Judge David Kithil's stance on the Affordable Care Act
Claim:  Letter from Judge David Kithil provides accurate line item criticisms of "Obamacare" health care reform legislation.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements. We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program? Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of those two programs. I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there." Other problems I have with this bill include: Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick "fix" to make the plan financially sound for the future." Honorable David Kithil Marble Falls, Texas.  Origins:  A number of similar pieces presenting lists of line item criticisms of a pending health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) began circulating on the Internet in mid-2009, and they continue to circulate widely three years later as arguments to oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare." The versions of this item that continue to be spread via e-mail forwards and online postings are wrong in nearly every particular, however:  Although this list is commonly attributed as originating with a letter sent to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana by Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, an Indianapolis anesthesiologist, or as a letter sent to the River Cities Tribune by David Kithil, a former county judge in Marble Falls, Texas, it is actually the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who issued Peter Fleckenstein the list as a series of Tweets and posted it to his blog in July 2009.  The bill referenced in this list, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), was never passed by Congress.  A   completely different bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), became the basis for what is now known as "Obamacare."  Many of the entries in the list are therefore irrelevant and outdated, as they address aspects of health care reform legislation that were never enacted by Congress (particularly the "public option" for a government insurance plan). H.R. 3200 H.R. 3590  Virtually every statement included in this list is exaggerated, misleading, inaccurate, or outright erroneous, as detailed below:    The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. This is false.  The PPACA, as enacted, doesn't "provide insurance" to anyone  it institutes some regulations on the insurance industry to make medical insurance more broadly available and affordable to Americans, and it requires that Americans enroll in PPACA-qualified medical plans or pay a penalty, but everyone is still responsible for obtaining (and paying for) their own insurance coverage.   Moreover, the section of the unpassed HB 3200 bill referenced in the above statement is 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE, which simply states that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services."  It doesn't explicity grant or authorize government funds for providing illegal immigrants with health care or health insurance, and another section of the bill specifically states that  "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."  The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. This is false. The section of HB 3200 referenced here does nothing more than attempt to provide a framework for simplifying the use of electronic payments for health services, emulating the way that many consumers currently use to make a variety of other payments (e.g., utilities, mortgages, credit card balances).   The bill simply calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to set standards for electronic administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice."  Nothing in this section grants the government "real-time access to an individual's bank account" or the "authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts."  The bill doesn't even require that consumers use an electronic payment system  it simply seeks to make that an option for those who want to use it.   The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). This statement is misleading, as the section of HB 3200 referenced here is SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES, which addresses "retirees and ... spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees" who are covered by "employment-based [health benefit] plans."  It does not specifically provide for subsidizing health insurance for "all union members, union retirees and community organizations"; it sets up a new federal reinsurance plan for any retirees and their spouses who are covered by any employer plan, not just those who are covered under plans run by unions or community groups.  The reinsurance would be available to any "group health benefits plan that ... is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations."  The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) This statement misleadingly tries to make HB 3200 sound ridiculous by deliberately eliding the end of the statement it quotes.  What the bill actually says is that"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55."  Section 55 is a reference to the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the purpose of this portion of the bill is to mitigate the effects that new health care-related taxes would have on persons making over $350,000 a year.   Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. This is false. The section of the bill referenced here is an updating of the physician fee schedule for Medicare services, which neither states that "all doctors will be paid the same regardless of specialty" nor that the "government will set all doctors' fees."  All this section does is slightly revise the formula used for determining how much doctors are reimbursed for providing Medicare services, depending upon which of two categories those services fall under.   Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. This is false. The section referenced here is one which does nothing more than call for a study to determine whether certain classes of hospitals incur higher costs than other hospitals for the cancer-related care they deliver, with the aim of providing "an appropriate adjustment [in payments] "to reflect those higher costs." This section in no way "rations care" provided by "cancer hospitals" based on a patient's age (or any other factor); it simply seeks to pay some hospitals more to compensate for their higher costs in treating cancer patients.  The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. This is false. As noted by FactCheck, forbids hospital expansion "only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to even this limited expansion ban."   