This governor has cut funding repeatedly for people who have AIDS, who need drugs to save their life.
Wearing pink shirts and holding up signs, people gathered outside the Statehouse in Trenton recently as Democratic legislators led a rally to increase womens health care funding in the face of opposition from Gov. Chris Christie.When Assemblyman Herb Conaway Jr. (D-Burlington/Camden) addressed the crowd on June 20, he claimed Christie also has been cutting health care funding for another group: people with AIDS.This governor has cut funding repeatedly for people who have AIDS, who need drugs to save their life, said Conaway, a physician specializing in internal medicine. People who have AIDS today can live out their life...almost as long as anybody else if they get the drugs they need and this governor, time and time again, has cut that.PolitiFact New Jersey confirmed that the Christie administration had cut or proposed to cut state funding for AIDS and HIV services, but in two cases, other funding sources would allow the same number of individuals receiving those services to be served.When we asked Conaways chief of staff, Ethan Hasbrouck, to back up the statement, he pointed to two funding cuts in the governors proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 as well as a change made last year in eligibility for the AIDS Drug Distribution Program.Although a final budget for fiscal year 2012 was approved at the end of June, this Truth-O-Meter item focuses on the proposed budget at the time of Conaways statement. We later called Hasbrouck twice and sent him multiple emails to set up an interview with Conaway about our findings, but we never heard back.Lets review those three items one at a time.Hasbrouck said the fiscal year 2011 budget lowered the income eligibility for the AIDS Drug Distribution Program. That disqualified about 960 people from the program, saving $7.9 million.But the state later set up a new drug benefits program to assist those individuals who would no longer be eligible under the AIDS Drug Distribution Program. That new program was funded through additional rebates from pharmaceutical companies and a new federal grant program.The state increased AIDS Drug Distribution Program funding last year for people who met the new income eligibility, but reduced spending in other categories of HIV services, according to Dawn Thomas, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Senior Services.Now, lets turn to the cuts in the originally proposed fiscal year 2012 budget.Hasbrouck correctly states that the governors proposed budget would have cut $4.7 million for special-care nursing facilities, including Broadway House in Newark, the states only long-term care facility for people living with HIV and AIDS.The second proposed cut cited by Hasbrouck was $3.7 million from the AIDS Drug Distribution Program.Although that state funding was proposed to be cut, the mix of funding sources would enable the same amount of participants to receive access to medications through both the AIDS Drug Distribution Program and the other drug benefits program, according to Thomas.But remember this: two of the funding cuts cited by Hasbrouck were only proposals at the time of the assemblymans statement.Heres how the final budget for fiscal year 2012 affects AIDS and HIV funding:The income eligibility for the AIDS Drug Distribution Program was restored to its previous level, but state funding for the program has been further reduced for a total cut of about $10.7 million, Thomas wrote in an email. Other funding sources will allow the same number of participants to be served, she wrote.The budget reduces overall funding for nursing facilities, but there is no longer a specific cut to special-care nursing facilities like Broadway House, Thomas wrote. The impact on those special-care facilities remains unclear, she wrote.Lets review:Conaway claimed at a Statehouse rally that Christie has repeatedly cut AIDS funding. His chief of staff pointed to three pieces of evidence, one from the budget approved last year and two from the proposed budget for fiscal year 2012.A spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Senior Services confirmed cuts to AIDS and HIV funding in both budgets.But last year, a new program was created to assist people impacted by the eligibility change. This year, state funding was proposed to be cut, but other funding sources were to maintain services for participants. Conaway correctly stated that Christie has cut state funding for AIDS and HIV programs, but at least when it comes to pharmaceutical assistance, people continued to receive medicine for their AIDS and HIV treatment. We rate his statement Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com.
As U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy suffered numerousvote losses before being elected House speaker by a deeply divided Republican party, many noticed a particular moment with Rep. GeorgeSantos, whowas already under fire for fabricating much of his life story while campaigning for office. On Jan. 5, 2023, on the third day of voting for House speaker, Santos was seen flashing a signal with his left hand that many interpreted as being the "white power" sign. numerous Santos under fire  A number of our readers sent us messages asking if Santos indeed flashed the "white power" signal, which looks like an "Okay" sign defined by the forefinger and thumb making a circle shape with the remaining three fingers splayed out. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the sign was adopted "first by white nationalists, and then by 4chan trolls intent on 'triggering the libs'." Numerous alt-right figures have adopted this symbol over the years, but there are also many instances where innocuous hand gestures were incorrectly interpreted in this way. We have debunked such instances, as well. Southern Poverty Law Center debunked So did Santos intend to use such a symbol? In the C-SPAN video below he is standing with his arms folded, and when it is his turn to vote, he raises his right hand to vote for McCarthy, his left still folded under his chest with the sign visible (watch the5:53:30 mark).It appeared on numerous re-watches that he could conceivably have just been holding his left hand that way, and ended up waving his right hand instead of the left. He walked away very quickly after voting, putting both his hands down to his sides.  Voting for House speaker took around four days and numerous attempts, during which time Santos signaled his support more than once. The photograph below shows Santos casting his vote on Jan. 4, 2023, where he is not using the symbol. Jan. 4, 2023 (Win McNamee/Getty Images) On Jan. 5, 2023, he was seen casting his vote again, this time with his left hand making an "Okay" sign. Jan. 5, 2023 (Win McNamee/Getty Images) In both instances, he is clearly intending to cast a vote. In the second instance, we do not know for certain if he is making a white power signal with his left hand. We have reached out to a member of his team, but so far Santos has madeno comment on this. made This did not stop Democrats from criticizing him for making the hand gesture. U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres, also from New York, said: Democrats said    MSNBC host Joy Reid addressed this with the right-leaning media outlet The Bulwark's Tim Miller, saying that Santos appeared to "throw the white-power sign." addressed Miller in turn responded "[...]he might have been holding his fingers together. There's plenty of bad things about George Santos without me reading into his body language." After McCarthy was finally elected as House speaker on Jan. 7, 2023, Santos was also sworn into office. In a statement, Santos said: "Now is the time to put political differences aside, stop the finger pointing, and start delivering results. The work of Congress is not about my personal life, this is about delivering results for my constituents, finding bipartisan solutions, and reversing abysmal policies that have caused some of the worst inflation and crime in our nation's history." said We cannot determine Santos' intentions without hearing from Santos directly, and even then he has shown in the past that his word cannot fully be trusted. As such we rate this claim as "Unproven." Evon, Dan. "Do Pics Show Blackburn Flashing 'White Power Sign' in US Senate?" Snopes, 11 Apr. