The Russian ruble is already depreciating.
American and European leaders find themselves scrambling to respond to Russias deployment of troops in the Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine. With military action on no ones wish-list, diplomacy and economic sanctions are the only moves effectively in play. Secretary of State John Kerry said on CBSFace the Nationthat he had been on the phone with his counterparts among the G-8 nations. Every single one of them are prepared to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia with respect to this invasion, Kerry said. Theyre prepared to put sanctions in place, theyre prepared to isolate Russia economically, the ruble is already going down. Russia has major economic challenges. This fact-check zeros in on the value of the Russian ruble. It has declined but partly because thats what the Russians wanted. A big drop In the early part of 2013, the ruble was worth 3.3 U.S. cents. Today, its value has tumbled by 15 percent, to 2.8 cents. A little less than half of that fall came in January as the situation in Ukraine deteriorated. Heres the picture over the past year, taken from the currency exchange serviceXE.com:   There is no question that the violence and political turmoil in Ukraine took a toll on the ruble. Russian banks have about $28 billion in loans in the country. Before the Russian troops moved in, investors were already worried. Last week,two of the largest banks in Russiasaid they would suspend any new lending in Ukraine. But the rubles decline has deeper roots. In 2010, the Russian Central Bank announced it wanted to get out of the business of setting the rubles value on the international market. It had in mind a gradual glide path for the currencys fall, andin October, it gave the ruble even more leewayto drop further. The countrys economy grew less than 2 percent last year, and it has struggled to keep inflation in check. The ruble got pretty over-valued in the big energy boom from 2001-08, said Mark Adomanis, a management consultant and contributor to Forbes. That hurt Russian manufacturing and letting the ruble fall potentially could help. With a weaker ruble Russian goods become more competitive on international markets, Adomanis said. That said, a free fall is not what the Russian Central Bank has in mind. In January,the bank signaled that it would stepin to prop up the ruble. But the overall policy remains the same. Our ruling Kerry said the ruble is going down, and it is. The Russian currency has lost about 15 percent of its value against the dollar since early 2013. It is not all because of the situation in Ukraine, however, a fact that viewers may not have picked up on by hearing Kerry's statement. The currencys decline is also part of Russian policy to reduce inflation and make domestic manufacturers more competitive. Theres a little more going on here than Kerrys statement would suggest. We rate his claim Mostly True.
In the summer of 2020, amid a new wave of nationwide protests over racial injustice and police brutality, readers inquired about the accuracy of online articles and social media posts that claimed a convicted terrorist sat on the board of directors of a left-leaning organization that provides fundraising and administration services for the Black Lives Matter movement. On July 8, 2020, Twitter user @asdomke posted a widely-shared tweet that read:  "This is convicted terrorist Susan Rosenberg, she sits on the Board of Directors for the fundraising arm of Black Lives Matter. She was convicted for the 1983 bombing of the United States Capitol Building, the U.S. Naval War College and the New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Assoc."   In June, the website of right-leaning talk radio host Wayne Dupree posted an article with the headline "Report: Leader of Group Handling 'BLM Fundraising' is a Convicted Terrorist Who Carried Out Bombings in NYC and DC." Similar articles were published by the Daily Caller (an article that was republished by the Western Journal) and on the website of former Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly.  article Daily Caller Western Journal Bill O'Reilly On July 9, 2020, Tucker Carlson ran a segment about Rosenberg's past and her connection to Thousand Currents and the Black Lives Matter movement on his Fox News show.  segment Those posts and articles were largely based on a June 24, 2020, report published by the right-leaning Capital Research Center, which carried the headline "A Terrorist's Ties to a Leading Black Lives Matter Group." The report went on to state that: report Some conservatives have begun speculating the unrest in American cities -- even as late as Monday night in Washington, DC as protestors unsuccessfully worked to tear down a statue of Andrew Jackson and set up an autonomous zone across the street from the White House -- may in part be an attempt to affect the upcoming presidential election, with the chaos and violence intended to make it as difficult as possible for Donald Trump to win a second term. Lending credence to this idea is the fact that at least one board member of the group fiscally sponsoring the most organized part of the Black Lives Matter movement, who have been involved in most of the activity surrounding the current unrest -- tried the same thing almost 40 years ago during Ronald Reagans reelection campaign. And it landed her in federal prison for 16 years. If there were any question whether Black Lives Matter has ideological ties to the Communist terrorists of the 1960s, the story of Susan Rosenberg should put that issue to bed... Rosenberg, who started out as a member of the 1960s revolutionary group Weather Underground, graduated into even more violent, and arguably successful, forms of terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s -- including bombings at an FBI field office in Staten Island, the Navy Yard Officers Club in Washington, DC, and even the U.S. Capitol building, where she damaged a representation of the greatest of the Democrat defenders of slavery, John C. Calhoun. She currently serves as human and prisoner rights advocate and a vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents. Thousand Currents is undoubtedly very closely linked to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, a Delaware-registered entity that is one of the leading formal embodiments of the broader Black Lives Matter movement. The Thousand Currents website outlines the relationship between the two entities: outlines "In 2016, BLM Global Network approached Thousand Currents to create a fiscal sponsorship agreement. Thousand Currents, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization, provides the legal and administrative framework to enable BLM to fulfill its mission. Fiscal sponsorship is a common structure utilized by nonprofit organizations. Oftentimes, nonprofit initiatives seek fiscal sponsorship to be able to have the fiscal sponsor handle administrative operations while the organization focuses on its programs and builds up its own organizational infrastructure. In this capacity, we provide administrative and back office support, including finance, accounting, grants management, insurance, human resources, legal and compliance." Descriptions of Thousand Currents as an organization which "handles fundraising" for Black Lives Matter were therefore accurate. As recently as June 24, the date on which the Capital Research Center published their report, the Thousand Currents website listed Susan Rosenberg as vice chair of the organization's board of directors, describing her as a "human and prison rights advocate and writer." The entire "board of directors" page has since been removed from the site. describing According to tax documents obtained by Snopes, Rosenberg sat on the board of directors during the 2015 and 2016 financial years, and was elevated to the position of vice chair in 2017. We asked Thousand Currents for the dates of Rosenberg's tenure on the board, and as its vice chair, and invited the organization to comment on the ongoing controversy, and will update this story if we receive a response. 