The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. This is false. This statement references a much-distorted portion of the bill that would allow for Medicare to cover voluntary counseling sessions for seniors with their doctors to discuss aspects of end-of-life care such as hospice care, DNR orders, life-sustaining treatments, living wills, and the like (a form of counseling not previously covered by Medicare).  Nothing about such counseling sessions would be mandatory, for Social Security recipients or anyone else.   The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. This is false. The bill does not "specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order."  It merely defines an "end-of-life order" (i.e., an order for life-sustaining treatment) as a document "signed and dated by a physician [that] effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment."  It is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. This is false. HB 3200 did not contain a provision stating that it would "not apply to members of Congress."  The bill likely would have had little or no effect on members of Congress because they belong to a class of federal worker who have the benefit of choosing from a variety of subsidized insurance plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but the same requirements for obtaining and having health insurance would have applied to them just as much to other citizens.  The version of the PPACA that was actually passed did indeed require lawmakers to give up the insurance coverage previously provided to them through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created.  Variations:  A later version of this piece was prefaced with the false claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act limits the amount of Medicare coverage provided to those over the age of 75 or 76.  This claim is covered in a separate article on this site: separate PLEASE PASS THIS OUTRAGE TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!!! THIS should be readby everyone, especially important to those over 75.......If you areyounger, then it applies to your parents. Your hospital Medicare admittance has just change under Obama Care. Youmust be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to payfor it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated asoutpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tipof the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 &2014! Age 76 Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have beengetting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out theneedle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got veryquiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that myinsurance takes care of it. She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr.about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but theyhad tried everything they could but Medicare is beginning to turn manythings away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. Shewas brushing at tears and said, "Someday they too will get old", I am sovery sorry!! Please for the sake of many good people ... be informed please.YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS. Last updated:  11 March 2014
Fiscally conservative members of the Oregon Legislature never much like the size of the states budget. But once something is funded, its never easy to muster the political willpower to take the cash away.In a recent opinion piece for The Oregonian, Sen. Doug Whitsett, a Republican from Klamath Falls, offered a creative solution: Peg state spending to population growth and inflation.Oregon desperately needs to establish a constitutional limit on the growth of state spending, he wrote. He maintains that the $60 billion all-funds budget is growing out of control.Whitsett noted that the states Legislative Fiscal Office, which keeps a close eye on the budget, had illustrated for purpose of comparisons what Oregons all-funds budget would look like today if his proposal had been implemented 20 years ago.Oregon spent about $20 billion in all-funds budgets 20 years ago, he wrote. With this spending limit in place, the states all-funds budget would be about $27 billion today.Thats a nearly $33 billion difference. A huge amount of money for a state like Oregon. So huge, in fact, that PolitiFact Oregon wanted to know whether Whitsett was right.We spoke with Whitsett, who said that hed gotten this statistic from a presentation that the fiscal office had given at the beginning of the current legislative session. So we called Ken Rocco, the offices director, and asked him if he remembered this.Rocco got back to us via e-mail. He offered two pieces of caution.First: There was no reason in particular that his office chose the budget from 20 years ago to use for their projection.Second: The data the senator had referred to in his opinion piece hadnt been calculated accurately. In looking at this chart, the data presented claimed it was inflating the 1991-93 base year by both inflation and population growth, but when I looked more closely at the data today, it was actually only for inflation.In fact, he noted, if the calculations been done right, the actual 2011-13 budget -- pegged to population growth and inflation -- would be about $36 billion. This was not the Senators mistake, but LFOs, Rocco noted.Nevertheless, the point Whitsett was trying to make -- that spending growth has happened beyond just normal population growth -- remains true, Rocco said. There are a number of other drivers to budget growth than simply inflation and population increases, such as specific caseload growth, additional mandate programs that require funding, etc.Let us point out here that the all-funds budget is just that -- all funds. It includes not only the general fund, which lawmakers can allocate however they choose, but also federal money, bond revenue, gas taxes, fees -- in short, a whole lot of money dedicated for specific purposes.Now, allow us to offer up a slight tangent. Whitsetts idea is not entirely new. Back in 2006, Measure 48 was put on the Oregon ballot. That measure would have limited any increase in state spending to population growth and inflation increases.It turned out, this had nothing to do with what Whitsett was writing about, but we bring it up because it illustrates an important point: Measure 48 didnt apply to things like federal funds. Thats huge given that nearly a fourth of the state budget comes from federal funds.For instance, about $15 billion of the upcoming all-funds budget comes from federal sources -- thats about a quarter of the total. Twenty years ago, federal funds only accounted for about 15 