name, department, and extension, then hang up and call him back through the phone number listed on your credit card or billing statement.    Additional information:        Recognizing Credit Card Fraud   (Consumer @ction)   Last updated:  1 April 2015 Supporters of a new Multnomah County Library District say a new tax structure is necessary for keeping one of the nations busiest libraries working for all of us. In a mailer, the Libraries Yes! Committee paints an already dim picture of the system.The mailer notes reduced hours and compares them to other metro-area counties: Right now, our libraries are open 44 hours per week, down from 57 hours just a few years ago. Thats the lowest of any library in the four-county region.PolitiFact Oregon was well aware that the system has cut back in certain areas, but it surprised us that the cuts had gone so far as to put operating hours behind Clackamas, Washington and Clark counties. We thought a quick check was warranted -- and quick it was.We checked the website for each of the counties libraries and calculated the weekly operating hours for the main branches. Heres what we found.In Multnomah County, the Central Library is open44 hours each week.In Washington County, the Hillsboro Main Library is open64 hours eachweekand the Beaverton City Library is open63 hours.In Clackamas County, the library system is open52 hours a week.And up in Washingtons Clark County, the main Vancouver Community Library is open60 hours a week.We  also called the group responsible for the mailer and asked them about the statement. They sent us a slightly different group of numbers -- the average number of hours a library was open in each county. Their findings supported the same conclusion: Multnomah County library hours are the lowest in the four-county region.We find this statement True. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2021, a video went viral of a gymnast celebrating after a successful vault landing. While gymnastic celebrations don't often make viral content, this video proved share-worthy as this athlete, Evan Manivong from the University of Illinois, removed a card from beneath his uniform and started waving it around to the crowd:  He later revealed he was showing off his vaccination card and encouraged everyone to "go get vaccinated": encouraged go get vaccinated   Vaccination distribution plans vary by state in the U.S. NBC News reports that more than 80 counties in Illinois have "expanded COVID vaccine eligibility to all state residents 16 years and older." Residents of Illinois can check the Illinois Department of Public Health website for more information on how to get their COVID-19 vaccines. For residents outside of Illinois, the CDC recommends using VaccineFinder.org to find a nearby location that is administering vaccines.  NBC News Illinois Department of Public Health CDC VaccineFinder.org Manivong, who earned the B1G Sportsmanship award, helped the Fighting Illini take fourth place at the 2021 Big Ten Men's Gymnastic Championship with a score of 14.45 in the vault. His teammate Michael Fletcher was crowned the B1G Vault champion with a score of 14.6.  Head Coach Justin Spring said: said "We really struggled on parallel bars, but we never gave up and finished strong. We finished the last two rotations hitting 10/10 routines, and had our best pommel horse of the season, so I'm really proud of how we finished despite having multiple gymnasts out." At a Texas Capitol rally, an anti-abortion advocate suggested Texas has hit a record pace in funding womens health. Videoof the July 2015 rally showsJoe Pojmanof the Texas Alliance for Life initially saluting Republican leaders for launching investigations in reaction to stealth videos showing Planned Parenthood employees talking rather casually about donations of fetal tissue. The videos had been circulated by the California-based Center for Medical Progress,which describes itselfas a group of citizen-journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics. Next, Pojman told the crowd, to cheers and applause: I just wanted to emphasize, the state of Texas is doing its part... The state of Texas is funding  womens health services at historically high levels; they just increased that level another $50 million for the next two years. Pojman noted that none of the $50 million would go to Planned Parenthood. Texas takes care of our people and Planned Parenthood is not part of that picture, he said. Legislative cuts and changes, 2011-2013 Pojmans declaration caught our attention in part because actions set in motion by the 2011 Legislature drove down family planning spending in the state budget by more than $70 million (from an existing two-year expenditure of $111 million) in 2012-13. Also in 2011, lawmakers voted to bar state family planning aid from going to health care providers affiliated with organizations that perform or promote abortions such as Planned Parenthood, whose clinics had been the Texas programs biggest provider of contraceptive care and cancer screening, serving more than 40,000 women a year. Two years later, the state's ruling Republicans passed into law a bar on most abortions after 20 weeks of gestation and mandated facilities providing abortions meet tougher health and safety standards, a move under court challenge that has caused providers to predict a substantial reduction in clinics statewide. After the 2011 actions, the federal government moved to cut off what had been a 9-to-1 match of federal to state dollars paying to provide contraceptive care for women who otherwise would qualify for Medicaid if they were to become pregnant. State health officials said the affected initiative, launched in 2005, had saved the state money$21.4 million in 2008, for instanceby reducing Medicaid-financed births. Federal aid accounted for $65 million of the money spent on the program in 2010-11. Reacting to the pending cutoff, then-Gov. Rick Perry announced state officials would assure such services were delivered through clinics not affiliated with abortion providers. The promised transition fully played out starting in 2013. So, given all this, could it be the state has set a record for expenditures on womens health? Pojmans backup cites