2015 2016 2017 Rosenberg's prominent position within Thousand Currents is clear, as are that organization's close links to the Black Lives Matter Global Network (and thereby the broader Black Lives Matter movement). However, the question of whether she should be described as a "terrorist" or "convicted terrorist" is much more complicated. Originally from New York City, Rosenberg was an active member of several revolutionary left-wing groups and movements during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. In November 1984, she was arrested in Cherry Hill, New Jersey after police said she and an associate, Timothy Blunk, were found transferring 740 pounds of explosives, an Uzi submachine gun, an M-14 rifle, a rifle with a telescopic sight, a sawed-off shotgun, three 9-millimeter handguns and boxes of ammunition from a car into a storage locker. said Rosenberg was tried and convicted on the following charges: "Conspiracy to possess unregistered firearms, receive firearms and explosives shipped in interstate commerce while a fugitive, and unlawfully use false identification documents ...; possession of unregistered destructive devices, possession of unregistered firearm (two counts) ...; carrying explosives during commission of a felony ... ; possession with intent to unlawfully use false identification documents...; false representation of Social Security number, possession of counterfeit Social Security cards." charges In May 1985, New Jersey U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Bernard Lacey gave Rosenberg and Blunk the maximum available sentence of 58 years each in prison. On Jan. 20, 2001, his last day in office, President Bill Clinton commuted Rosenberg's sentence, and she was released from prison. sentence commuted According to several contemporaneous news reports, Rosenberg had previously been charged with multiple offenses as part of a major 1982 conspiracy case against several prominent left-wing revolutionaries. Along with the others, Rosenberg was charged with conspiracy and racketeering offenses in connection with the following incidents: incidents The most high-profile incident was the October 1981 Brink's robbery in Nyack, New York. Several members of the Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army groups were accused of having orchestrated and carried out the violent robbery of a Brink's armored vehicle at the Nanuet Mall, stealing total of $1.6 million. In the course of a police chase and shootout, two police officers and a Brink's guard were killed. The money was recovered. Specifically, Rosenberg was accused of having driven one of the getaway cars. killed accused After Rosenberg's arrest in New Jersey in 1984, and her subsequent conviction and imprisonment on the weapons and explosives possession charges, prosecutors dropped the conspiracy and racketeering charges against her, and she was never tried or convicted in relation to the 1981 Brink's robbery, the 1979 Shakur prison escape, or other armed robberies. The prosecutor who oversaw the decision not to proceed with that case, in the 1980s, was Rudolph Giuliani, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. After Rosenberg's release in 2001, Giuliani, by then Mayor of New York City, told the New York Times the charges were dropped because her existing 58-year prison sentence made a further prosecution unnecessary. told In 1988, Rosenberg was charged with aiding and abetting a series of bombings which took place between 1983 and 1985, at the Capitol building, Fort McNair, the Washington Navy Yard Computer Center and the Washington Navy Yard Officers' Club, all in Washington, D.C. Bombs were also planted, but did not detonate, at several sites in New York: the FBI's office in Staten Island, the Israeli Aircraft Industries building, the South African consulate and the New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association. However, prosecutors dropped those charges in 1990 as part of a plea deal involving other suspects in the bombings. As a result, Rosenberg was never tried or convicted on any charges relating to the 1983-1985 bombing campaign. The claim, made in @asdomke's tweet, that Rosenberg was "convicted of" several 1983 bombings, was therefore false. The claim in the headline of an article on Wayne Dupree's website that Rosenberg "carried out" the bombings stands in contrast to the fact that she was never tried or convicted in relation to those incidents. dropped During her 16-year incarceration, Rosenberg renounced the use of political violence, though her political beliefs appear not to have changed significantly. In a radio interview shortly after her release in January 2001, she said she "rejects" the "potential for violence in my past actions," saying her view of violence as a strategic tool had undergone an "enormous change," but that she retained "a political view that is certainly progressive and radical in a certain sense." interview In her 2011 memoir, she recounted what she said during an unsuccessful 1997 parole application: recounted "I outlined my criminal acts and what I felt about them then and now. I talked about the political ethos of the 1960s and how it had led me and my associates into thinking our activities were acceptable. I detailed how sorry I felt now, how I accepted responsibility for my past actions, and how I would never commit any crimes again. I tried to put my life within the context of the historical period when many Americans thought they could change the world and end war and racism and poverty. I tried to distinguish between my core values and my embrace of the use of political violence. I stated that I now rejected the use of violence. I meant all that I said." There is no single, universally-accepted definition of terrorism, so any use of that label requires a degree of explanation or justification. One basis upon which one might reasonably describe a person as a terrorist is if they have been convicted of terrorist offenses. That is not true of Rosenberg, who was convicted only of weapons and explosives possession and fraudulent document possession, after her arrest in New Jersey 1984. She pleaded not guilty to charges relating to the 1980s bombing campaign, and those charges against her were dropped, and she has denied any involvement in the 1979 Shakur prison break and 1981 Brink's robbery, with those charges also having been dropped. not guilty denied The United States Code defines "domestic terrorism" (as distinct from "international terrorism") as follows: defines "... Activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States ..." However, that definition was only added in 1992, years after Rosenberg was convicted of weapons and explosives possession and charged for her alleged role in the 1983-1985 bombing campaign, and her alleged role in a series of armed robberies by left-wing revolutionaries. added In any event, despite the existence of a definition of domestic terrorism in federal law, a discrete criminal offense of domestic terrorism does not exist, and did not exist in the 1980s. As a result, even if Rosenberg's activities perfectly met the definition of domestic terrorism currently set out in federal law, and even if that definition existed in the 1980s, she could not have been charged with, tried for and convicted of domestic terrorism as such does not exist In the 1988 indictment relating to the 1983-1985 bombing campaign, prosecutors accused Rosenberg and others of trying "to influence, change and protest policies and practices of the United States Government concerning various international and domestic matters through the use of violent and illegal means." That language is remarkably similar to that found in the present U.S. Code definition of domestic terrorism as seeking to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping ..." accused Examining the 1980s bombings retrospectively, one might very well be justified as describing them as a campaign of domestic terrorism, even if prosecutors were not in a position to hang that label on them at the time. However, the charges against Rosenberg were dropped anyway, and she was never convicted in relation to the bombing campaign. In her memoir, Rosenberg wrote of her 1984 arrest in New Jersey that "there was no immediate, specific plan to use the explosives" with which she and Blunk were caught. However, it's clear they were transporting and transferring them for a purpose that was at the very least broadly associated with the group's wider mission of opposing various U.S. government policies and carrying out a socialist uprising. "We were stockpiling arms for the distant revolution that we all had convinced ourselves would come soon," she added. wrote Earlier in her book, Rosenberg indicated that she was comfortable, at least at one point in time, with bombing government buildings: "We thought that by taking armed actions against government property (including bombing unoccupied government buildings), we would show that despite the power of the state, it was possible to oppose it." indicated One could reasonably argue that Rosenberg's actions in the explosives possession case served her and her comrades' overarching mission of militant opposition to U.S. government policy and broader power structures and were in keeping with the group's (if not Rosenberg's) proven record of using bomb attacks to influence the wider American public and advance their cause. As such, a supportable (though not definitive) case exists for claiming that the crimes of which Rosenberg was convicted in 1985 were indeed acts of domestic terrorism. Crane, Missy. "Report: Leader of Group Handling 'BLM Fundraising' is a Convicted Terrorist Who Carried Out Bombings in NYC and DC."
 WayneDupree.com. 28 June 2020. Kerr, Andrew. "A Convicted Terrorist Sits on Board of Charity Handling Black Lives Matter Fundraising."
 The Daily Caller. 27 June 2020. O'Reilly, Bill. "Does Karl Marx Matter?"
 BillOReilly.com. 5 July 2020. Walter, Scott. "A Terrorist's Ties to a Leading Black Lives Matter Group."
 Capital Research Center. 24 June 2020. Raab, Selwyn. "Radical Fugitive in Brink's Robbery Arrested."
 The New York Times. 1 December 1984. The Associated Press/The Philadelphia Daily News. "2 Revolutionaries Get 58 Years Each in N.J."