percent of the total. If you were to play by Measure 48s rules and add that chunk of change to the $36 billion that the fiscal office projected, youd get an all-funds budget closer to $42 billion.That, of course would still mean about $18 billion in less budget growth over 20 years. That is no small thing -- but its still a lot closer to the current all-funds budget than the initial $27 billion Whitsett mentioned.Whitsett also pointed out, during an interview, that it would be a mistake to assume the federal government will keep providing a quarter of the states all-funds budget. At some point in time that has to reverse  the current sequester might be a part of that.Whitsett said that if we had curbed budget growth 20 years ago by pegging it to population growth and inflation, our budget would be about $27 billion today instead of $60 billion. He was referring to an inaccurate calculation made by a typically unimpeachable source. The figure is actually closer to $36 billion.We wont hold their error against Whitsett, but we do think its important to note that, if federal funds are a concern at all, our budget wouldnt be quite as slight as Whitsett predicted. We rate this claim Mostly True. Claim:  Las Vegas casino owners and the Nevada Gaming Commission are lobbying to legalize dog fighting.  Example:  [Collected via email, October 2014] There is an article on a website known as "Empire News"  which states that casino owners in Las Vegas are attempting to legalize dog fighting as a new gambling incentive !Is this true ????   Origins:  On 12 October 2014, Empire News published an article positing that a steep drop in gambling revenues was inspiring Vegas casino owners and the Nevada gaming commission to push for the legalization of dog fighting in order to reverse that financial decline: article The steady decline in revenue affecting many casinos across the country has forced many gaming houses to seek other sources of income.  As a result, the gambling industry has been quietly seeking a controversial betting offshoot  legalized and industry regulated dog fighting Social media users erupted in anger and disgust at the claim as it wended its way through Facebook and similar sites: "Think of the images of Michael Vick and everything else that comes to mind when you mention dog fighting," said Roger Kenny, administrator with the Nevada Gaming Commission. In a press release he stated, "If we regulate dog fighting, promote it as a sport, eventually people will come to accept it, and it will be as common as blackjack or prostitution.  We'd like to change the negative perception that certain groups have put out there about the activity," he said. If the "as common as blackjack or prostitution" line didn't tip off readers to the article's true nature, the following should have: Dog trainer and television host Cesar Millan said, "This is the most inhumane act that I can think of.  Dogs are our companions and are among the most intelligent creatures on Earth.  Something like this with cats, now that I could understand," continued Millan. "Put a couple of cats in a boxing ring, maybe with little gloves and helmets  nobody's going to give a crap, it's just cats. But with dogs, it's different  they're man's best friend. When I heard this news I wanted to rabidly tear the Commission's collective throat out. Of course, you'd be hard-pressed to find a beast more beloved by the internet at large than cats; and the Vegas dog fighting yarn is just one of many "satirical" stories from Empire News, a web site whose stock in trade is posting outrage-provoking fake news articles. Other leg-pulls from the site include "Record-Shattering Snowfall Coming Soon (Bread and Milk Prices Expected to Soar)," "MTV Begins Production On New Show '12 And Pregnant'," and "Colorado Becomes First State to Legalize Crystal Meth." Record-Shattering Snowfall Coming Soon MTV Begins Production On New Show '12 And Pregnant' Colorado Becomes First State to Legalize Crystal Meth A disclaimer page on Empire News admits the publication "is a satirical and entertainment website." disclaimer page   Last updated:  20 October 2014 Former Texas state Rep. Paul Sadler answered adebatequestion June 26, 2012, with a call to stop expanding government programs until the federal debt is under control.Squaring off in Dallas with retired teacher Grady Yarbrough, his opponent in the July 31, 2012, runoff for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination, Sadler said, Until we get our financial house in order, we cannot continue to spend money. We just cant.The U.S. has never seen national debt like this, Sadler said. It doubled during the Bush administration.We decided to see if Sadlers claim about debt under President George W. Bush holds up.Sadler sent us an email with several presidents names linked to numbers, such as Bill Clinton 1.4, and told us the numbers sources were the U.S. Treasury, Financial Management Service, Bureau of the Public Debt, Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Office of Management and Budget.The same figures and sources, listed in the same order, appear on a July 28, 2011,New York Timeschartillustrating how much of the federal debt accumulated under each president since 1981.According to the chart, the Bush administration began with a $5.8 trillion gross federal debt, which grew by $6.1 trillion to reach $11.9 trillion --  an increase of 105 percent, or slightly more than double. TheTimesascribed the increase in debt to tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, (the) economic downturn in 2001 and recession starting in 2007.Following a suggestion from Treasury spokesman Matthew Anderson, we found that plugging the fiscal years of Bushs presidency -- October 2001 through September 2009 -- into theTreasurys online calculatorgives debt figures that tally with theTimesgraphic. While that period begins nearly nine months into Bushs presidency, it also aligns with the years over which he held budgetary sway.Gross federal debt, though, is only one measure of how much the government owes. Because Sadlers numbers match theTimeschart, we started with that statistic, which includes money the federal government owes itself, including for programs such as Social Security and Medicare, in addition to public debt.Public debt itself is another commonly used measure. Debt held by the public is money borrowed from investors outside the federal government, in the form of Treasury notes and other securities.Which to use? We consulted Oregon State University political scientist Robert Sahr, who studies U.S. debt, policy, presidents and inflation.Sahr suggested we use public debt, and emailed us part of atextbooks explanation of why net