Incorrect, the former NFL quarterback John Elway is not financially destitute.
In January 2022, an online advertisement showed a picture of former Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway next to the words, "Iconic NFL Players Who Went Broke." online advertisement  The ad was misleading clickbait.  The ad led to a slideshow article on MoneyWise.com that again featured the same photograph of Elway. The headline read, "These Iconic NFL Players Lost It All." article It wasn't until the last page of the long story that Elway was featured. However, it said nothing of him running out of money and going "broke." last page Instead, it referenced that, in 2010, Elway fell victim to a Ponzi scheme by a hedge fund manager named Sean Michael Mueller. The Associated Press reported that "he and a business partner gave Mueller $15 million," and that Mueller was later sentenced to 40 years in prison. fell victim to a Ponzi scheme reported The last page of the MoneyWise.com article also mentioned an ABC News article from 2016 that reported Elway missed out on a potentially huge investment opportunity in 1998. Had he signed a deal with the Broncos to buy an ownership stake in the team, his investment might have been worth around $388 million by the year 2015, potentially a "646 percent return on the 1998 investment, adjusted for inflation." an ABC News article As of early 2022, the former NFL great was employed as the president of football operations for the Broncos and had previously held the title of the team's general manager. the team's general manager There was no evidence that Elway was broke, nor did the lengthy MoneyWise.com article mention any such thing. 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
If there was one success story to emerge from the International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa, it was that more people are getting treated for HIV/AIDS than ever before -- about 17 million by the latest United Nations estimate. Falling drug prices played a key role in helping providers reach this point. But the international health group Doctors Without Borders (Mdecins Sans Frontires) warned at a press conference that trade negotiations around the world put future gains at risk. The group saidits latest reportexamines multiple global threats to access to affordable treatment, including trade deals which threaten Indias role as the pharmacy of the developing world. Trade is at the center of the U.S. presidential election for its effect on the American work force. But is there more at play? We wondered if its true that the next round of agreements, both those that involve the United States and those that dont, would undermine some large drug makers in India. Why India India matters because thanks to the countrys patent laws, India and generics go together like toast and jam. The rules there make it easier than other places for companies to churn out generic drugs once the patent on the original version runs out. Generics are cheaper than their brand name cousins and if you want to stretch a dollar, you take the generic option. Doctors Without Borders said97 percent of the drugs it uses to treat people with HIV are generics made in India. That includes medicines for HIV itself, as well as for diseases like pneumonia and tuberculosis that hit people with suppressed immune systems. Doctors Without Borders is worried less about the drugs it uses today and more about the ones its counting on in the future. As the number of people coming in for treatment rises, doctors are finding more who dont respond to the most common, or first-line, medications. Doctors Without Borders is focused on making second-and-third-line drugs more affordable to keep pace with a growing need, and they see India as the place to make that happen. Impact of trade deals Although the Trans-Pacific Partnership gets a lot of attention in the United States, India is not part of it. But it is part of discussions involving the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, a mega-regional pact that aims to tie together 16 countries including China, India, Australia, Japan, South Korea and many other Asian nations. The European Union is also seeking a regional trade agreement with India and other Asian countries. Both of those trade negotiations have sought to get India to tighten its patent laws. The United States has too, through a one-on-one process overseen by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The issues that office has raised mirror ones in the big trade deals. The USTRslatest reportcriticizes Indias patent laws, saying the pharmaceutical industry in particular faces a host of challenges related to intellectual property rights. What do U.S. trade negotiators not like in particular? For one, India is reluctant to grant new patents for a drug or blend of drugs built around medications that already enjoy patent protection. These so-called secondary patents extend the time for the drug maker to enjoy exclusive production rights. That translates into a chance to charge higher prices. American officials also dont care for Indias rules on clinical trial information. When someone invents a drug, they have to prove its safe and effective. That proof is in the trial reports. India lets generic drug makers rely on the original clinical trials. One way to extend the exclusive right to make a drug is to bar generic drug makers from using that data for a number of years. Would these sorts of changes make life easier for the makers of new drugs and harder for the generic manufacturers? We found no dispute that they would. We talked with independent experts who think India should stand its ground and those who thought it ought to bend, but either way, they agreed on who wins and who loses. There are good arguments on both sides for protecting the profits of companies that invent new drugs, versus making drugs more affordable. We take no position on the larger question of where the right balance point falls. We're focused only on the claim that large trading partners want to move Indian law in favor of the inventors of new drugs. Lee Branstetter is a professor and trade specialist at Carnegie Mellon University. He thinks Indian law ought to change at the expense of the