 20 May 1985. Barbanel, Josh. "4 Indicted by U.S. in Escape of Joanne Chesimard in '79."
 The New York Times. 19 November 1982. Barbanel, Josh. "3 Killed in Armored Car Holdup."
 The New York Times. 21 October 1981. Gross, Jane. "Brink's Suspect Held Without Bail After She Refuses to Enter a Plea."
 The New York Times. 14 May 1985. Lipton, Eric. "Officials Criticize Clinton's Pardon of an Ex-Terrorist."
 The New York Times. 22 January 2001. The Associated Press/The New York Times. "3 Radicals Agree to Please Guilty in Bombing Case."
 6 September 1990. Rosenberg, Susan. "An American Radical..."
 Citadel Press. 2011. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. "United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2331 -- Definitions."
 Accessed 14 July 2020. McCord, Mary B. "It's Time for Congress to Make Domestic Terrorism a Federal Crime."
 Lawfare. 5 December 2018. Shenon, Philip. "U.S. Charges 7 in the Bombing at U.S. Capitol."
 The New York Times. 12 May 1988. The conservative group Turning Point USA created a meme that pushes a sophomoric and factually lacking political argument. The meme in question, watermarked with the logo of Turning Point USA's political action committee (Turning Point Action), makes two claims. First, it states that the year 2019 was the first year the United States achieved energy independence since 1957. Second, it argues that "in only ten days" Joe Biden "sent us back 50 years," implying policies enacted in the first 10 days of his administration reversed American energy independence: political action committee   Turning Point Action's graphic, it bears highlighting, makes no reference to the year 2020, despite the fact that President Donald Trump was in office that year. The claim about 2019 being the first year in which the U.S. achieved energy independence since 1957 is true  so long as we understand what the term "energy independence" really means. It means that the U.S. produced more energy than it consumed. Most importantly, from an energy security perspective, energy independence does not mean that the U.S. doesn't import foreign oil or isn't fundamentally reliant on foreign sources of energy. is true In 2019, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. imported 9.1 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of oil from about 90 countries, though at the same time it also exported 8.5 MMb/d of oil to about 190 countries. By email, Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and energy systems analyst at the Breakthrough Institute, explained that "our local production does not meaningfully insulate us from potential future global oil price shocks."  according Zeke Hausfather The energy independence experienced by the U.S. in 2019 was driven by record levels of total fossil fuel exports from the U.S. That record was set as part of a long-term trend dating back to 2006 and 2008, according to the EIA: according Domestic crude oil production has increased since 2008 and natural gas production has increased since 2006. The increases in crude oil production and the easing of restrictions on crude oil exports in December 2015 have contributed to increases in crude oil exports. Increases in natural gas production along with increases in liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity have contributed to increases in natural gas exports in recent years. In 2011, the United States became a net exporter of petroleum products for the first time since at least 1949. In 2017, the United States became a net exporter of natural gas for the first time since the late 1950s. In 2019, U.S. total annual energy exports exceeded total annual energy imports for the first time in 67 years, and the United States became a net total energy exporter.   The Turning Point meme disregards entirely the existence of the year 2020. The omission of 2020 masks not only a decline in U.S. fossil fuel production that occurred, it also conceals a larger truth about U.S. presidents and the global energy market: Neither they nor their policies have a significant effect on the market compared to other global factors. a decline A significant factor in allowing the U.S. to increase its energy exports has been the rising cost of crude oil globally. Technological innovations like fracking and horizontal drilling have, in recent years, allowed the U.S. to exploit fossil fuel reserves that were previously inaccessible, but these technologies add cost. A high-cost, high-demand energy economy  like the one present during the record-setting year of 2019  benefits the U.S. energy sector because it makes American fossil fuel exports financially viable. The flip side is that the viability of U.S. exports depends in large measure on the going rate for a barrel of oil. If the cost is too low, U.S. drilling operations become financially uncompetitive and exports drop off. The year 2020 saw a historic drop in the price of oil. add cost historic drop "In 2020, U.S. oil production fell by around 8% relative to 2019," Hausfather told Snopes. "This was primarily due to falling global oil prices making relatively high-cost US shale oil production uncompetitive." The drop in demand, and then price, was not the result of any policy decision; it was the result of a massive global pandemic. In a Feb. 3, 2021, news release, Acting EIA Director Stephen Nalley explained that 'the pandemic triggered an historic energy demand shock that led to ... decreases in energy production, and sometimes volatile commodity prices in 2020.'" news release Indeed, this volatility resulted in times during 2020  a year in which Joe Biden was not president  when the U.S. dipped into consuming more energy that it produced. In July and August 2020, the U.S. was not energy independent, at least on monthly terms. By Turning Point USA's logic, this would mean that two months of Trump "sent us back 50 years" in terms of energy policy. In reality, the actions of any U.S. president cannot affect rapid change in the global energy market, and the effect of any domestic policy changes are dwarfed by global factors outside any one president's control. July and August As previously discussed, the U.S. had already experienced at least a brief period of energy "dependence" before Biden took office. While the most recent month for which we have data  October 2020  indicates the U.S. was producing slightly more energy than it consumed toward the end of Trump's presidency, U.S. oil production has been dropping off and global demand remains depressed. These trends, which predate the Biden administration, are unlikely to change anytime soon. October 2020 It will take a while for the energy sector to get to its new normal, said the EIA's Nalley in February 2021. In its 2021 "Global Outlooks" annual report, the EIA argued that "total U.S. energy consumption will return to 2019 levels by 2029, though that is highly dependent on the pace of U.S. economic recovery." In terms of energy production, "EIA projects that the United States will continue to export more petroleum and other liquids than it imports, but the balance of imports to exports will be highly sensitive to supply, demand, and price factors." said argued The bottom line, according to the Breakthrough Institutes' Hausfather, is that "oil production changes in 2020 and 2021 are driven by larger changes in global demand and oil prices, rather than anything that either the Trump or Biden administration has done." Because the meme correctly states that 2019 was the first year the U.S. achieved energy independence in decades, but because it falsely implies a connection between the Biden administration and post-2019 trends in the global energy market