state budgets We asked Pojman, executive director of the alliance, whichsaysit opposes the advocacy and practice of abortion (except to preserve the pregnant womans life), how he reached his historically high conclusion. By email, Pojman responded with achart, which he sourced to state budgets, indicating that nearly $285 million in state and federal funds budgeted by the 2015 Legislature for several womens health efforts in 2016-17 would exceed such spending in each of the nine previous two-year state budgets, dating to 1998-99with the previous record being $240.1 million for such programs in 2014-15. The previous low, per the chart, was $128.8 million in 2012-13. Pojmans chart attributed the touted $50 million in fresh spending to a provision in the 2016-17 budget stating the money should increase access to women's health and family planning services. In his email, Pojman told us that at the rally, he was referring to total legislatively appropriated state and federal funding, not per-person funding, on four programs providing family planning or female-specific health care such as breast and cervical cancer screenings. Conversely, he said, he wasnt including funding for perinatal care, including childbirth. Planned Parenthood, he said, provides virtually no services for pregnant women, certainly not support for childbirth, except elective abortion. Four state-overseen efforts In his email, Pojman said aFebruary 2014 Texas Health and Human Services Commission presentationamounted to a good summary of how the state spends money on womens health. From that, we pulled these thumbnails: The Texas Womens Health Program was put in place by the state starting in 2013 to provide services previously available through the defunct, federally supported Medicaid Womens Health Program. The successor program, serving women living at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty level, retains the same program objectives and client eligibility previously provided by WHP and has expanded program benefits to include treatment of certain sexually transmitted infections. Services offered in annual appointments include pelvic examinations and STD, diabetes, HIV, cholesterol, blood pressure and breast and cervical cancer screenings plus Pap tests, a clinical breast exam, contraceptives and family planning counseling. Family planning services, available to women of childbearing age and men living at 250 percent of the poverty level or less, offering the tests offered in the womens health program plus sterilizations. Expanded Primary Health Care, a new program, offered to women 18 and older living at or below 200 percent of the poverty level, covering the services offered in the other programs plus immunizations, mammograms, diagnostic services for women with abnormal breast or cervical cancer test results, cervical dysplasia treatment, individualized case management and option prenatal medical and dental services. Breast and Cervical Cancer Services, open to women living at or below 200 percent of the poverty level, with breast screenings for women aged 50 to 64 and cervical screenings for women aged 21 to 64. In addition to services covered by the Expanded Primary Health Care program, BCCS assists clients needing to apply to Medicaids Breast and Cervical Cancer program. In addition, a chart in the presentation included spending figures that mostly aligned with what Pojman had offered to us for fiscal 2010 through 2015--including the legislated decrease in 2012-13 and a rebound in spending budgeted for 2014-15 (which ran through August 2015):  SOURCE:Presentation to Senate Committee on Health and Human Services: Texas Womens Health and Family Planning Programs,Feb. 20, 2014 (received by email from Joe Pojman, Aug. 6, 2015) Other analyses support claim Next, we asked the commission and outside experts about Pojmans rally statement. The consensus was that spending budgeted by lawmakers for 2016-17 would set a record, though some advocates cautioned this didnt mean all needs would be met and others said that not all the described programs focus only on services typically provided by family planning clinics. To our inquiry, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission emailed amore detailed chartbasically lining up with Pojmans recap. From the commissions figures, it looked to us like the appropriated 2016-17 funds for womens health services exceeded previous two-year expenditures by $40 million or more. At the the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for programs serving low-income residents, analyst Stacey Pogue said Pojman was on solid ground, though its complicated. For instance, Pogue said, the 2015 Legislature called for three womens health programs to be reorganized in 2016 into two offerings overseen by the commission and precise spending results remain to be seen. By email, Pogue pointed out a two-pagesummary of the 2016-17 state budgetprepared by theTexas Womens Healthcare Coalition, which says it promotes access to preventive health care for all Texas women working toward the vision of a state where every woman has access to the preventive and preconception care that will help her stay healthy and prepare for healthy, planned pregnancies. According to this June 2015 summary, $260.9 million in spending on womens health care budgeted by lawmakers for 2016-17 reflected an increase of $46.5 million, or 22 percent, from what was budgeted for 2014-15. We confirmed the latest figures inthe 2016-17 appropriations act approved by a Texas House-Senate conference committee; it shows $130,321,510 in budgeted spending on womens health services in the fiscal year beginning Sept. 1, 2015, and $130,548,682 for the subsequent year, totaling $260,870,192 in the biennium. As noted by Pojman, the act also says that each year, on approval of the budget board, the commission shall allocate $50 million providing primary health care services to women including but not limited to preventive health screenings such as breast and cervical cancer screenings, diabetes, cholesterol, hypertension and STD-HIV screenings; family planning services including contraception; perinatal services; and dental services. Due to such spending, the act estimates that