public debt, rather than gross debt, is seen as a better measure of how much government is borrowing: We returned to the Treasury calculator and found that during Bushs fiscal years, public debt rose from $3.3 trillion to $7.6 trillion -- up 130 percent, clearly more than double.Also, we asked Sahr whether he agreed that debt doubled under Bush.Adjusted for inflation, he said, public debt did not double, though it came close.Sahr produced aspreadsheetfor us withfiscal year-end debt numbersfrom the federal Office of Management and Budget. Among the results: As with the Treasury calculator, 2001-2009 public debt in non-inflation-adjusted dollars went up 130 percent. Adjusted for inflation (to 2011 dollars), though, the increase was 88 percent.Returning to gross federal debt, which was Sadlers basis: Sahrs spreadsheet showed the same 105-percent increase in non-inflation-adjusted dollars as theNew York Timeschart. In 2011 dollars, though, the increase was 70 percent.Some news analyses have compared changes in debt using inauguration dates. We checked those with the Treasury calculator, finding that from Bushs first inauguration, January 20, 2001, to the day President Barack Obama took office, January 20, 2009, gross federal debt in non-inflation-adjusted dollars rose from $5.7 trillion to $10.6 trillion, up 86 percent. The calculator didnt have an amount for public debt January 20, 2001, but says the non-adjusted figure was $6.3 trillion January 20, 2009.When we checked back in with Sadler, he objected to adjusting the debt changes for inflation, saying by email: I seriously doubt any holder of the debt or your bank would allow you to adjust your debt for inflation. The amount owed is the amount owed - you don't get to adjust it for inflation.Sahr said later: Sure, youre paying in current dollars. But if youre looking at the change in debt over eight years, part of the change is the change in the value of the dollar over those years.A final note: Such accounting and tallies can be read as blaming Bush alone for the increases. As PolitiFact has noted numerous times, such assumptions are overly sweeping. Many factors are at play, including Congress, which votes on many spending decisions affecting the debt.Our rulingWe see how Sadler reached his conclusion. In raw terms, both the public debt and gross federal debt more than doubled during the fiscal years corresponding to Bushs presidency. However, adjusting for inflation, gross debt increased 70 percent over those years, while public debt increased 88 percent. Thats not quite doubling.We rate Sadlers claim Mostly True. Claim:  Caroline Kennedy said that she can't stand President Obama's voice and that he's a liar. UNDETERMINED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2012] Just saw on Facebook a photo of Caroline Kennedy quoting that she just can't stand to listen to President Obama's voice and that he is a liar. True?    Origins:  The quote attributed to Caroline Kennedy (daughter of President John F. Kennedy) referenced above originated with Edward Klein's 2012 book The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House.  It appeared in the following passage, which talked about Caroline Kennedy  who had been a strong supporter of Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign  becoming disenchanted with the Obamas for making "catty" remarks about her family and for not being more liberal in political policy-making:  "Through these [spies that the Kennedy family has in the Obama administration] and other people, Caroline heard back that there was a lot of nasty shit being said about the Kennedys by the president and Michelle," [a] family member [said]. "There were catty remarks about how badly the Kennedy women dressed, and how their houses were shabby and threadbare. Caroline got the impression that most of this negativity was coming from Michelle, who didn't want the Kennedys to be part of the administration for fear that they would have too much influence over the president." "Gradually, Caroline began to change her tune and side with Bobby and Kathleen [Kennedy Townsend] against the Obamas. Unlike Jackie, who was completely apolitical, Caroline is a liberal with a capital L. When Obama didn't raise taxes to balance the  budget, Caroline marked him down. In her eyes, he's a mess because he doesn't follow the liberal bible on politics. More important, Caroline discovered that the Obamas didn't give a damn about her support.  For instance, she was not invited to the state dinners at the White House hosted by the Obamas, or to the president's forty-ninth birth celebration in Chicago. "It really annoyed Caroline when comparisons were made by the media between Michelle [Obama] and Jackie [Kennedy]. Caroline had a word for such comparisons; she called them 'odious.' She really got annoyed. And when she began to fall out of love with the Obamas, love was replaced by outright scorn. Now she says things about Obama like, 'I can't stand to hear his voice any more. He's a liar and worse.'" However verifying exactly what Caroline Kennedy might have said is difficult because the quote offered in this passage is second-hand rather than direct (i.e., it's someone else talking about what she said, not a direct statement from Caroline Kennedy herself) and because the source of the statement is anonymous (beyond the description of his or her being a "member of the Kennedy clan"). Caroline Kennedy herself has neither confirmed nor denied that she made the remarks attributed to her, but even after their publication she has continued to publicly express support for the Obamas, such as issuing a message to wish President Obama a Happy Father's Day, campaigning in New Hampshire for the President's re-election, and making plans to attend the Democratic National Convention. message campaigning attend Last updated:  19 August 2012 Images reflecting an old rumor about the Rothschild Family's unimaginable accumulated global wealth hold that the Rothschilds are worth $500 trillion and hold more than 80% of the world's total wealth:   While the Rothschilds are indeed very wealthy, claims about their net worth such as the ones displayed above are grossly exaggerated. Conspiracy theories concerning the Rothschild family date back to the 18th century, and the family's wealth was largely responsible for the anti-semitic belief that "Jews control the world's money supply." The Rothschilds are frequently associated with theories about the Illuminati, the New World Order, and other dark money groups that supposedly pull the strings of world governments, and the Rothschilds have been blamed for everything from starting wars for personal gain to funding the Holocaust to assassinating