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blackburn-white-power/.Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "George Santos Sworn into Office after Selection of House Speaker." News 12 - The Bronx, 7 Jan. 2023. https://bronx.news12.com/george-santos-sworn-into-office-after-selection-of-house-speaker. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Ibrahim, Nur. "Did George Santos' Website Incorrectly Announce He Was Sworn in to US House?" Snopes, 4 Jan. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/george-santos-sworn-into-house-error/.Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "Is That an OK Sign? A White Power Symbol? Or Just a Right-Wing Troll?" Southern Poverty Law Center, https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/18/ok-sign-white-power-symbol-or-just-right-wing-troll. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Shoaib, Alia. "George Santos Accused of Flashing White-Power Symbol during House Speaker Vote." Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/george-santos-white-power-symbol-speaker-vote-2023-1. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. Sprunt, Barbara, and Susan Davis. "Kevin McCarthy Is Elected House Speaker after 15 Votes and Days of Negotiations." NPR, 7 Jan. 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/01/06/1147470516/kevin-mccarthy-speaker-of-the-house-vote.Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "U.S. Rep.- Elect George Santos Casts His Vote in the House Chamber..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rep-elect-george-santos-casts-his-vote-in-the-house-chamber-news-photo/1454230622. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. "U.S. Rep.-Elect George Santos Cast His Vote in the House Chamber..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/rep-elect-george-santos-cast-his-vote-in-the-house-chamber-news-photo/1454474088. Accessed 9 Jan. 2023. On 13 October 2016, the web site RedStateWatcher reported that e-mail published by WikiLeaks revealed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had been assassinated by Hillary Clinton operatives: reported Antonin Scalia For Trump's sake, please share this to get the word out. The corruption is immense! We need Trump elected to save our country! According to new WikiLeaks emails, three days before Justice Scalia died this email was sent, using the term "wetworks"  exclusively used in Military meaning "assassination".   The item referenced a leaked e-mail sent on 9 February 2016, four days before Justice Scalia was found dead in his room at a Texas ranch. E-mail in that chain was presented in reverse chronological order (with the most recent reply first)  sender John Podesta initiated the chain at 4:36 PM, and recipient Steve Elmendorf responded at 8:56 PM: e-mail Steve Elmendorf From: John Podesta [mailto:john.podesta@gmail.com]Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 4:36 PM To: Steve Elmendorf <elmendorf@teamsubjectmatter.com>Subject: Thanks Didn't think wet works meant pool parties at the Vineyard. From:elmendorf@teamsubjectmatter.comTo: john.podesta@gmail.comDate: 2016-02-09 20:56Subject: RE: Thanks I am all in Sounds like it will be a bad nite , we all need to buckle up and double down Based on Wikipedia's definition of the term, RedStateWatcher claimed that the "wet works" phrase used in the otherwise vague e-mail was incontrovertible proof it referenced a literal assassination: definition  Claims that Scalia was  assassinated were not novel, as within a day of his death conspiracy theories about the manner in which he died swept social media. And the newly-leaked document was contemporaneous to Scalia's sudden passing, heightening concern about the use of the term "wet work" (or "wetwork"). assassinated However, dictionaries present a broader picture of the term and its applied uses: uses  In fact, the term had then-recently been used euphemistically, to describe Chelsea Clinton's campaign trail attacks on her mother's Democratic primary opponent, Bernie Sanders: euphemistically Conservative websites gleefully denounced Chelsea the attack dog. Democrats, meanwhile, wrung their hands over why she of all people would be dispatched to do this kind of wet work. (As strategist Brad Bannon told The Hill, This makes Chelsea just another political player in the arena, and if I was Chelsea, thats not where Id want to be.) And a media bored to sobs with the Democratic primary leapt on the episode like ducks on a June bug. Commentators mused endlessly about why the Clinton camp had taken this route and what it meant. (Consensus: nothing good.) Bernie Sanders was repeatedly invited to respond. Bloombergs Mark Halperin might have sounded a smidge melodramatic when he asserted, I have covered the Clintons since 1991. It takes a lot to surprise me, and I am stunned watching Chelsea Clinton go on the attack. Stunned. Never seen anything like it. In media coverage, "wet work[s]" was being used to describe deliberately obtained unflattering coverage of an opponent. And on the same day that the e-mails supposedly describing an assassination plot were sent, Alex Seitz-Wald penned an article for MSNBC that described Bernie Sanders as a regular attendee of luxurious fundraisers, particularly in Martha's Vineyard. The piece also reported both Bill and Hillary Clinton as performing the same sort of "wet work" as Chelsea Clinton: article The Sanders campaign is all about smashing the alleged stranglehold corporate power has on politics, and the candidate himself frequently touts that his insurgent run is funded by small donations, not wealthy people or outside groups. Its been an effective message, and one pro-Clinton forces have tried to muddy by calling attention to Sanders ties to the DSCC [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee], which is financed in large part by industry PACs. The DSCC used its financial and political power to bolster Sanders and urge Democrats not to challenge him in his 2006 Senate bid, and spent close to $200,000 through various means to aid his election. Bill Clinton said this week that he practically fell out of my chair when he read reports that Sanders had attended the DSCCs summer donor retreats on Marthas Vineyard, and Hillary Clinton said Sanders took Wall Street cash not directly, but through the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The Sanders campaign fired back by calling the charge disturbing, dishonest and beyond preposterous, noting the DSCC also receives small donations and is hardly exclusively funded by Wall Street. Although MSNBC