that predate his time in office and are independent of the actions of either Trump or Biden, we rank its claims "false." "The Price Is Right" is not ending, nor did its host, Drew Carey, endorse keto diet pills, despite what some readers might have seen online in a fake article that was designed to mimic the Us Weekly website. The Price Is Right Drew Carey keto Us Weekly On May 9, 2022, we looked at a paid advertisement from the Blossom Words Facebook page that showed a picture of Carey with a sad expression on his face. The ad read, "What you didn't know about the 'Price Is Right' host. Will the show stay on air?" It appeared to hint that the long-running game show would be ending. However, this was nothing but misleading clickbait to try to sell a keto diet pill product named Lifestyle Keto. Facebook Carey Price Is Right  The ad appeared to vaguely hint that something was revealed about Carey that he was sad about. We previously saw this same clickbait tactic used with "Jeopardy" host Mayim Bialik. In that instance, an ad falsely claimed that there were "allegations" against Bialik. The ad led to a fake CBD gummies endorsement page that mentioned nothing of any "allegations" against the TV star, because there were none. Carey Jeopardy Mayim Bialik CBD After clicking the ad with Carey's sad facial expression, we were led to a scammy website (entertainmentnewsnow.net) that published a fake Us Weekly article. It appeared that scammers had copied the design from the official Us Weekly website and recreated it to push their scam, all seemingly without the authorization of the magazine's parent company, A360 Media, LLC. A360 Media, LLC  The article included a fake interview between Carey and Ellen DeGeneres in which he purportedly endorsed a product named Lifestyle Keto. The interview supposedly happened on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show." At one point during the fake interview, DeGeneres supposedly asked, "Lifestyle Keto? You mean Lifestyle Ketosis? I think I saw something on Dr. Oz about it." We found no record of this interview or any mention of Lifestyle Keto on Dr. Mehmet Oz's show, because it was completely made up by the person or people who designed the website. Ellen DeGeneres Dr. Mehmet Oz The fake interview in the fake Us Weekly article had the following headline: "After Drew Careys Shocking Health News- Millions Of Americans Are Melting Body Fat & Getting Ripped Thanks To His Intermittent Keto Routine!" It began like this: The Price Is Right's Drew Carey has recently opened up about his recent body transformation after having battled with weight problems for most of his life. Drew was recently announced as one of Time's 100 Most Influential People, and is a loving father. Carey said that for his entire comedy career, he had tried everything. He tried a lot of classes, he tried his own healthy recipes, but nothing worked like Lifestyle Keto did. Like millions of parents across North America, the TV star seems to swear by Keto Prime, but he has said it was hard to find something that worked and he trusted - it took him years to find this keto solution. In 2022, Drew Carey told US Weekly Magazine that he had tried almost every fitness style, class, and supplement out there, but was yet to figure out what works for him. The Price Is Right "I tried spinning, I tried running, I tried Pilates. I realized I don't like running ... I refuse to do it," Drew Carey told the publication. Eventually, he said he fell in love with Lifestyle Keto. This whole article was both misleading and false. Again, we found no record that Carey had ever endorsed Lifestyle Keto or any other keto diet pills. To cover all of the bases for any future claims, we also found no evidence that he endorsed any CBD gummies or oil products. We previously saw Us Weekly's website design being used in other keto diet pill scams, all seemingly without the publisher's authorization. In 2018, we debunked a claim to the effect that singer Kelly Clarkson had been fired from the reality TV series "The Voice" and that she later endorsed keto diet pills. debunked Kelly Clarkson In 2021, another fake article that mimicked the Us Weekly website design claimed that the cast of the "Shark Tank" reality TV series had endorsed a product named Keto Burn. All of this was false. claimed Shark Tank In 2010, People.com published an article about the real way that Carey said he lost 80 pounds. Keto diet pills didn't appear in the story: article So how'd he do it? No carbs, Carey says. I have cheated a couple times, but basically no carbs, not even a cracker. No bread at all. No pizza, nothing. No corn, no beans, no starches of any kind. Egg whites in the morning or like, Greek yogurt, cut some fruit. He snacks on fruit, and for dinner he ll have grilled chicken and steamed vegetables and water. I dont drink anything but water, he says. No coffee, no tea, no soda. In sum, no, "The Price Is Right" is not ending or going off the air, nor did Carey ever endorse Lifestyle Keto or any other keto diet pill products. All of this was false. The Price Is Right Source: Hammel, Sara. Drew Carey: How I Lost 80 Lbs. People.com, 29 July 2010, https://people.com/health/drew-carey-how-i-lost-80-lbs/. On May 24, 2022, Facebook scammers seized on a real giveaway from Richard Rawlings' Gas Monkey Garage, which was once affiliated with the "Fast N' Loud" reality television series. The show aired its final episodes in 2020. Facebook Richard Rawlings Gas Monkey Garage Fast N' Loud It's true that the official and verified Facebook page for Rawlings' Gas Monkey Garage was promoting a giveaway for $200,000. In order to enter, users simply needed to purchase products on the company's website. page However, scammers reposted videos about the giveaway from the official Facebook page to their own accounts. The scammers' posts instructed potential victims to visit a potentially malicious website that asked them to send money through the Stash finance app in order to claim a supposed prize. One of the scammers' posts showed a video of Rawlings talking about the real Gas Monkey Garage giveaway. That video was downloaded and reposted by a scammer's account named Nyong Desi (facebook.com/uygdvuidfhvyfdgviushv):  It read as follows and included three steps, which we've seen in many scams before: Nyong Desi ????????????? ???????-??????? 2022 CONGRATULATIONS for those of you who have received comments from me have been selected as winners???Step 1 = Like and ShareStep 2 = Coments "Done"Step 3 = Register here? (link removed) ? to receive my prize. And the Gift will be sent after you successfully register (this is authentic and official) God bless you Good Luck The edit history for the post above showed that it was originally created on Jan. 30, 2022 as a giveaway scam involving PlayStation 5 game consoles and $10,000. It was edited on the morning of May 24 in order to change it to the Gas Monkey Garage giveaway scam. PlayStation 5 We visited the website that was displayed in the scammers' posts. In addition to asking users to send the scammers money through the Stash finance app, it also claimed that they had already won $10,000. Of course, this was all misleading. asking Our best tip to avoid these kinds of scams is to always look for the verified badge next to Facebook page names. If it's a big brand name and there's no verified badge, it might be a scam. scams verified badge In sum, the official Gas Monkey Garage Facebook page truly was holding a real giveaway. However, scammers sought to capitalize on the giveaway by downloading and then reposting several videos that showed Rawlings talking in order to trick potential victims into losing