U.S. presidents. Skeptoid delved into the Rothschild family history in 2012, noting that: history The greatest of these financial adepts was Mayer Amschel Rothschild, born in 1744 in a Jewish slum of Frankfurt. Not much is known about his early life, as his was one of tens of thousands of marginalized, outcast families. But once he came of age he became an apprentice at a small bank in Hamburg, where he learned the trade. Returning to Frankfurt at the age of 19, he offered his own banking services in a modest way, beginning with trading of rare coins and related investments. He was energetic, clever, and most of all he was charismatic. And he was smart, seeking out wealthy clientele, and associating with nobility whenever he could. By the age of 40, he had consolidated his most important business contact: the Landgrave William, the Elector of Hesse, one of only a tiny number of nobles empowered to elect the Holy Roman Emperor. When William was younger, he had engaged in the trading of rare coins with Mayer's father, and so the two had always known one another. When William inherited his own father's massive fortune, his friendship with Mayer Rothschild gave Mayer the ability to begin conducting larger international transactions. This was the point at which the Rothschild name became first involved with the manipulation of money behind the scenes of wars. Mayer was a firm believer in family business, and insisted on using his own sons  by then he had five  as his business partners. What he did next became the model for many powerful Jewish financiers who followed: He installed each of his five sons as his agents in the five major financial centers of Europe: the eldest Amschel Mayer Rothschild in Frankfurt, Salomon Mayer Rothschild in Vienna, Nathan Mayer Rothschild in London, Calmann Mayer Rothschild in Naples, and the youngest Jakob Mayer Rothschild in Paris. Although the Rothschild family has amassed great wealth since the 1700s, claims that they have a net worth of $500 trillion or that they own 80% of the world's wealth are problematic. For one, the world's total wealth was estimated as of 2015 to be only $250 trillion, half of what the Rothchilds alone are claimed to possess: wealth Global wealth reached 250 trillion US dollars in 2015, slightly less than a year earlier, due to adverse exchange rate movements. The underlying wealth trends do, however, generally remain positive, according to the Credit Suisse Research Institute's annual "Global Wealth Report." Also, the Rothschilds began acquiring their wealth in the 1700s, and since then the family has spawned hundreds of descendants, so there is no longer any centralized Rothschild family wealth.  The closest thing to a "Rothschild Family" business in 2016 is the Rothschild Group, a multinational investment banking company, but that firm does not in itself generate nearly enough income to back up claims about the family's wealth. In 2015, the Rothschild Group's annual revenue was approximately $500 million. In comparison, the world's largest company, Walmart, has an annual revenue of nearly $500 billion. annual Walmart It should also be noted that only one member of the Rothschild family is included among Forbes' 2015 list of the world's billionaires: Benjamin de Rothschild, who was ranked at number #1121 with a net worth of $1.61 billion.  list While the Rothschild family certainly was one of the world's most significant financial powers in centuries past, they no longer wield the same sort of influence over global affairs. Dunning, B.  "The Rothschild Conspiracy." 
  Skeptoid Media.  22 May 2012.  Kersley, Richard.  "Global Wealth in 2015: Underlying Trends Remain Positive."
  Credit Suisse.  13 October 2013. Claim:  Zero Population Growth terrorists are boobytrapping men's toilers with razors.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2000]  from: SeigerB@fbihq.wash.dc.fed.gov.usato: SAIC-All Field Officessubject: Important Operational Warning Notice 29 September 2000 From: Bertrand Seiger, Special Agent in Charge      Domestic Terrorism Division      Headquarters Field Office      Washington D.C. This message is classified at Security Level 3BFile Copy Only To Be Maintained. No Duplication Permitted Operational Immediate:   Pass this information along immediately to all field agents, office staff, and support personel, special attention to notification of male staff members.   It has now been verified that a new radical splinter group has broken from the main group of the Zero Population Movement. This new group, calling itself simply "No More!" has started to conduct a campaign of domestic terrorism, aimed at reducing the human population of this planet.   All staff are hereby advised to use extreme caution when using any public or semi-public restroom facilities, especially male staff members.   A confirmed 172 cases of maiming have occurred, with 13 resulting in the death of the victim. Many more cases are pending confirmation.    The "No More" group has designed an insidious device that they have been placing in the toilets in public restrooms across the nation. 6 have been found in limited access buildings.    The devices consist of a straight razor, a springload mechanism, and a pressure senser. The devices are cleverly hidden underneath the rim of the toilet bowl, and are not visible except by close inspection from inside the space of the bowl.    When a subject weighing over 120 pounds sits on the toilet, the pressure senser connected to the toilet seat activates within 5 to 12 seconds, causing the springloaded razor to sweep across the forward half of the toilet.    This results in extreme trauma to, or complete severing from the body of the victims testicles.   In 102 cases, this has also resulted in the loss or damage of between 6 and 54% of the victims penis.   3 female victims have also suffered minor lacerations. One to the buttocks, and two to the back of the thighs.   Plans are being formulated to share this information with state and local law enforcement agencies as soon as it is feasable, without chancing widespread panic amongst the civilian population.   Information gathered by the Detroit Field Office also indicates that plans are in the works to install these devices in private residences. Members of "No More" plan to install the devices while in the guise of service providers, such as plumblers. There is no evidence yet to indicate that this practice has yet started.   Inform all staff soonest. Staff on their days off should be contacted at home. Every effort should be made to also contact staff on vacation, medical or disability leave, or any other leave of absence.   I cannot stress strongly enough the danger that this poses.  