published the piece on 9 February 2016, the topic of Sanders' DSCC retreats was the  subject of e-mails dated 6 and 7 February 2016. In that chain, campaign associates looked to have discovered a photograph of Sanders at such a retreat and brainstormed ways in which to get a member of the press to cover his attendance at a February 2016 DSCC fundraiser (the e-mail appeared to have an appended image of Sanders titled IMG_0692.JPG). subject e-mails Rearranged in chronological order, the chain demonstrated Hillary Clinton's staffers planning how best to attack her opponent with retreat image and information about the lavish fundraisers: On Feb 6, 2016 9:47 PM, "Tina Flournoy" <Tina@presidentclinton.com> wrote:Bernie at the DSCC retreatOn Saturday, February 6, 2016, Brian Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:OmgOn Feb 6, 2016 9:58 PM, "John Podesta" <john.podesta@gmail.com wrote> wrote:Can we tweet?On Feb 6, 2016, at 7:02 PM, Brian Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:I think we shd give to NY postFrom:Tina@presidentclinton.comTo: bfallon@hillaryclinton.comDate: 2016-02-07 01:09 Subject:Re: IMG_0692.JPGDSCC event in edgartown last July. Getting exact dateOn Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Tina Flournoy <Tina@presidentclinton.com> wrote:Will send briefing for the event with attendeesFrom:bfallon@hillaryclinton.comTo: Tina@presidentclinton.comDate: 2016-02-07 16:18Subject: Re: IMG_0692.JPGThank you. We are on this Tina Flournoy stated Sanders attended a DSCC event in July 2015, and on the date of the "wet work" e-mail (to which Podesta was also party) Seitz-Wald wrote: During his 10 years on the Senate, Bernie Sanders has been a regular presence at luxurious Democratic fundraising retreats, according to more than a half-dozen lobbyists, donors and former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee staff members with whom he attended the events. Sanders most recently appeared at one last July, shortly after he announced his presidential run. Sanders connection to the DSCC has become a issue in his heated primary contest with front-runner Hillary Clinton, who has struggled to explain her close ties to Wall Street and the large speaking fees shes been paid by Goldman Sachs and other banks. Sanders has made Clintons relationships with the financial industry a key point of contrast on the campaign trail. On 13 February 2016, Clinton campaign operatives e-mailed about continuing to use the fundraisers as a smear: e-mailed We have gamed out this hit and don't think it works on debate stage (see Milwaukee debate as example). But hit him all the time on being at DSCC retreats on Martha's Vineyard with lobbyists every year. Finding that it harder for him. Rearranged into the context of Antonin Scalia's death, the use of the term "wet work" was presumed by many to mean literal assassination. But e-mails between staffers just prior to the 9 February 2016 document revealed planning for a coordinated effort to plant a negative story about Sanders in the press in the days prior to the 9 February 2016 e-mail and article. On the date Podesta discussed "wet work" with Elmendorf, MSNBC published the coverage sought by Clinton's staffers on 6 and 7 February 2016. As such, the most likely victim of the "wet work" was not Scalia, but Sanders.  Cottle, Michelle.  "Chelsea Clinton Grows Up."
  The Atlantic.  19 January 2016. Seitz-Wald, Alex.  "Bernie Sanders a Regular at High-Dollar Donor Retreats."
  MSNBC.  9 February 2016. San Francisco hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer is perhaps best known for his TV ads calling for President Trumps impeachment. At his first debate appearance as a Democratic presidential candidate last night in Ohio, Steyer repeated his call to remove what he termed the criminal in the White House. But he also railed against income inequality, leading fellow Democratic contender Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar to quip: ... no one on this stage wants to protect billionaires. Not even the billionaire wants to protect billionaires. Steyers claim that caught our attention was that the vast majority of Americans havent received a raise for decades. I would undo every Republican tax cut for rich people and major corporations, Steyer promised. But there's something else going on here that is absolutely shameful, and that's the way the money gets split up in terms of earnings. As a result of taking away the rights of working people and organized labor, people haven't had a raise -- 90 percent of Americans have not had a raise for 40 years. Was his claim about raises accurate? We set out on a fact check. PolitiFacts analysis We turned toPolitiFacts analysisin April of a similar claim made by Democratic presidential contender and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Well place a rating on Steyers claim based on what PolitiFact found. Since 1973, the income of the bottom 90 percent, so pretty much all of us, didnt budge, or even retreated a little bit, Buttigieg claimed. PolitiFact investigated whether income levels for most people -- adjusted for inflation, which economists consider a necessity for such comparisons -- havent increased since 1973. It found that income levels have actually risen beyond inflation during that period, but the share of income taken by the bottom 90 percent hews pretty closely to what Buttigieg said. It rated the mayors claim Half True, meaning it is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. CBO data shows income growth In its fact check, PolitiFact revieweddata from the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan number-crunching arm of Congress, covering 1979 to 2015, most of the period in question. The figures CBO used were adjusted for inflation and federal taxes, but not for state and local taxes. They showed income growth for people in four different economic ranges: the lowest 20 percent of the income distribution, the middle 60 percent, the 81st percentile to the 99th percentile, and the top 1 percent. They didnt mirror Buttigiegs precise parameters, but economists said they are useful for showing whether the mayor was broadly right or not, PolitiFact reported. Heres a chart showing the CBO data:  The top 1 percent, in red, has the most unique and most impressive growth. The other income groups show positive but much slower growth, after adjusting for inflation. This undercuts Buttigiegs assertion that for most people, income didnt budge, or even retreated a little bit, since the 1970s, PolitiFact said. Other data supports the claims by Buttigieg and Steyer. Inflation-adjustedfigures from the Economic Policy Institute, for example, show clear wage stagnation for the bottom 60 percent of the income scale. The rate did go up for the 70 and 80 percent levels, which means the 90 percent figure would be a bit exaggerated. PolitiFact also cited theWorld Inequality Database. It shows the bottom 50 percent and the next 40 percent -- essentially the 90 percent that Buttigieg cited -- have taken declining shares of the nations income since 1973. By contrast, both the top 10 percent and the top 1 percent have seen their shares grow. When we asked Steyers campaign for evidence supporting his claim, it pointed to anAugust report by the Pew Research Center. It found todays real average wage, defined as the wage after accounting for inflation, has had some ups and downs, but has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers. Our ruling