annually, 65,000 adults and adolescents would receive family planning services. Its that additional spending, the coalition summary indicates, that makes the budgeted spending higher despite legislated reductions in spending for family planning (a cut of $1.5 million, or nearly 4 percent) and the Texas Womens Health program (a cut of $2 million, or 3 percent). Alabama analyst Also to our inquiry, Heather Busby of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, whichsaysit focuses on guaranteeing Texans the right to make personal reproductive health decisions including contraception and safe abortions, suggested we queryKari White, a University of Alabama at Birmingham professor and expert on womens health issues whos been part of aTexas-based teamstudying effects of the Texas decision barring aid to clinics affiliated with abortion providers. By phone and email, White agreed the state has allocated what looks like a record level of money to the efforts singled out by Pojman though she speculated by email the spending bump might be less dramatic than available figures suggest. The focus on funding allocated for the four programs on Pojmans list, White said, does not entirely capture how some of the womens health services historically have been paid for. For example, primary care services for women that are now covered by EPHC were previously paid for using other state-administered and federal programs (not included on Pojmans list). By not factoring these programs into funding totals in previous years, the recent increase may seem larger than it actually is. Spending per woman Also, White wrote, funding allocations do not reflect how effectively these programs are serving women. In other words, there may be more total dollars set aside for services, but since quite a bit of this new funding has been going to organizations that do not have a lot of experience with family planning, the state is spending more but not necessarily serving more women. White suggested we consider research by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that promotes reproductive health and abortion rights. In 2013, more than 1.7 million Texas women were in need of publicly supported contraceptive services and supplies, according to a July 2015 institute reportthat started fromU.S. Census Bureau survey results. That year, the report said, publicly supported health centers provided contraceptive care to 281,170 women in Texas plus 47,390 teens. These totals amount to substantial proportionsbut not nearly allof the women in need of publicly supported contraception, the report said. For our part, we asked the commission for help estimating the number of Texas women eligible for the health services. Could it be that even with spending up, less money is available per potential beneficiary? By email, spokesman Bryan Black provided achart, drawing on U.S. Census Bureau surveys, estimating the number of female U.S. citizens aged 15-44 living in Texas at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level from 2010 through 2017--in other words, the women who most likely would qualify for the health services. Next, we calculated that some $109 per potential beneficiary was spent in 2010-11 and 2012-13; this was exceeded by the $205 per potential beneficiary appropriated by lawmakers for such programs in 2014-15 and the $236 per potential beneficiary appropriated for 2016-17. Our ruling Pojman said the state of Texas is funding  womens health services at historically high levels; they just increased their level another $50 million for the next two years. Texas lawmakers this year voted to appropriate more for womens health services than before--including the $50 million bump. This includes funding for general health services such as diabetes and cholesterol screenings. It also may be meaningful that programs are under reorganization. Too, lawmakers started putting more money on the table after their actions led the federal government to cut off tens of millions of dollars for reproductive services. We rate this claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. As a new year and a new legislative session begin, Wisconsin Republicans are looking to place limits on government benefits to residents. That issue will appear on the ballot for the April election, as lawmakersvoted last monthto include an advisory referendum asking voters whether people should be required to look for work to receive welfare benefits. It also arose on the Assembly floor Jan. 19, in a speech from Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, about BadgerCare,the states health care coverage programfor low-income people and people with disabilities. Heres his full quote: Wisconsin has been a national leader in so many ways. Preliminary data shows that we have more people on BadgerCare today than we did before the pandemic. Why? Because we dont even ask people what their income level is to qualify for free health insurance from the government. So, on Day One, you qualify. On Day Two, you win the lottery. Youre a multimillionaire. You still get the benefits from the state. How is that right? Its not. There are a couple of claims in there  one being that Wisconsin has more people on BadgerCare today than before the pandemic, which we noted ina prior fact-check is correct. But what about his other claim  that you could be a multimillionaire and still get BadgerCare benefits? Is he right about that, too? Lets take a look. One important point that Vos statement doesnt quite make clear: There is always an initial check of peoples incomes to make sure they fit within the programs requirements before they can enroll in BadgerCare. Proof of income has always been required, Elizabeth Goodsitt, a state Department of Health Services spokesperson, said in an email. A spokesperson for Vos said the speakers phrasing, Day One, you qualify, referred to that first check. Fair enough. So what if the next day, a person gets a large influx of money and moves above the programs income limits? What happens next changed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Before the pandemic, people were required to report an income change that could disqualify them from receiving benefits, and there were other external checks to ensure their incomes remained below that threshold. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, federal lawmakers passed theFamilies First Coronavirus Response Act. Among other things, it increased the number of federal dollars that states could be reimbursed for their Medicaid programs. To get that increase, though, states had toagree to keep people continuously enrolledin Medicaid coverage until the end of the public health emergency. The idea was to promote stable health care coverage during the pandemic. In other words, if people enrolled in BadgerCare in 2020, theyd have had coverage for the last almost three years without needing to renew it, even if their income changed. In a spending plan passed late last year, Congressset an end date for the continuous enrollment provision: March 31, 2023. After that date, Wisconsin and other states can start disenrolling people who no longer meet the requirements for that coverage. The law allows states a full year to complete that step and process renewals for those who will keep their coverage. This will surely take a while, with anestimated increase of almost 20 million people enrolledin Medicaid nationwide since the start of the pandemic, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation. Goodsitt said all members of BadgerCare will have their eligibility rechecked between June of this year and May 2024. Vos sidestepped that in his claim, suggesting its been a longstanding preferred practice of state policy. Still, since those eligibility checks are at least a few months away, a situation like Vos laid out is plausible at the moment. Vos argued that even a multimillionaire could receive BadgerCare benefits in Wisconsin, because, We dont even ask people what their income level is to qualify for free health care. But there is an initial income check to qualify for coverage. After that, starting on Day Two, a federal law passed during the pandemic prevents states from rechecking eligibility based on income  though that will end this spring. So, the overnight millionaire scenario Vos describes could theoretically happen  and individuals, because of a new job or other more modest income gains, could rise above the threshold. But Vos skirts past this not being something the state initiated, nor something the state can avoid. And it will end soon. We rate a statement Mostly True if it is accurate, but needs clarification or additional information. That fits here. Back in December 2016, the America's Last Line of Defense junk news website published an article falsely reporting that First Daughter Malia Obama had been indicted on food stamp fraud charges (emphasis ours): article A member of the First Family will face fraud charges early in 2017, but it isnt who you might think. President Obama is certainly guilty of fraud for his use of a fake birth certificate and for pretending hes a Christian and Michelle Obama is certainly guilty for the $180 million in lavish vacations and 200 staffers she keeps to walk her dog and weed her garden on the taxpayers dime, but they seem to be impervious to any kind of action against them. Malia, however, isnt going to be so lucky. It seems that while putting in her paperwork to go to school at Harvard, the oldest Obama daughter, who recently turned 18, lied on her financials and failed to disclose the $9 million she has ion the bank. Thats not an issue with the school, as shes going on a full scholarship for being the daughter of a president, but it didnt bode well with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Thats because Malia decided that she would fail to disclose her assets when she applied for food stamps. Yes, you heard that right. Obama has trained the youth of America to be so dependent on the government that even his own daughter thought she was entitled to free stuff just because shes not technically working. This item was a fabricated report that originated solely with America's Last Line of Defense (LLOD), a junk news website that frequently publishes political misinformation as "satire." A number of clues on the site indicate the satirical nature of its content, such as the "you're an idiot" tag at the top of the article, the disclaimer in the site's "About Page," and a special note beneath the article mocking its conservative targets: About Page   DISCLAIMER: The Resistance may include information from sources that may or may not be reliable and facts that dont necessarily exist. All articles should be considered satirical and any and all quotes attributed to actual people complete and total baloney. Pictures that represent actual people should be considered altered and not in any way real. While this story is ridiculous and can in no way be verified, conservatives tend to not reads below the pictures of Patriotic pets. It is here that we can gather to point at them and laugh as they head back to the Facebook page to make an immediate connection between Malia, food stamps and black people. Yes, it really is that predictable. Although the rumor that Malia Obama was indicted on food stamp-related fraud charges originated with a 2016 junk news article, several social media users have continued to spread the false rumor in the ensuing years. In April 2019, nearly two-and-a-half years after this fake article was originally published, we encountered a meme asking, "What happened to Malia Obama's Food Stamp Fraud Charge?": meme   The answer to the question posed in this meme can be answered quite simply: Nothing, because those charges never existed to begin with. America's Last Line of Defense has published a number of articles offering false claims about Malia Obama. We've previously covered items asserting that Malia once said white people will be "blended out," that she was expelled from Harvard, that she was busted for streaking at college, that she founded an anti-Trump website, that she attacked an old woman, and that she was arrested for purchasing marijuana. None of the aforementioned stories was true. blended out expelled streaking anti-Trump website attacked purchasing marijuana. America's Last Line of Defense.  "An Obama Was Just Indicted for Fraud -- But Its Not Who You Think."
  December 2016.