message endsc/:22ab.9 Origins:  This bit of silliness began making the online rounds at the end of September 2000 and is another example of hoaxsters' preying upon deep-rooted fears of  castration. Once again, our toilets are supposedly turning against us: 1999's deadly lurking butt spiders have been replaced with a spring-loaded slice-o-matic with a jones for johnsons. butt spiders Despite the dire-sounding, badly-spelled e-mail quoted above, no such cases have been reported anywhere. This lack of reportage is tangentally alluded to as an effort to keep everything hush-hush so as not to cause a "widespread panic amongst the civilian population." Rest assured the media would have broken such a story if any such attacks had come to the attention of even one reporter. It's equally ludicrous to assume the families of the thirteen men who supposedly lost their lives in this fashion would stand silently by, neither raising a public outcry to warn others, nor attempting to hold anyone accountable for the loss of their loved ones. Barbara "all cisterns are go!" Mikkelson Last updated:  22 January 2015 In April 2023, a rumor began to spread that claimed Twitter owner Elon Musk had revealed a new line of CBD gummies that could "reverse dementia." According to the story, Musk's gummy product sparked a "huge lawsuit" with Fox News. However, none of this was true. Musk was simply the latest famous person to have his image and likeness used by scammers without permission in an attempt to push miracle promises about CBD or keto gummies. He has nothing to do with any of these products. While the answer here is a fairly simple "it's all fake," the massive reach of these gummy scams might surprise some readers. As of May 18, the scam was still making the rounds in at least one paid ad on Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger. The ad on a Facebook page named Aromathy read, "Media Backlash Over New Musk Business Announcement. Elon Has a Response. His New Business Venture Has Been Under Scrutiny By Media."  The ad led to a fake article onaromasense.shop that was designed to fool readers into believing they were reading from the Fox News website. Many of the Facebook users who commented on the ad believed that the post was a real news announcement. For example, one person commented, "MEDIA IS AGAINST ANYTHING THAT IS GOOD!! IGNORE THEM!" Some users also appeared to think that Musk made the post himself, with one person writing, "Don't pay attention to the media! So many are fake and bias! Be true to yourself! I trust you." In other words, Fox News and Elon Musk may have been included together by scammers to target easily influenced users who have conservative political leanings and a distrust of mainstream news media. To create the fake Fox News article, scammers copied the logo and article layout from foxnews.com and replicated it on the aromasense.shop website. Scammers have been doing this design-replication process with the logos and designs of multiple publishers for years. The article began with the headline, "Elon Musk reverses dementia, solution sparks huge lawsuit pressure on Fox, he finally fights back on air."  The body of the fictional story was a template that scammers had used many times before about various TV personalities who had their own shows. However, in this case, the article didn't really make sense to be used with Musk since he didn't have a show. The fake article began as follows: (Fox) - In an Exclusive Interview, Elon Musk, a business magnate and investor, CEO of SpaceX, Tesla, Inc. and Twitter, Inc. reveals that the show will be ending after his latest business sparks tension with Martha MacCallum. During a heated episode last week, Elon Musk made headlines after revealing his new CBD line on Live TV. Martha MacCallum was outraged saying she will be filing a lawsuit against Elon Musk and Fox for violating his contract and 'scaring-off' sponsors. Elon Musk responded with this: "I know Martha is just coming after my timeslot. I am not giving in to 'Cancel Culture'. When I started this whole thing back in 2018, it really was just a part time passion project and a way for me to give back. After being given so much, I figured there was no better time to make Impact Garden CBD Gummies available to everyone, as it can help thousands of people experience life pain-free and live much happier lives." His product, Impact Garden CBD Gummies, has been flying off the shelves within minutes and Elon Musk says his number one struggle as CEO is being able to keep up with demand. His CBD wellness line is 90% cheaper and five times more effective than those being offered by Bayer and other "Big Pharma" companies. Marthan MacCallum was furious after seeing multiple sponsors sue Fox News Network. Martha is now calling for Elon Musk to be indicted, saying: "I am happy Elon Musk found something to replace prescriptions, but his announcement was a direct breach of contract. Fox News should sue him immediately and he should formally apologize." ... Elon Musk eventually admitted that although Martha MacCallum is enraged, other Fox hosts has been supportive of him. Tucker Carlson even went on Live TV to say that:"Impact Garden CBD Gummieshas completely changed my life and it's clear that MacCallum is attempting a Coup." Again, this article was fictional. The story about Musk, CBD gummies that can "reverse dementia," Fox News, Martha MacCallum, and Tucker Carlson all never happened. (Vitality Labs CBD Gummies, Organicore CBD Gummies, and other product names were also mentioned.) For more information on CBD and keto gummies scams, we recommend a recent story about Ree Drummond, another celebrity whose image and likeness were also used by scammers to push these products. a recent story about Ree Drummond If any readers were scammed and ordered any gummy products after being led to believe that Musk or other celebrities endorsed them, we recommend filing a report with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). filing a report with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) We also advise readers to call their credit card company to dispute the charges. It may be a good idea to block future charges from the sellers in question or to get a new card number altogether, as many of these scams sign customers up to be charged subscription fees of hundreds of dollars per month. Bear in mind that, while it is rare, scammers sometimes use the exact name or a similar name of a real CBD company without permission to push these sorts of scams. In those minority of cases, there's no evidence that the company had any involvement in the activity. We've received word from users in recent months who said that they were