money. For further reading, this story might remind some readers of a similar Facebook scam we reported on in the past for the "Diesel Brothers" reality television series. reported on In late March 2019, a photograph supposedly showing piles of "worthless" currency thrown into gutters in Venezuela circulated on social media, attached to comments blaming socialism for the phenomenon behind the striking visual. One popular posting on Facebook was captioned, "This is a street in Venezuela. That's money in the gutter. It's worthless. Welcome to socialism.": Facebook   This is a genuine photograph of worthless money dumped in the gutter of a Venezuelan street. However, the accompanying caption presents an oversimplification of the series of events that led to this currency's worthlessness and its discarding by Venezuelan residents. The economic collapse in Venezuela that began in 2013 is a complex matter which can't be attributed to any single factor. News outlets such as Bloomberg, the New York Times, and Fox News have cited a wide range of issues that led to the country's current economic crisis, including plunging oil prices, government corruption, political unrest, and socialist policies. That brew of unfavorable economic conditions has spawned massive hyperinflation which has greatly devalued Venezuela's currency, as the Washington Post reported in January 2018: Bloomberg New York Times Fox News reported Hyperinflation is disorienting. Five or six years ago, 500 bolivars wouldve bought you a meal for two with wine at the best restaurant in Caracas. As late as early last year, they wouldve bought you at least a cup of coffee. At the end of 2016, they still bought you a cup of caf con leche, at least. Today, they buy you essentially nothing ... well, except for 132 gallons of the worlds most extravagantly subsidized gasoline. Although hyperinflation has indeed caused the bolivar to become all but worthless, the caption on this viral photograph is a bit misleading. The money shown lying in the gutter in this picture is Venezuela's old currency, the Bolvar Fuerte, which was replaced by a new form of currency, the Bolivar Soberano, in August 2018.  When the Bolivar Soberano was introduced, Bolvar Fuerte currency in amounts less than 1,000 ceased to be legal tender, and Bolivar Fuerte currency in all amounts was completely withdrawn on 5 December 2018.   Hence the discarded money seen here was literally worthless not because it had no value, because it had been completely replaced by a newer currency and was no longer legal tender. Here's an excerpt from a CNN report about the switch in currencies: CNN Venezuela issued a new currency in an attempt to bolster its crumbling economy as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that inflation could hit one million percent this year. The move, part of a dramatic raft of measures aimed at halting runaway hyperinflation, comes as thousands of Venezuelans continue to flee across the border into neighboring countries amid food and medicine shortages, political turmoil and soaring crime rates. In a tweet posted following the unveiling of Venezuela's new currency, the country's president Nicolas Maduro hailed the recovery package as a "revolutionary formula." The new "Bolivar Soberano" currency is worth 100,000 "old" Bolivares. "We found the revolutionary formula that puts work in the center of the general re-adjustment of society, based on the production of goods and the value of salary. With that, we're gonna put to rest forever the perverse model that dollarized the prices in the country," tweeted Venezuela's 55-year-old leader. "I call on the people to defend -- conscientiously -- the adjustment of the prices on street," Maduro later said in another tweet. A bank holiday was declared, with banks remaining closed as the new currency took effect. The rebranded currency, which has five fewer zeroes than the country's previous currency and will be pegged to a cryptocurrency called the Petro, is intended to simplify transactions. The viral photograph was likely taken on 11 March 2019 and showed the aftermath of looting at a bank in the town of Merida. Local news outlet Maduradas.com compiled several other photographs of the incident and reported that the perpetrators had discarded the old money on the streets and even lit some of it on fire (translated via Google): Maduradas.com TERRIBLE! Encapuchados saquearon banco Bicentenario en Mrida y esparcieron bolvares del viejo cono monetario por las calles (+Fotos) Este lunes 11 de marzo, encapuchados saquearon la agencia del banco Bicentenario en la avenida 3, de Glorias Patrias, en el estado Mrida. El hecho fue confirmado por el diputado de la Asamblea Nacional Williams Dvila, as como por el corresponsal de El Nacional en el estado Mrida, Leonardo Len. A travs de la red social Twitter, informaron que los ciudadanos esparcieron montones de billetes de viejo cono monetario en las calles, los cuales despus fueron incendiados. TERRIBLE! Hooded (vandals) sacked the bank Bicentenario in Merida and scattered bolivars of the old currency through the streets (+ Photos) On Monday, March 11, hooded (vandals) sacked the Bicentenario bank agency on Avenue 3, Glorias Patrias, in the state of Merida. The fact was confirmed by the deputy of the National Assembly Williams Dvila, as well as by the correspondent of El Nacional in the state of Mrida, Leonardo Len. Through the social network Twitter, they reported that citizens scattered piles of old money bills in the streets, which were then set on fire. Venezuelan journalists and social media users shared several other photographs of the scene: Ayer se produjo el saqueo de un banco bicentenario en la ciudad de Mrida, en las cercanas de la plaza Glorias Patrias. Los saqueadores incendiaron una pila de bolvares adems de dejar muchos billetes por el suelo. pic.twitter.com/7gmL7FqMYo pic.twitter.com/7gmL7FqMYo  Descifrando la Guerra (@descifraguerra) March 12, 2019 March 12, 2019  TERRIBLE! Encapuchados saquearon banco Bicentenario en Mrida y esparcieron bolvares del viejo cono monetario por las calles https://t.co/6U3kFuMHn5 #LiberenALuisCarlos,#12Mar,#solidarioservicios pic.twitter.com/QT0fP9ifaF https://t.co/6U3kFuMHn5 #LiberenALuisCarlos #12Mar #solidarioservicios pic.twitter.com/QT0fP9ifaF  EntornoInteligente (@ENTORNOi) March 12, 2019 March 12, 2019  #MeridaBanco Bicentenario en Merida fue robado, slo haban billetes del viejo cono monetario que terminaron tapizando las calles del centro de la ciudadVenezuela es realismo magico y tragicoSarai Suarez pic.twitter.com/lIeo2mpw70 #Merida pic.twitter.com/lIeo2mpw70  Nellie B. Izarza ? ???? (@myteks) March 12, 2019 March 12, 2019  In short, the "money in gutters" image shown above captured an older and now invalid form of currency that was tossed aside after the looting of a bank, and not usable currency discarded by citizens because it had been made next to worthless due to "socialism." Sterling, Joe.  "Venezuela Issues New Currency, Amid Hyperinflation and Social Turmoil."
  CNN.  23 August 2018. Toro, Franciso.  "In Venezuela, Money Has Stopped Working."
  The Washington Post.  17 January 2018. Llorente, Elizabeth.  "Caracas, Once a Thriving Metropolis, Is Struggling as Country Plunges Further Into Chaos."
  Fox News.  4 April 2019. The New York Times.  "The Crisis in Venezuela Was Years in the Making. Heres How It Happened."
  23 January 2019. Martin, Eric and Patricia Laya.  "What Broke Venezuela's Economy and What Could Fix It."
  Bloomberg.  9 March 2019. Maduradas.com.  "TERRIBLE! Encapuchados Saquearon Banco Bicentenario en Mrida y Esparcieron Bolvares Del Viejo Cono Monetario Por Las Calles (+Fotos)."