Tom Steyer claimed at the Democratic presidential debate in Ohio that, People haven't had a raise -- 90 percent of Americans have not had a raise for 40 years. PolitiFact in Aprilfact-checkeda similar claim by South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg: Since 1973, the income of the bottom 90 percent, so pretty much all of us, didnt budge, or even retreated a little bit. It found that income for every group, as calculated by the Congressional Budget Office, has actually increased beyond the rate of inflation since the 1970s. However, another measurement -- the share of income taken by the bottom 90 percent -- has indeed declined since 1973. It rated the mayors claim Half True. We agreed with PolitiFacts assessment and rated Steyers claim Half True, as well. HALF TRUE The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Some of the most persistent contemporary legends about the 9/11 attacks involve people supposedly benefiting from foreknowledge of the event, whether it be a group of World Trade Center workers who "fortuitously" called in sick and escaped certain death that day, or investors who "fortuitously" bought "put options" on United and American Airlines stock immediately before the attacks, thus profiting when the prices of those stocks fell afterwards. workers stock American businessman Larry Silverstein, who famously signed a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center complex in June 2001, two months before the attacks, is at the center of another story about profiting from the event: Larry Silverstein Just months before 9/11, the World Trade Center's lease was sold to Larry Silverstein. Silverstein took out an insurance plan that 'fortuitously' covered terrorism. After 9/11, Silverstein took the insurance company to court, claiming he should be paid double because there were 2 attacks. He won, and was awarded $4,550,000,000. While the story obviously contains elements of fact, it's also partly fiction  most notably the implication, made via the use of scare quotes around the word "fortuitous," that Silverstein's decision to purchase terrorism insurance just before 9/11 was no mere coincidence.  There are several underlying assumptions at work here: that the World Trade Center must not have had terrorism insurance before Silverstein took over; that selecting such coverage was purely optional; and that because he "chose" to buy such coverage when he did, Silverstein must have known in advance that (and when) terrorists would strike. It's important to note that, despite appearances, Silverstein wasn't actually the sole leaseholder of the World Trade Center: He led a consortium of investors and lenders which included GMAC Commercial Mortgage (a General Motors subsidiary), Westfield America Inc. (a shopping center developer), and real estate investor Lloyd Goldman. All these entities had a voice in deciding how much insurance coverage the properties would have, and each had some claim on whatever insurance monies were paid out. Bear in mind, too, that when we speak of "terrorism insurance coverage," what we're actually speaking of is coverage that doesn't have a terrorism exclusion. Such exclusions aren't uncommon now, but according to the Insurance Information Institute virtually all commercial insurance policies sold in the U.S. before 9/11 covered terrorist incidents as a matter of course (and essentially free of charge), because the risk was considered so remote. Thus, for example, the World Trade Center was fully covered when it was bombed by terrorists in 1993, and insurers paid out an estimated $510 million in damages after that incident. There's no reason to suppose that the WTC wasn't routinely covered against terrorist acts right up until the time Silverstein took over the lease in 2001. covered Moreover, upon signing that lease, Silverstein was obligated to insure the World Trade Center. There was nothing strange, suspicious, or "fortuitous," therefore, about his purchasing an all-risk insurance policy  which at that time would have automatically included terrorism coverage  two months before 9/11, because that's when he became contractually responsible for doing so. Ultimately, Silverstein wasn't even solely responsible for the total dollar amount of that coverage ($3.55 billion) because that was the minimum demanded by his lenders, according to a 2002 report in The American Lawyer. report It's a fact that Silverstein took his insurers to court after 9/11 and asked for double the damages. It's also a fact that he did so on the grounds that there were two attacks (or, in insurance lingo, "occurrences"), not one. But this wasn't some premeditated scam based on foreknowledge that a terrorist attack involving two planes would occur. The cost of rebuilding the World Trade Center, which in 2004 was estimated at $9 billion, made Silverstein's court strategy a virtual necessity. Plus, he had obligations to lenders and co-investors, and still owed lease payments of $10 million per month to the Port Authority. estimated obligations The court ultimately did grant Silverstein a payout of $4.55 billion, which amounted to about a third more than the maximum allowable for a single "occurrence" by his insurance policy, but significantly less than the $7.1 billion he had originally sought. payout Ackman, Dan.  "Trade Center Financing on Shaky Ground."   Forbes.  11 September 2003. Bagli, Charles V. "Final Vote Set on Silverstein's Towers at Ground Zero."   The New York Times (City Room Blog).  25 August 2010. Frangos, Alex.  "Uncertainties Soar at Ground Zero."   The Wall Street Journal.  20 October 2004. Frankel, Alison.  "Double Indemnity."   The American Lawyer.  3 September 2002. Hirschkorn, Phil and Jonathan Wald.  "Verdict in 9/11 Insurance Battle."   CNN.  30 April 2004. Lieberman, Joseph.  "America Needs Terrorism Insurance."   Forbes.  12 July 2005. Sorkin, Andrew and Simon Romero.  "A Day of Terror: The Insurers; Reinsurance Companies Wait to Sort Out Cost of Damages."   The New York Times.  12 September 2001. Insurance Information Institute.  "Terrorism Risk and Insurance."   August 2016. Insurance Journal.  "Court Upholds Juries' Rulings in World Trade Center Claims."   19 October 2006. Reuters. "WTC Attack to Cost Insurers Billions."   11 September 2001. U.S. Senate candidate George Allen says he put the brakes on rising college costs when he was governor from 1994 to 1998.Before I was governor, tuition was skyrocketing, and we stopped that, Allen said in a May 25 debate between four candidates seeking the GOP Senate nomination. We capped, and then we froze college tuition.Allen won the Republican primary on June 12 and will face Democrat Tim Kaine this fall. They are seeking to replace Democrat Jim Webb, who is not seeking a second Senate term.We wondered if the Allen administration really did put a lid on tuition. Allen, while making this claim, shared credit with the Democratic-controlled legislature that served with him.Dan Allen, a senior adviser to the campaign, pointed us to aJuly 2011 reportfrom the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia.The study said that during the early 1990s, colleges and universities increased tuitions by double digits annually to compensate for state funding cuts made by the General Assembly and then-Gov. Doug Wilder to help balance the budget during a recession.Wilder, in his final budget proposal made during an improving economy in December 1993, urged the General Assembly to cap tuition and