being charged for these sorts of gummy products despite having no recollection of ordering them. Some people who left messages for our reporters even said that along with having no memory of ordering the products, they also had no charges on their credit card, yet still received the products at their doorstep. It's possible that some of these apparently unauthorized purchases occurred in the aftermath of what's known as card skimming. The FBI has said of the practice, "Skimming occurs when devices illegally installed on ATMs, point-of-sale (POS) terminals, or fuel pumps capture data or record cardholders' PINs. Criminals use the data to create fake debit or credit cards and then steal from victims' accounts. It is estimated that skimming costs financial institutions and consumers more than $1 billion each year." card skimming We are continuing to look into various aspects of these CBD and keto scams, including something associated with purported "fulfillment center" P.O. Box addresses in Smyrna, Tennessee, and Las Vegas, Nevada, as well as some activity apparently occurring in Tampa, Florida. "Elon Musk Reverses Dementia, Solution Sparks Huge Lawsuit Pressure on Fox, He Finally Fights Back on Air." AromaSense, https://aromasense.shop/. Liles, Jordan. "Is Ree Drummond Leaving Food Network to Sell Keto Gummies?" Snopes, 15 May 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ree-drummond-leave-food-network-keto-gummies/. "Skimming." Federal Bureau of Investigation, https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/safety-resources/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/skimming. Smith, Daeshen. "Better Business Bureau Warns Customers to Be Mindful of Card Skimming Schemes." Fox 10 News, 25 Apr. 2023, https://www.fox10tv.com/2023/04/25/better-business-bureau-warns-customers-be-mindful-card-skimming-schemes/. The perils of sharing photographs online manifested in a February 2018 hoax in which social media users shared an unidentified man's image along with the claim that he's a murderous taxi driver. The earliest iteration of the post, on 4 February 2018, emanated from a Facebook user in Nigeria, who posted:    The post was accompanied by a photograph of the alleged assailant:   Besides lacking much in the way of context, the photo can be found on at least two online dating sites, with divergent information: The man is identified as a resident of Casablanca on Wamba; but on JeContacte he's described as hailing from Cameroon. Wamba; JeContacte However, the web site The Zambian Observer claimed that he was Congolese in a post accusing him of committing several murders: post Zambia shares a border with the Democratic Republic of Congo, and in December 2017 a reported thousands of Congolese refugees made their way into Zambia to escape from violence in their own country. The article appears to be using the man as an anti-immigrant scapegoat and a way to attack a specific politician. reported Other iterations of the post placed the man in Freeport, Jamaica; Washington D.C.; Toledo, Ohio; and in New York City, where some social media users posted the picture and the original caption, adding the phrase "my friend from the DA'S office in Brooklyn just sent me this. Share it for your safety":   A spokesperson for the actual Brooklyn District Attorney's office told us that they "know nothing" about the person in the picture or the allegations. But as often happens around social media, users shared the claim while admitting that they had no idea whether they were helping the spread of misinformation:       But there has yet to be actual corroboration of any of the claims surrounding the unnamed man; police officials in both New York City and Washington D.C. told us that they had never heard of the post or any allegations about a "murder cab." The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles said that "2465RB" did not match any license plate attached to a taxi or any other sort of vehicle. And a spokesperson for the Toledo Police Department told us, "We have looked into this and it is not credible." We also contacted police in Zambia seeking comment, but had not heard back as of time of publication. The fact that the claim spans several continents and countries suggest that this is a false rumor, as does the Zambian Observer's claim that the man was doing "ritual killings." If this man were murdering people in Brooklyn (or Toledo, or Washington D.C., or Freeport et al), and if law enforcement had his photograph, it would have been reported in major U.S. newspapers, police would know about it, and official government sources would have published warnings.  Schlein, Lisa. "Thousands of Congolese Fleeing into Zambia to Escape Violence in DRC."
Voice of America. 3 December 2017. Added reponse from the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office.  Added response from the Toledo Police Department. In November 2023, an image circulated online allegedly showing Taylor Swift holding an ice cream cone as children cry. One post on X (formerly Twitter) claimed, Taylor Swift has recently shared a photo of her visiting a small village and enjoying an ice cream on her most recent trip to Africa." claimed ? BREAKING NEWS ? Taylor Swift has recently shared a photo of her visiting a small village and enjoying an ice cream on her most recent trip to Africa ? the photo is disturbing to say the least as it's obvious this child is crying and she is enjoying his misery. How cruel... pic.twitter.com/Yql07nhrTL pic.twitter.com/Yql07nhrTL  TheButcher_1776 (@TheButcher_1776) November 12, 2023 November 12, 2023  "I hope this is fake," one X user commented on the above-mentioned post. "Why would Taylor do this?" read another post with over 72,900 views, as of this writing. Some social media users shared the image as part of an alleged conversation containing the message, "All i know is that she went to Africa and flew on her private jet just to take this photo." commented read shared alleged conversation From the Africa leg of her tourbyu/_tomato_paste_ inpopheadscirclejerk From the Africa leg of her tour u/_tomato_paste_ popheadscirclejerk  We used reverse-image search to verify the authenticity of the viral image. The results showed it had been shared, for instance, on iFunny  a meme website. However, no reliable sources of news had posted the photo, nor was it published by any of Swift's official social media accounts. reverse-image search results iFunny Moreover, we closely examined the image and saw telltale signs of artificial-intelligence (AI) software. For instance, a child's body in the center of the image was deformed, and several hands in the background were unnaturally shaped or blurred. artificial-intelligence   (X user @TheButcher_1776) In sum, because the photo was created using AI software, we rated it "Fake." this Furthermore, at the time of its circulation, Swift had not recently made a trip to a small village in Africa, much less anywhere else on the continent. She was instead in South America for a run of performances in Buenos Aires, Argentina, as part of "The Eras Tour." South America The Eras Tour Argentina, Billboard. 