  12 March 2019. El Nacional.  "Billetes Inferiores a 1.000 Bolvares No Tendrn Valor a Partir del 20A."
  14 August 2018. 2001.com.ve.  "Bolvar Fuerte Circular Hasta el Mircoles 5 de Diciembre."
  Accessed 5 April 2019. The introduction of new EMV (Europay, MasterCard, and Visa) technology has enhanced the security of debit and credit card transactions by replacing standard cards with ones embedded with small computer chips  thats extremely hard to counterfeit.  The addition of the chips makes the cards much harder to counterfeit and provides for additional authentication and security during point-of-sale transactions. The manner in which EMV cards are physically handled during a sales transaction is somewhat different than with older cards, however.  Rather than being swiped through a point-of-sale (POS) terminal, EMV cards are inserted (or "dipped") into the terminal and left in place for the entire transaction so that the reader and card can talk back and forth. EMV cards can be either swiped or dipped (since not all merchants are yet set up with EMV-compliant card readers), and that duality has led to some confusion among consumers about whether liability for fraudulent transactions shifts depending upon how an EMV card is processed.  Specifically, some consumers have heard rumors that swiping an EMV card rather than dipping it leaves them (rather than the merchant or card issuer) liable for any ensuing fraudulent use of the card. The issue of fraud liability has evolved with the introduction of EMV cards, but that liability has not been passed back onto cardholders.  According to CreditCards.com, that evolution solely concerns determining whether the merchant or the card issuer is the party bears liability for fraud in any given case  cardholders themselves remain protected from liability, regardless of whether their EMV cards are swiped or dipped: CreditCards.com Cardholders may be adjusting to "dipping" their chip cards instead of swiping them, but they won't have to adjust to fraud liability changes. If an authorized transaction occurs against a consumer's credit account, they will continue to be reimbursed by their card issuer for the charges per the major networks' (Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover) zero-liability policies. If the issuer finds that the fraud occurred at a non-EMV compliant merchant, it can request a refund for the chargeback transaction, but the consumer is not involved. Consumers will not be responsible for fraud charges that result from a merchant not being prepared to properly accept EMV cards or because their card issuer has not yet sent them a chip-embedded card. What the new rules govern is whether merchants or card issuers (i.e., banks and credit unions) are liable in cases of credit card fraud, with responsibility now falling upon whichever party was least EMV-compliant: Today, if an in-store transaction is conducted using a counterfeit, stolen or otherwise compromised card, consumer losses from that transaction fall back on the payment processor or issuing bank, depending on the card's terms and conditions. Following an Oct. 1, 2015 deadline created by major U.S. credit card issuers MasterCard, Visa, Discover and American Express, the liability for card-present fraud shifted to whichever party is the least EMV-compliant in a fraudulent transaction. Consider the example of a financial institution that issues a chip card used at a merchant that has not changed its system to accept chip technology. This allows a counterfeit card to be successfully used. "The cost of the fraud will fall back on the merchant," [chip card service company president Martin] Ferenczi says. The change is intended to help bring the entire payment industry on board with EMV by encouraging compliance to avoid liability costs. A separate article on that web site illustrated the liability shifts with a chart: illustrated  Many consumers have noticed that although some merchants have seemingly upgraded to EMV-compliant POS terminals, the card slots on those terminals are puzzlingly non-operational (and thus require that customers swipe their chipped cards).  As the New York Times noted  in March 2016, that situation is the result of merchants' having to wait for certification of their terminals: noted  Avi Kaner, a co-owner of the Morton Williams supermarket chain in New York, has spent about $700,000 to update the payment terminals at his stores. Trouble is, he cannot turn them on. The new terminals can accept credit and debit cards with embedded digital chips, a security feature intended to reduce the number of fraudulent purchases. But before the payment systems can work, they must be certified, a process that Mr. Kaner and many retailers around the country are waiting to happen. In the case of Morton Williams, the holdup has lasted several months. The cost of waiting, retailers say, is piling up. Until recently, banks covered much of the cost of fraudulent purchases. Since Oct. 1, though, merchants that cannot accept chip cards have had to shoulder the cost of fraud, and banks have not been shy about passing along the bill. For years, retailers have argued that the technology, commonly referred to as E.M.V., which stands for Europay, MasterCard and Visa, the technologys early advocates, mainly protected banks. Mr. Peterson estimated that only 40 to 50 percent of retailers are capable of accepting chip cards. Kaner told the newspaper he believed consumers were taking advantage of the interim period to file suspicious chargebacks due to the shift in liability: Mr. Kaner worries that some customers may be using the Oct. 1 liability shift to get out of paying for legitimate purchases. The number of chargebacks, he said, has risen sharply. It started out as a trickle, and now its turning into a flood, he said. In the first couple months, it might have been a few hundred dollars a month. Now, its thousands a month. Terry Crowley, CEO of processor TranSend, told KrebsonSecurity that consumer dishonesty was a larger issue than consumer liability during the transition period: told Crowley predicts that plenty of smaller merchants could soon get hit with a wave of chargebacks from unscrupulous people abusing the liability shift at merchants that still dont offer the chip dip. Theres an invisible hand at work that is about to kick everyone in the pants and accelerate U.S. dipping into EMV slots, Crowley said. If you use a chip card at a point of sale that says swipe   and you later say that wasnt me  theres very little a merchant can do to dispute that charge. Its going to happen because what people arent thinking about is the friendly fraud. When people are made aware that if I swipe and I have a chip card, that lunch can be free if Im a bad consumer. It's possible cardholders have confused information intended for merchants as being directed at them.Processor Square published a short instructional guide for the EMV card liability shift that might have caused such confusion among consumers who didn't realize the pronoun "you" referred to merchants and not cardholders: instructional guide  But, in short, consumers don't have to adjust to fraud liability changes with EMV cards.  That's an issue for merchants and card issuers to sort out between them. Abrams, Rachel.  "Chip-Card Payment System Delays Frustrate Retailers."
  The New York Times.  22 March 2016. Kossman, Sienna.  "7 Merchant Tips to Understanding EMV Fraud Liability Shift."
  CreditCards.com.  21 June 2016. Kossman, Sienna.  "8 FAQs About EMV Credit Cards."
  CreditCards.com.  17 June 2016. KrebsonSecurity.  "The Great EMV Fake-Out: No Chip for You!"
  16 February 2016. Picking a favorite holiday is almost like picking a favorite child, but PolitiFact Ohio admits to particular fondness for the Fourth of July.We enjoy the invocations of history, especially when they're factually accurate. We like the annual cookout with old friends. And we love fireworks.So we were especially interested to read a newspaper commentary by Bill Weimer, vice president of Youngstown-based Phantom Fireworks, the nations largest retailer of consumer fireworks.Fireworks have never been safer, and their use continues to increase each year, he wrote. This alone provides a strong case for the regulated and sensible use of consumer fireworks.Really? Safer than ever?In 1994, Weimer said, the United States imported 117 million pounds of fireworks, and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reported 12,500 fireworks-related injuries. By 2010,  fireworks imports grew more than 75 percent to 205.9 million pounds, but the number of fireworks-related injuries dropped by more than 30 percent to 8,600.This is phenomenal progress in safety, Weimer wrote, calling on Ohio's General Assembly to relax state laws and legalize consumer fireworks.PolitiFact Ohio looked at the law and checked the numbers.Ohio law, which now permits the use of only novelty and trick fireworks, is among the more restrictive nationally. Three other states have similar laws, and four ban all consumer fireworks. Forty-one states and Washington, D.C., allow some or all types of consumer fireworks permitted by federal regulations, according to the American Pyrotechnics Association.We found that Weimer's numbers, as reported by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and the American Pyrotechnics Association, a trade group, are accurate.The same day Weimers column was published, the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission, which set standards for consumer fireworks in 1976, issued its annual fireworks report last week. It confirmed the injury number Weimer used -- 8,600 for 2010.CPSC spokeswoman Nikki Fleming said the injury rate as measured by injuries per 100,000 persons has leveled off.The Massachusetts-based National Fire Protection Association takes the position that using consumer fireworks is simply not worth the risk, division manager Guy Colonna said.We don't seem to be trending that rapidly toward zero, he said of the injury numbers. Youhaven't moved the needle so much in terms of saying it's safe for consumers to use.The NFPA -- which coordinates the national Alliance to Stop Consumer Fireworks -- said in its annual report in June that there are more fires on a typical July 4th than any other day of the year, and that fireworks account for 40 percent.Colonna acknowledged statistics showing that the rate of injury per 100,000 pounds of imported fireworks has declined, but said it is still a significant number.The American Pyrotechnics Association, a trade group, cites the latter statistic. It shows that the rate of injuries dropped from 38 per 100,000 