instructional fee increases for in-state students at 5 percent during the 1994-95 school year and 4 percent during 1995-96.Allen, who took office in January 1994, successfully urged the General Assembly go a step further and cap the increases at 3 percent during each of the next two school years.In 1996, as SCHEV notes,  Allen and the General Assembly froze tuition and instructional fees entirely. The action did not apply to a number of other mandatory college costs, such as fees for athletic programs, health services and campus transportation. Lawmakers eased some of the burden on colleges by appropriating an additional $200 million for higher education.The Richmond Times-Dispatch in January 1998 reported that a strong economy during Allens term allowed him to finance the tuition freeze. State tax revenues grew by about 45 percent during his tenure.Allen, in his farewell budget, recommended freezing tuition through 2000. His successor, Republican Jim Gilmore, rolled back tuition and instructional fees by 20 percent for in-state students.When Allen arrived in the governors mansion during the 1993-94 academic year, the average tuition and instructional fees for full time, in-state undergraduate students at four-year colleges was $2,518,according to SCHEVs historical tables.That rose to $2,717 in the 1995-1996 academic year and stayed at that level through 1997-1998, the last academic year of Allens term.Using inflation-adjusted figures based on 1992 dollars, the report shows the amount of tuition and instructional fees went  from $2,383 in the 1993-94  academic year down to $2,320 in 1997-98. Even when other mandatory fees that were not subject freeze are added in, the college costs remained flat after being adjusted for inflation.Costs at two-year colleges showed the same trend: in-state tuition and instructional fees at those institutions were basically flat during Allens term.Our rulingAllen said that, as governor, he stopped soaring tuition costs by implementing a tuition freeze.Allen and the General Assembly did impose a freeze after tuition had risen sharply during the early 1990s recession. Allen had leeway to cap tuitions because a healthy economy during his term allowed lawmakers to increase state appropriations to colleges and universities.We rate Allens claim True. Memesclaiming that former President Ronald Reagan continued his golf vacation after nearly300 people were killed in an attack in Beirut in 1983 are frequently circulatedon Facebook:      The above-displayed memes have been circulating for several years, but they regained popularity in March 2016 as President Obama was criticized for remaining in Cuba (where he was making a state visit) after 31 people were killed during terrorist bombings in Brussels, Belgium. criticized While these images correctly reflect that Ronald Reagan was on vacation when a suicide bomber crashed a truck full of explosives into an airport building that was being used as barracks for U.S. Marines in Beirut, Lebanon, on 23 October 1983 (killing 241 American servicemen), the former president did not continue his golf vacation after receiving the news.The first image showing Reagan on the golf course was taken the day before the bombing, not the day after: before President Reagan playing golf at the Augusta National Golf Club. 10/22/83. An article published by theNew York Timesthe day after the attack also noted that Reagan cut his vacation short to return to the White House: noted "There are no words that can express our sorrow and grief over the loss of those splendid young men and the injury to so many others,'' the President said gravely this morning, standing in the rain outside the White House after a hurried return from a golfing weekend in Augusta, Ga. The second photo displayed abovewas also taken the day before the Beirut bombings: before President Ronald Reagan, clad in pajamas and bathrobe, talking on telephone to Robert McFarlane and Secretary of State George Shultz, re urgent request from five members of Eastern Carribbean States on the situation in Grenada. However, the former president wasn't always necessarily quickto react after deadlyinternational incidents. After a Korean airliner was shot down by the Soviet Union on 1 September 1983, President Reagan remained at his ranch in Santa Barbara: remained At this point, (White House spokesman Larry Speakes) Speakes was interrupted and asked if Reagan was going back to Washington. He ignored the question and read a statement on the Middle East. Asked again if Reagan was going back to Washington, Speakes answered, "There are no plans for the president to return to Washington earlier than anticipated." Speakes walked away from the podium and then came back to take questions. He announced, as he does every day in California, what Reagan intended to do that day: "The president, as usual, is planning at horseback ride this morning and will generally work around the ranch in the afternoon. The weather there is as it is here, sunny and warm." Thesememes are based on an assumption that a U.S. president has to react immediately to breaking news of a violent incident or crisis by returning to the nation's capital, even when such an action does not facilitate the handling of the situation. When President Obama was criticized in 2014 for his reaction toMalaysian Airlines Flight 17 being shot down (reportedly by pro-Russian insurgents), reporter ChrisWallace noted that sometimes, "the best thing presidents can do is nothing": criticized I know there's like an immediate reaction, that you want to say he should have run back to Washington and gone back to the Situation Room. I know that a lot of folks at Fox here are saying that. As somebody who covered the White House and saw for six years Ronald Reagan in various situations, sometimes the best thing presidents can do is nothing, to continue on. If he had gone back to Washington and gone to the situation room  first of all, there's not much he can do, we're not in control of the situation. And it would have dialed it up. I was covering Ronald Reagan at that time [i.e., when the Korean airliner was shot down].He was in Santa Barbara at his ranch when that happened, and quite frankly he didn't want to leave. And his advisers realized how terrible this looked, and eventually persuaded him he had to fly back to Washington and had to give this speech to the nation, but it did take him four days. One of the more unusual and complicated theories associated with the sovereign citizen and tax protester movements is the belief that lawyers who are members of bar associations in the United States are, in fact, agents of the British crown and do not have legitimate status in American courts. This theory is partly informed by a false but widely repeated claim that the word "bar" in this context is an acronym for "British Accreditation Register":  Here's how the elaborate and confusing theory is outlined in an anonymously-authored essay called "Hiding Behind the Bar," which has been republished and shared in tax protester and sovereign citizen circles for more than a decade: essay During the middle 1600's, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where barristers [lawyers] were ordered by the Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister-lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA). Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence, the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA. Almost every part of this is factually inaccurate. For one thing, the International Bar Association was founded in 1947, not in the 1600s. Second, we could find no evidence of the existence of a professional association for lawyers called the "British Accredited Registry," either in 2018 or at any previous time in history. 1947 A History of the American Bar, a 1911 book by the Pulitzer Prize-winning legal scholar Charles Warren, contains no mention of any "British Accredited Registry" or "British Accreditation Registry" (with "accredited" and "accreditation" being used variously in different versions of this conspiracy theory). It would also make little sense for a group of lawyers in 17th century England to form a group describing itself as "British." Great Britain (composed of England, Wales and Scotland) does not have, and has never had, a unified courts system, instead being separated into two systems: England and Wales and Scotland. In fact, Great Britain itself was not even formally created until 1707, when the Acts of Union joined the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which included Wales). book accreditation England and Wales Acts of Union But more broadly, this theory offers a confused summary of the history of "the bar." In the Middle Ages, lawyers in London established four "Inns of Court": Lincoln's Inn, the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, and Gray's Inn. These were physical buildings but, more figuratively, they were also the professional associations for lawyers working in the more important English courts. A "barrister" was a legal expert or advocate who has been "called to the bar." This is a metonymic phrase which is rooted in the physical barrier that was present in a courtroom, to separate fully qualified lawyers entitled to plead cases before a judge from (roughly speaking) trainee lawyers and members of the public. In modern times, this physical barrier generally separates participants in a trial (such as lawyers, clerks, defendants, the jury, and the judge) from the gallery in which members of the public and the news media sit. established metonymic So someone who has been "called to the bar" has been given the right to advocate before a judge and is thereby known as a "barrister." A "bar association" is, roughly speaking, a professional association for lawyers, akin to a guild. In some jurisdictions, bar associations are limited to barristers (as opposed to solicitors, a different type of lawyer); whereas in others, they are open to all members of the legal profession. In some jurisdictions a bar association is the body that licenses and regulates legal professionals, and in others it is merely a professional association. The "BAR" conspiracy theory essay goes on to say: When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent  established in what was formally named the British Crown territory of New England  the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America. Today, each corporate STATE in America has it's [sic] own BAR Association, i.e. The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law  lawyers  to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar. Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything? A 1930 essay published in the Cornell Law Review (page 393) refers to a bar association's having been established in Boston in 1761, but remember that a bar association is no more than a kind of guild for lawyers. "Bar" is not an acronym for "British Accredited Registry," because that acronym is a fabrication. As with many sovereign citizen theories, the essay builds on the shaky foundations of an inaccurate account of the history of bar associations in the United States and draws confused conclusions about the function and legal status of lawyers. page 393 Many of these claims are based on the etymology of certain words, rather than their modern meaning. For example, the author of the essay referenced above presents the origins of the word "attorney," citing Webster's 1828 dictionary definition, as: "In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another." That essay also proclaims: Here's where the whole word game gets really tricky. In each State, every licensed BAR Attorney calls himself an Attorney at Law. Look at the definitions above and see for yourself that an Attorney at Law is nothing more than an attorney  one who transfers allegiance and property to the ruling land owner. That passage is false. Whatever the older origins of the word "attorney" might be, the modern definition of that word is much broader. Merriam-Webster defines an attorney as simply "one who is legally appointed to transact business on another's behalf." In common American parlance, "attorney" is used interchangeably with "lawyer." defines This fixation on word origins leads to something like a game of Telephone in the logic of the conspiracy theory, with false conclusions being drawn from inaccurate or incomplete premises. Here are more examples, summarized from the essay: The historical origins of the word "esquire" did have to do with the transfer of property between feudal land-owners, but that was hundreds of years ago. This argument is roughly analogous to claiming that because the title "Ph.D" derives from the Latin "philosophiae doctor" ("doctor of philosophy"), microbiologists with Ph.D at the end of their names have no legal right to conduct scientific research because they are actually philosophers and not scientists. "A BAR [British Accredited Registry] licensed Attorney is not an advocate," the theory goes on to falsely claim, "so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is?": He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court.  It's not clear what the origins of the the fabricated acronym are, but "British Accredited Registry" was invoked as early as 2001 by Austin Gary Cooper, a long-time "sovereign citizen" activist. In 2003, a U.S. District Court in Colorado barred Cooper and his wife Martha Cooper from selling advice on how to avoid paying federal income tax after the couple set up groups called "Taking Back America" and the "Ten Foundation," which advised their paying customers that they could renounce their United States citizenship, call themselves "American citizens" instead, and escape their tax obligations. In 2006, Cooper was given a six-month prison sentence for criminal contempt after failing to comply with that court order, which obliged him to hand over the names of his customers, among other requirements. During court proceedings, Cooper accused the judge of treason and called him a "Nazi bastard" and a "British Accredited Registry" lawyer, saying: "You people are going to destroy our country. British accredited registry bar association, you're going to destroy our country ..." 2001 barred sentence proceedings In 2017, prosecutors in Tennessee charged Cooper, who is now 69 years old, with 10 counts of forgery and filing a fraudulent lien. The case was ongoing as of January 2018. charged ongoing Warren, Charles.  "A History of the American Bar."
   Little, Brown and Company, 1911. U.K. Parliament.  "Act of Union 1707."
  U.K. Parliament.  Unknown publication date. Wickser, Philip J.  "Bar Associations."
  Cornell Law Review  (Vol. 15.3, April 1930). Babcock, Chief Judge Lewis T.  "Permanent Injunction Order, U.S.A v. Austin Gary Cooper et al."
  U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.  20 November 2003. Morlin, Bill.  "Ten Sovereign Citizens Face 320 Felonies in Tennessee."