5 Highlights From Taylor Swifts First of Three Sold-Out Shows in Buenos Aires.Billboard, 10 Nov. 2023, https://www.billboard.com/music/concerts/taylor-swift-buenos-aires-concert-highlights-1235468238/. 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 2020, a set of screenshots supposedly showing comments from a "John McDaniels," in which he called COVID-19 a "political ploy" and social-distancing measures "bullshit," started to circulate on social media. Along with the posts were articles claiming he died from complications of the coronavirus disease.  Here's a screenshot supposedly showing a post from McDaniel on March 15 and a snippet from his obituary a month later:   McDaniel truly died from complications related to COVID-19 in April 2020 after he downplayed the seriousness of the disease on social media.  died The New York Daily News wrote:  wrote An Ohio man has tragically died from COVID-19 after criticizing his states coronavirus lockdown. John W. McDaniel, 60, died Wednesday in Columbus, exactly one month after reportedly calling Gov. Mike DeWines stay-at-home order madness. If what Im hearing is true, that DeWine has ordered all bars and restaurants to be closed, I say bullshit! He doesnt have the authority," McDaniel reportedly wrote in a since-deleted social media post circulated widely on social media. As screenshots of McDaniel's posts went viral, many social media users took the opportunity to criticize McDaniel, saying he had received his comeuppance for calling the virus a political ploy.  McDaniel's wife, Lisa, acknowledged that her husband had made some "early assumptions" about the virus on social media, but added that social media users were also making unfair assumptions about him.  In a statement posted to the Snyder Funeral Homes Facebook page that announced services for McDaniel would not be live-streamed due to concerns about unwanted, negative social media reactions, she explained that McDaniel, like many others, was initially not fully aware of the severity of the pandemic. However, she wrote that he ordered the employees at his company O&M to work from home on March 16 (the day after the above-displayed Facebook post). Furthermore, according to her Facebook message, he self-isolated as soon as he was made aware that he had been in contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19. Snyder Funeral Homes Facebook page Lastly, she wrote that if he were still alive, he would have abided by the state's stay-at-home order and would have encouraged others to do the same.  Here's her statement from April 22, 2020 (emphasis ours): Words do not describe all of the emotions we, John W. McDaniel's family, are experiencing right now. We are overwhelmed with grief for the loss of our believed husband, father, soon to be father-in-law, son, brother, uncle, and dear friend to many. Similar to thousands of people, we are suffering from an unexpected and untimely loss due to the effects of COVID-19, the likes of which we never could have imagined. During this time of mourning, John's story, along with early assumptions that he stated on Twitter and Facebook have turned into national news. The news has opened the flood gates for people to share their own misguided anger and unfounded assumptions about a man they don't know. Wanting to protect my family and John's legacy, we have decided not to live stream his funeral services via Facebook today. We will be privately recording his services today and we will be sharing it directly with his family and friends. We have not come to this decision lightly and we hope everyone will honor and respect this decision.  As each day passes, we all are learning more about this "invisible enemy." We have all learned that the early actions taken by our National and State government were indeed the right action to take. Quarantine and social distancing have been effective in flattening the curve. John, President of O&M, ordered the company to work from home on March 16. In addition, it is important to note that John immediately self-isolated as soon as he learned he had been in contact with someone who had tested positive. Many, like John, made statements early on not fully aware of the severity of COVID-19; many have retracted their statements knowing now the effects of this pandemic. We know if John was still here with us he would acknowledge the national crisis we're are in, abide by the stay-at-home order, and encourage family and friends to do the same. But sadly he is not with us and we will forever have to live and cope with how his life ended far too soon. Further, we will never be able to erase from our hears and minds the negative posts that have been made and shared about John this past week. To all of our family and friends, my sons and I will never be able to appropriately say "thank you" for all the love and support you have given us throughout this entire process. From the bottom of our hearts we will forever be grateful for you and the special relationship we share. While some may cast aspersions on McDaniel for not treating COVID-19 with the seriousness it deserved in March 2020, it should be noted that misinformation has been rampant during this pandemic. rampant We've debunked scores of rumors over several months that have touted bad medical advice and promoted conspiracy theories. U.S. President Donald Trump, too, has been criticized for downplaying the seriousness of COVID-19 and has repeatedly called the news outlets outlets covering this pandemic "fake news." On Feb. 28, just two weeks before McDaniel posted on social media that COVID-19 was a "political ploy," Trump said during a rally that "Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus" as their "new hoax."  bad medical advice conspiracy theories. fake news said Brown, Bruce.  "Its Dangerous for Public Officials to Cry Fake News During the COVID-19 Pandemic."
  Miami Herald.  27 March 2020. Egan, Lauren.  "Trump Calls Coronavirus Democrats' 'New Hoax.'"
  NBC News.  28 February 2020. Carter, Andrew.  "Marion Man Dies After Contracting Coronavirus; Local Cases Climb to 276."
  Marion Star.  16 April 2020. Dillon, Nancy.  "Ohio Man Dies From COVID-19 After Criticizing Governors Coronavirus Lockdown as 'Madness.'"
  New York Daily News.  21 April 2020.