pounds of fireworks in 1976 to 7 in 2000 and to 4 per 100,000 pounds of fireworks in 2010.The trade group considers that significant because U.S. fireworks consumption has skyrocketed. It more than doubled between 2000, when the trade group says the trend in relaxing (state) consumer fireworks laws was first initiated, and 2011, when 212 million pounds were sold.The trade group credits safety education efforts and the ever improving quality of its products. It says that injuries and fires most typically result from illegal fireworks and from improper use, especially involving children.But does that mean that fireworks themselves are safer?We asked Weimer what he had to support his statement. He immediately credited the work of the CPSC and the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory.In the 1970s, the CPSC set federal requirements for consumer fireworks that cover cautionary labeling, the burn time of fuses, explosive powder content, stability for both ground-based and aerial devices and proper performance.In 1988, the CPSC started an inspection and enforcement program for Chinese-manufactured fireworks. China -- which now supplies 98 percent of the fireworks in the United States -- began exporting fireworks to this country in 1973.Initially, 75 percent of fireworks tested  by the CPSC failed to comply with the regulations.The quality truly wasn't very good, Weimer said. The quality was inconsistent. The industry knew that if it didn't so something there would be big issues.Working with the CPSC, importers established the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory to set additional, stricter requirements for consumer fireworks. The AFSL went to factories in China, conducted seminars, worked with manufacturers and started a testing program in China in 1994.The linchpin of the system is the testing, Weimer said.The testing is conducted by an independent laboratory hired from outside China by the AFSL. Each fireworks shipment is tested for compliance with 15 quality standards, Weimer said. If any standard is not met by any of the randomly selected cases, the entire case lot fails.In the program's first year, 1994, 36 percent of the random lots of tested fireworks were rejected. By 2002, that number was less than 10 percent. The compliance rate exceeded 90 percent.CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum, speaking at a symposium in China last January, noted that the agency has been working for years with manufacturers and with China's General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine.While AQSIQ and CPSC may work to improve product safety with somewhat different motivations, everyone benefits from the end result, which is improved product safety, she said, adding that we have increased the frequency, scope, and depth of our training in China.Weimer thinks that the availability of regulated consumer fireworks diminishes the use of the really lethal illegal and homemade variety.So what's the grand finale?PolitiFact Ohio is not ruling on the advisability of maintaining, relaxing or tightening Ohio laws regulating fireworks. And were not taking a position on whether consumer use of fireworks is even a good idea.Weimers statement addressed legal and proper use of fireworks by consumers -- not use of homemade or illegal products. And fireworks are -- as Weimer told us -- a product with risk associated with it.But, the statistical record shows that the rate of injury from fireworks declined nationally while their use increased dramatically, and while laws governing their consumer use loosened. There still are injuries, but the annual rate has plateaued even while consumption continues to grow.We found no stronger explanation than the concurrent regulatory and policing work of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory to make fireworks safer.Weimers claim is accurate. On the Truth-O-Meter it rates True. In February 2021, Pat Sajak's net worth was the subject of a misleading online advertisement. Sajak is, of course, well known as the host of the game show "Wheel of Fortune" since the early 1980s. The ad claimed "Pat Sajak's Net Worth Left His Family in Tears," and the accompanying picture was one of Sajak captured at a Los Angeles Lakers basketball game in 2018. Another ad display on the same page reported the same about former "Family Matters" actor Jaleel White, who portrayed nosy neighbor Steve Urkel on the sitcom: captured Family Matters Jaleel White,   A second, similar ad stated, "At Age 73, Pat Sajak Leaves Behind a Net Worth That Will Boggle Your Mind," with an accompanying picture that was taken in 2007: taken   However, there's no indication that Pat Sajak's net worth has left anyone in tears or with a "boggled" mind. Furthermore, the "Wheel of Fortune" game show host was still alive at the time these advertisements appeared.   Pat Sajak was not the first celebrity to be the subject of a misleading net worth advertisement. In fact, he wasn't even the first game show host to be featured in one of the "net worth left his family in tears" ads. We previously reported on a similar story for the late "Jeopardy" game show host Alex Trebek. Alex Trebek Other celebrities whose names and likenesses have been used in such misleading ads include Pierce Brosnan, Chuck Norris, Richard Gere, Clint Eastwood, and Sean Connery. Trebek and Connery both died in 2020, but the claims about their net worths leaving their families "in tears" was nothing more than a ploy by advertisers. Pierce Brosnan Chuck Norris Richard Gere Clint Eastwood Sean Connery Readers who clicked the net worth ads for Pat Sajak were led to a 233-page slideshow article in which Sajak didn't appear until page 94: page 94 PAT SAJAK  EST. $65 MILLION Television personality and talk show host Pat Sajak was born on October 26, 1946, in Chicago. When serving in the U.S. Army, he also hosted a musical show on American Forces Radio during the Vietnam War. After the war, Sajak anchored the five-minute newscast and a substitute weatherman at NBC. Many know him now as the host of the longtime running television game show "Wheel of Fortune." Pat Sajak is reportedly worth $65 million. Interestingly enough, Sajak shared that he grew up practically dirt poor with his parents, who eventually separated when he was young, being unable to afford even the most trivial items. He started as a DJ, and soon enough, ended up as a weatherman for KNBC-TV. In 1981, he was invited to host the television game show "Wheel of Fortune," and Sajak, to his credit, has been hosting it ever since. There has been no shortage of these strange net worth advertisements online. It's likely the misleading ads will continue to be displayed for other celebrities in the future  dead or alive. 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 On 7 April 2017 multiple web sites reported that President Trump owned stock in defense contractor Raytheon (RTN), thereby standing to personally profit from a U.S. military action strike he ordered that had launched some 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian air base the previous day. (Those missiles have an estimated replacement cost of $60 million.) profit replacement cost The headline in one of the more prominent articles of that nature held that "Trump owns stock in the Tomahawk missiles he used in Syria," although the body of the article only averred that Trump had once owned stock in Raytheon: headline In other words Trump just set a bunch of Tomahawk missiles on fire which, according to a recent Defense Department report, may have been worth as much as $93.8 million in total. Why would he do this? Well, he does own shares of stock in the company that makes the Tomahawks. Tomahawk missiles are manufactured by Raytheon Inc., and according to [a] report from Business Insider, Donald Trump owned stock in Raytheon up through at least the start of the presidential election cycle. There is no record that he subsequently sold that stock. Cited at least two links away from that article was a 15 July 2015 Federal Election Committee (FEC) document disclosing then-candidate Donald Trump's financial holdings prior to his election. Page 37 of that 2015 disclosure report listed Raytheon as one of Trump's assorted smaller holdings in 2015: two document  Line 23 of that July 2015 form also disclosed that that portion of Donald Trump's portfolio had a value of between $1,001 and $15,000 and brought him $201 or less in income:   Newer FEC disclosure forms for President Trump are available, including a similar May 2016 report: The 2016 Raytheon holding was reported as being within the same value range previously stated (i.e., between $1,001 and $15,000), but the listed income derived from it was slightly higher ($1,001 to $2,500):   If the stated holdings are accurate, it doesn't appear that President Trump stood to directly gain much, in anything (especially relative to his extant wealth), from Raytheon's market gain following the Syrian attack. According to MarketWatch, several other defense stocks also experienced modest bumps in their value immediately after the event: value Raytheon RTN, +0.25% the maker of the Tomahawk missiles that were used in the attack, was last up 0.8%, after jumping more than 3% in the premarket to lead S&P 500 gainers. Another defense stock, Lockheed Martin Corp. LMT, +0.28% rose 0.9%. L3 Technologies Inc. LLL, +1.78% gained 1.4% and Harris Corp. HRS, +0.62% was up 0.9%. General Dynamics Corp. was up 0.8% and Northrop Grumman Corp. NOC, +0.90% was up 0.7%.  A critical long-form piece published by the Atlantic examined President Trump's putative financial conflicts of interest in depth but did not mention Raytheon. examined Rumors that Donald Trump stood to profit off Raytheon stock due to the Syrian missile strike of 7 April 2017 were not the first of their kind. In November 2016, then-President Elect Trump was rumored to be profiting off Energy Transfer Partners's (ETP) Dakota Access Pipeline (completion of which he green-lighted as president), and in December 2016 he was said to hold stock in Carrier (with whom he had just negotiated a pre-inaugural deal). Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks asserted the President Elect sold off his minor stakes in ETP in mid-2016, and Trump's 2016 Personal Financial Disclosure did not include a listing for stock in United Technologies (Carrier's parent corporation). Dakota Access Pipeline Carrier asserted The White House has not responded to our request for comment on President Trump's defense stock holdings. Linnane, Ciara.  "Tomahawk Maker Raytheon, Defense Stocks Retreat from Highs Fueled by Syrian Strike."