  Southern Poverty Law Center.  28 March 2017. Claim:  E-mail reports the truth about the environmental impact of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)    OF AND  INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] First, do you know what ANWR is? ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Now, a comparison:  And some perspective ...  NOTE WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA IS ... (its in the "ANWR Coastal Plain")  THIS IS WHAT THE TV People and others "GREENS" SHOW YOU WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT ANWR ... and they are right ... these ARE photographs of ANWR   Isn't ANWR beautiful? Why should we drill here (and destroy) this beautiful place? Well, thats not exactly the truth. Do you remember the map? The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain. Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you? What's going on here? The answer is simple. That is NOT where they are wanting to drill! This is what the proposed exploration area ACTUALLY looks like in the winter:  And this is what it ACTUALLY looks like in the summer:    HERE ARE A COUPLE SCREEN SHOTS FROM GOOGLE EARTH   As you can see, the area where they are talking about drilling is a barren wasteland.  Oh, and they say that they are concerned about the effect on the local wildlife. Here is a photo (shot during the summer) of the 'depleted wildlife' situation created by drilling around Prudhoe Bay. Don't you think that the Caribou really hate that drilling?  Here's that same spot during the winter:  Hey, this bear seems to really hate the pipeline near Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production.  Now, why do you think that the Democrats are LYING about ANWR? Remember when Al Gore said that the government should work to ARTIFICIALLY raise gas prices to $5 a gallon? Well, Al Gore and his fellow Democrats have almost reached their goal! Now that you know that the Democrats have been lying, what are you going to do about it? You can start by forwarding this to everyone you know, so that they will know the truth. P.S.: Drilling does not "destroy." It creates jobs, resources and strengthens our economy  all while protecting our environment. Everyone benefits, even caribou. Origins:  As the price of oil continues to rise with no predictable end in sight, debates over whether the U.S. can and should be producing more oil from domestic sources have been renewed.  A primary focus of such  debates has been the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area which encompasses 19 million acres in the northeast corner of Alaska. The ANWR issue is now a political hot potato batted back and forth between proponents of exploration and development in ANWR's Coastal Plain who assert that the area could become a valuable source of domestic oil production with minimal impact on the environment, and opponents who maintain that the potential advantages to be gained from drilling for oil in ANWR are far too small to offset the despoiling (and potential devastation) of a protected wildlife area.The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR.    factors The e-mailed slide show reproduced above might serve a useful function in prompting the public to take a greater interest in all the issues surrounding the potential opening of ANWR to oil exploration, but the information it presents is scant and one-sided.  Since the ANWR issue is far too extensive and complex to cover in detail here, we'll just provide a brief summary of both sides' arguments regarding points mentioned by the e-mailed slide show, with links to sites (on both sides of the issue) that provide greater detail:  Although the ANWR is small in size compared to the entirety of Alaska, at 19 million acres it is larger than ten other states.  (As the third graphic shows, ANWR is about the size of the state of South Carolina.) Proponents point out that the proposed development area within the ANWR Coastal Plain is a relatively small patch of 2,000 acres, an area which constitutes roughly1/10,000 of the total acreage of the ANWR.  Opponents maintain that a similar drilling operation in Alaska at Prudhoe Bay was originally designated to encompass only 2,100 acres but has since expanded to a total drilling footprint of 12,000 acres spread over 640,000 acres of the North Slope. size expanded  Proponents maintain that wildlife continues to flourish amid drilling and other oil production activities in other Arctic regions and would fare just as well near ANWR exploration facilities.  Opponents assert that other North Slope oil development activities have caused an average of 504 spills per year since 1996, including "4,532 spills between 1996 and 2004 totaling more than 1.9 million gallons of toxic substances." flourish spills  Proponents maintain that the proposed ANWR Coastal Plain development area is primarily a featureless, barren expanse that is frozen and windswept for most of the year, and therefore exploration and drilling activities would have minimal impact on wildlife in the immediate area (or in the greater ANWR).  Opponents assert that environmental accidents can have devastating effects far outside the limited areas in which they originally occur. Last updated:  2 July 2008 If you browse Snopes.com, you'll likely come across the advice, "If it seems too good to be true, it it probably is" on pages about social media scams. While this platitude is certainly worth considering when browsing the internet, a few exceptions exist. social media scams The Germany-based search engine Ecosia claims to use its profits to plant trees around the world. Its home page even carries a tally of the number of trees that have reportedly been planted by Ecosia users:   For many people, this business model may seem "too good to be true" and has led to some skepticism about the legitimacy of this company. A search on Google, for instance, results in several articles and blog posts questioning the legitimacy of the search engine and asking whether Ecosia is a scam. As far as we can tell, Ecosia is a legitimate search engine that truly uses a portion of its profits to help plant trees around the world.  Ecosia was launched in 2009 by Christian Kroll. At the time, the search engine was partnered with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and promised to donate "at least 80 percent of its income from sponsored links to WWFs rainforest protection programme in Brazils Juruena-Apui region." WWF announced the partnership in a blog post: blog Those people unable to make it to the Copenhagen Climate Conference this month can still contribute to stopping climate change  by using a new search engine from their own computers. The same day the conference begins on Dec. 7, web users can start using a new green search engine called Ecosia. The new application, powered by Yahoo! and Microsofts Bing search engines, will allow internet surfers to protect about 2 square meters of Amazon rainforest just by clicking on sponsored links. Although users do not donate any money themselves, the company behind Ecosia will donate at least 80 percent of its income from sponsored links to WWFs rainforest protection programme in Brazils Juruena-Apui region. The green search engine is a very modern and inventive method of saving the world climate without a huge effort, says WWF Germanys director Eberhard Brandes. Every year billions of dollars are being earned in the internet only from advertising revenue, says Christian Kroll, founder of Ecosia. There is a more eco-friendly way of using these huge profits: the money should better be used to fight global warming. Since 2009, Ecosia has partnered with a number of other environmental organizations. The company reports it uses a portion of its profits to fund these organizations, who in turn work to plant trees around the world.  Ecosia makes money the way most other search engines and websites do: through advertising revenue. While this money covers various business expenses, such as advertising and operational costs, Ecosia claims that the majority of its revenue goes toward funding tree-planting projects.  Ecosia releases monthly financial reports so users can see exactly how the company is spending its money. The most recent full report comes from July 2019. The following report shows that 52% of its total income (approximately 80% of its surplus revenue) was invested in tree-planting projects; 5% was spent on advertising; 30% was spent on operational costs; and 12% went into company "reserves," which are used to fund larger environmental investments: financial reports   We have been unable to independently verify these numbers. However, we checked the websites of several of Ecosia's reported benefactors and found that many of these organizations list Ecosia as one of their partners. Dr. Simon Pfister, managing director of Green Ethiopia, an organization working to grow forests in Ethiopia that received approximately $150,000 from Ecosia in June 2019, told us that Ecosia accurately reported its donation in the company's financial report.  