  MarketWatch.  7 April 2017. Mufson, Steven.  "Trump Dumped His Stock in the Dakota Access Pipeline Owner Over the Summer."
  The Washington Post.  23 November 2016. Murphy, Olive.  "Trump Caught Profiting from Missiles Used in Syria  Stock Price Skyrockets."
  Bipartisan Report.  7 April 2017. Palmer, Bill.  "Donald Trump Owns Stock in the Tomahawk Missiles He Used in Syria."
  Palmer Report.  7 April 2017. Terrarosa, Tom.  "How Raytheon Really Stands to Gain from U.S. Missile Attack."
  TheStreet.  7 April 2017. Venook, Jeremy.  "Donald Trumps Conflicts of Interest: A Crib Sheet."
  The Atlantic.  7 April 2017. Walker, Hunter and Myles Udland.  "Here's What's In Donald Trump's Stock Portfolio."
  Business Insider.  22 July 2015. Walker, Hunter.  "Donald Trump Personal Financial Disclosure Report."
  Scribd.  22 July 2015  (page 37). The Dallas Morning News.  "Donald Trump Form 278E Disclosure 2016."
  14 June 2016  (page 37). 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 late April 2020, some social media users accused the White House of attempting to capitalize on the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic by selling commemorative coins through the "White House Gift Shop": accused   The U.S. government is not selling coronavirus commemorative coins via the White House Gift Shop. The LGBTQ Nation article mentioned in the above-displayed tweet is referring to the website WhiteHouseGiftShop.com. Although this website is selling coronavirus commemorative coins, and it does call itself the "White House Gift Shop," it is not officially affiliated with U.S. President Donald Trump, the U.S. government, or the White House.  coronavirus commemorative coins The LGBTQ Nation article acknowledges this in its closing paragraphs: article The White House Gift Shop is a controversial business that is only tangentially related to the actual White House. At one point it was affiliated with the Secret Service, but the trademark is held by a private individual, Anthony Giannini. Giannini describes himself as non-partisan, but admits he is a Trump supporter. When we reached out to Anthony Giannini, the owner of WhiteHouseGiftShop.com, he confirmed to us that the "White House is not selling coronavirus coins" and that the White House Gift Shop "is not affiliated with The White House, nor is The White House involved in any of our decisions, products, or operations." WhiteHouseGiftShop.com has a long and convoluted history that can reportedly be traced back to the Truman administration in the 1940s. Giannini told us that this gift shop program has gone through several iterations over the years and over time has become further removed from the U.S. government. In 2012, Giannini says, ownership of the White House Gift Shop was officially transferred to his corporation and in 2016 he was awarded a trademark for the White House Gift Shop name.  convoluted history While the WhiteHouseGiftShop.com may trace its history back to the 1940s, and while this organization may have been at one time affiliated with the U.S. government, as of this writing in 2020, the WhiteHouseGiftShop.com is a privately run website with no official connections to the White House.  Giannini said:  In 2012, USSS (United States Secret Service) agents and officers were no longer able to volunteer to staff The White House Gift Shop, the "only original official" White House Gift Shop in U.S. history. It was at this time that USSS/UDBF granted control and ultimately of WHGS to one of my own corporations consistent with all the normal transfer of rights and provenance. One logical reason for this transition was my historical role as the principal benefactor for many years to the USSS Uniformed Division Fund and the 24/7 days and nights I gave to assuring the preservation of this unique entity. From 2012 to 2016, we began the long journey of securing U.S. trademarks, primary, exclusive, to the use of the name the White House Gift Shop. Yes, we had to prove our historical relationship to the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. We accomplished this during the administration of President Barack Obama whose administration was gracious to WHGS. In 2016, we were granted primary, exclusive trademarks to the name the White House Gift Shop, Est. 1946 and the White House Gift Shop. The granting of trademark rights was based on the historical connection to The White House. For the first time in history, a private entity received trademark protections based on its association with The White House, as stated by some not so friendly writers relative to WHGS, writers, however, who never bothered to contact me. So, here we are, presently, operating WHGS without a break in service from its inception in 1946, its online presence in 1998, and for me, thru three administrations now, precedent, as it were. I have personally created gifts for former presidents both Democrat and Republican. It should also be noted that all of the proceeds from these coronavirus commemorative coins, according to Giannini, will be donated to COVID-19 research hospitals and the NYPD. coronavirus commemorative coins Giannini told us that he created the "World Vs Virus" COVID-19 commemorative coins to raise money for John Hopkins Hospital where his wife, Helen, is being treated for leukemia.  Giannini wrote: Two months ago, we realized she would be fighting for her life with blood cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.... It is for the above reasons that I was moved to create the COVID-19 memorial coin, WORLD vs VIRUS  with every penny of proceeds donated to Johns Hopkins, two other medical research centers, and some donations to LE first responders. [...] The coin is now nearly sold-out. When accounts settle in May, we will donate $100,000.00 of which Johns Hopkins Medical Center will be a principal recipient. I have watched her medical team, led by pioneer bone marrow transplant expert, Dr. Richard J. Jones, MD, Director of Bone Marrow Transplant at Kimmel Cancer Center - protect her as soldiers protect civilians, in her case, from the onslaught of COVID-19 and the worst possible blood cancer that strikes tens of thousands of children even more than adults. I pray the coin sells-out tonight to get these funds to America's real heroes. In short, the website WhiteHouseGiftShop.com is truly selling COVID-19 commemorative coins. However, although this website may have a historical connection to the White House, is it not currently affiliated with the president, the United States government, or the White House.  Official commemorative coins are produced by the United States Mint. A variety of coins are scheduled to be released this year, including one celebrating American Samoa and a set dedicated to the Founding Fathers, but the U.S. Mint has not announced any coins to "commemorate" the COVID-19 pandemic.  scheduled Umble, Chad.  "From 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to Warwick Center: How the White House Gift Shop wound up in Lititz."
  Lancaster Online.  27 May 2019. Marshall, Josh.  "White House Gift Shop, TPM Investigation Continues!"
  Talking Points Memo.  25 May 2018. Browning, Bill.  "The White House Gift Shop is Selling Coronavirus Commemorative Coins Now."
  LGBTQ Nation.  29 April 2020.