Ecosia is also a Certified B Corporation. This means that Ecosia underwent a third-party evaluation that determined the company had an overall positive impact on its workers, community, and environment. According to the company: Ecosia Certified B Corporation. B Corp Certification doesnt just evaluate a product or service; it assesses the overall positive impact of the company that stands behind it. And increasingly thats what people care most about. Certified B Corporations achieve a minimum verified score on the B Impact Assessment  a rigorous assessment of a companys impact on its workers, customers, community, and environment and make their B Impact Report transparent on bcorporation.net. Certified B Corporations also amend their legal governing documents to require their board of directors to balance profit and purpose. The combination of third-party validation, public transparency, and legal accountability help Certified B Corps build trust and value. B Corp Certification is administered by the non-profit B Lab. Ecosia lets users plant trees by searching the web. In donating 80 percent of its surplus ad revenue, the search engine has raised almost $3 million for reforestation projects since its founding in December 2009. Ecosia's mission to cultivate a world where the environment doesnt need protecting has it working to plant one billion new trees by the year 2020. By supporting high-impact reforestation efforts  as well as neutralising all CO2 emissions related to its search  Ecosia aims to achieve the highest positive environmental impact per dollar possible. By publishing its monthly donation receipts online, Ecosia aims to live up to its users demands for transparency. And by working to improve its charitable web service day after day, Ecosia aims to show the world that small changes can make a big difference. In its mission to plant one billion trees by 2020, Ecosia is working with experts and communities to reforest areas of the world that need it most. Sustainable, high-impact planting strategies mean improvements to the environment, local economies and social stability. Ecosia truly uses a large portion of its profits to fund tree planting projects. Of course, for anyone searching for an environmentally friendly search engine, planting trees isn't the only factor to consider. Ecosia is largely powered by Microsoft's Bing search engine. While Microsoft's global operations have been carbon neutral since 2012, the data centers powering Bing don't run entirely on renewable energy. Microsoft is working toward this goal, however, and expects to be driven by 100 percent renewable energy by 2023: Bing 2012 100 percent renewable energy In our data centers, we will continue to focus on R&D for efficiency and renewable energy. In 2016, we announced that we would power our data centers with more renewable energy, setting a 50 percent target by the end of 2018 and topping 60 percent early in the next decade while continuing to improve from there. We hit the first target nearly a year ahead of schedule, and today we are sharing the news that we will reach the 60 percent milestone before the end of this year. Were therefore setting our next milestone on the path to 100 percent renewable energy, aiming to surpass the 70 percent target by 2023. Well also launch a new data-driven circular cloud initiative using the Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor performance and streamline our reuse, resale and recycling of data center assets, including servers. For comparison's sake, Google announced in 2017 that its search engine was being powered by 100% renewable energy. announced While Microsoft may not be at quite at 100% renewable energy yet, Ecosia claims that its own servers run on clean power thanks to its new solar plant. Additionally, Ecosia's carbon footprint is lessened due to its involvement with various tree-planting projects around the world. The company says: carbon footprint Renewable energy: Did you know that the CO2 footprint of an average search is estimated at 0.2 grams? Not so with Ecosia. We recently built our own solar plant, so that we can run our servers on clean power. This is even better than buying renewable energy from existing plants, as the plant can deliver clean energy to the grid and replace electricity derived from fossil fuels. Carbon-negative: By planting trees and offsetting its energy use with renewables, each search with Ecosia actually removes 1 kg of CO2 from the air, which makes Ecosia a carbon-negative search engine. Heres the math: an average search generates around 0.005  of revenue. It costs roughly 0.25  to plant a tree, which means that Ecosia can plant one tree every 50 searches. On average, these trees will each remove 50 kg of CO2 during an expected 15 year lifetime. To sum up: Ecosia makes money through advertisements on its search engine. While a portion of that money is used to fund the operational costs of the business, about 80% of its surplus revenue is donated to environmental organizations and tree-planting projects around the world.  Smith, Brad.  "We're Increasing Our CarbonFee as We Double Down on Sustainability."   Microsoft.  15 April 2019. Google.  "100% Renewable is Just the Beginning."
  Retrieved 27 August 2019. Ecosia.  "Financial Reports and Tree-Planting Receipts."
  15 May 2019. World Wildlife Fund.  "Clicks to Help Save Amazon."   3 December 2009. In late December 2020, a misleading online advertisement appeared to announce that Monica Lewinsky was dead and that her net worth stunned her family. It read: "Monica Lewinsky's Net Worth Stuns Her Family At Age 47. Monica Lewinsky Leaves Behind A Net Worth That Will Boggle Your Mind." appeared   However, this was not true. She is alive, and despite what the ad claimed, there was no indication in the resulting story that her net worth shocked her family. The ad was sponsored by the Therapy Joker website and was hosted on the Yahoo! Gemini advertising service. Readers who clicked the ad were led to a 430-page story with the headline: "The Biggest Hollywood Celebrities & Their Incredible Net Worth  Can You Guess Who Has The Biggest Bank Account?" Lewinsky's net worth appeared on page 417. This meant that readers had to click "Next Page" 417 times to reach the page for Lewinsky: page 417 Monica Lewinsky: Activist and TV Personality - $500,000 Monica Samille Lewinsky is a lady of many skills. This popular American television personality is also a successful fashion designer, activist, and a former intern at the White House. The papparazi constantly followed her and she was a regular face in the media during her time at the White House. However, she made up her mind to leave all that behind and went on to pursue a different career. Besides that, she has also authored the book, Monica: Her Story which added to her fame. The London School of Economics and Political Science alumni [sic] is now 47 years old and is a popular television personality. She took a lavish apartment on rent and had quite a luxurious lifestyle. Her fleet of cars includes a Mini Cooper and a Cadillac. We hope she has a professional financial advisor is coming to her aid as far as her banking is concerned. Currently, the media personality, activist, and fashion designer has retained her fame and we hope Lewinsky does the same for the money shes accumulated over the years. The page mentioned nothing about Lewinsky's purported death, nor did it present any information about her family being stunned by her net worth. The misleading advertisement and exceptionally lengthy article reflect a strategy known in the advertising world as "arbitrage." The Therapy Joker website's goal was to make more money from ads displayed on each of the 430 pages than it cost to lure readers with the initial "Monica Lewinsky's Net Worth Stuns Her Family" ad in the first place. The business and technology blog Margins defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." Margins also referred to it as "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." defined Lewinsky was a White House intern in the mid-1990s who became famous after her affair with former U.S. President Bill Clinton became a public scandal. In December 1998, Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. However, the Senate did not vote to convict and remove him from office. He served the remainder of his second term in the White House. impeached We previously covered similar misleading net worth stories for Sean Connery, Jaleel White, Richard Gere, Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, and Alex Trebek. Sean Connery Jaleel White Richard Gere Chuck Norris Clint Eastwood Alex Trebek Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us