generic companies. In the short run, this will constrain the profit opportunities for the generic producers, he told us. Srividhya  Ragavan, a professor of law at Texas A&M, thinks Indias laws strike the right balance as they are. She told us she sees the U.S. position as an effort to weaken Indias generic drug industry. We found anynumberofarticlesthat reached the same conclusion. But just because Branstetter and Ragavan see eye to eye on how these policy shifts would undermine generic drug makers, that doesn't mean they agree on what this means for the availability of low-cost drugs. Ragavan told us the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and EUs trade negotiations, are all targeting Indias generic drug industry much to the detriment of access to medication to the poor people. Branstetter said thats unlikely and highlights an important feature in the overarching trade rules of the World Trade Organization. The escape hatch Branstetter said based on what hes seen in other countries (he cited Peru as an example) he doubts that would happen. But even if it did, he said, a part of the WTO code -- theDoha Declaration on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Agreement-- gives countries the chance to override a patent that limits a drugs availability. Branstetter calls it an escape hatch. Any member state could declare we have a public health emergency, Branstetter said. Then, they can force the company that holds the patent to licence the manufacture of that drug to a domestic or foreign drug producer, who would provide it at an agreed price. Branstetter notes that the Trans-Pacific Partnershipspecifically requiresany country that signs it to accept that Doha declaration. Countries have taken thisstep before. At the height of the AIDS crisis in the mid 2000s, Indonesia, Malaysia, Ghana, Mozambique and many others issued what are called compulsory licenses to get affordable HIV/AIDS drugs to their citizens. Still, Rohit Malpani, director of policy of the Doctors Without Borders- Access Campaign, told us that in recent years, the number of compulsory licenses has fallen off. Even if countries have the right to use the safeguard and can use them they do not, Malpani said. He suggested several reasons, including a lack of political will and pressure from the United States, the EU and the drug companies. Our ruling Doctors Without Borders said that trade deals threaten the capacity of Indian generic drug makers to produce the next round of HIV drugs. We found that trade negotiations, whether part of large regional trade agreements or unilateral discussions between the United States and India, have language that work against India generic drug makers. They push India to be more ready to grant patents for drugs that are extensions of  drugs that already enjoy patent protection. And they want India to bar generic drug makers from relying on the clinical trial data produced by the inventor of the drug. Both measures would make patents last longer and give the drug companies more time to charge higher prices. None of the articles we read or experts we reached doubted this result or that this would undermine the generic drug makers. Our experts disagreed on whether this would reduce access to critical drugs. The trade deals do no favors for Indias generic drug makers. With a caveat about future access to drugs, we rate this claim Mostly True. The above-displayed image is a genuine photograph of President Obama conversing with some of his staff in the Oval Office with his feet up on his desk. However, most of the accompanying text that was reproduced with this image was contrived and subjective invective intended to stir up partisan outrage: It is true that in some parts of the world showing the bottom of one's shoes (even accidentally) is considered rude, but it isn't true of American culture, nor do the areas where it does hold true (primarily the Middle East, Korea, Thailand, some parts of Africa) comprise anything close to "over half of the cultures of the world." Thailand This posture is not the norm, perhaps, but it's far from "absolutely never done." Take, for example, this anecdote from a book about one of American's most prominent business executives, Apple's late co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs: Bill Curley, a middle-aged Apple marketing manager, remembers this incident from his very first week on the job at Apple. "I was at a meeting with [Apple CEO Steve] Jobs and several other managers, and he is in shorts, running shoes, and no socks. He's disagreeing with a guy, so he kicks off his shoes and puts his bare feet on the table. He framed the guy's face with his feet." An executive's kicking his feet up on a desk or table is an action that can be regarded quite differently in varying contexts: Doing so in the middle of a staff meeting might be regarded as demonstrating rudeness, arrogance, or disrespect; on the other hand, doing so at the end of a long, hard workday while engaging in friendly chit-chat with a few subordinates might be perceived as showing oneself to be a warm, folksy, regular ol' guy. If a U.S. President's putting his feet up on the Oval Office desk is an indication that "he thinks of himself as a king" and should be "inundated" with mail "demanding he stop desecrating his office," then we seem to have missed the boat on that issue  identical actions by President Obama's predecessors in the White House provoked no such outrage, as demonstrated by the following unremarked-upon photographs of Presidents George W. Bush and Gerald Ford: This photograph became the subject of renewed interest after President Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway was photographed kneeling with her feet on an Oval Office couch. kneeling 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 On March 11, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion stimulus package to provide relief to Americans who have been struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the days leading up to this bill's passage, a number of Republican lawmakers and pundits criticized the bill, arguing that only 9% of the relief package had anything to do with COVID-19.  signed Conservative author Melisa Tate, for example, wrote on Twitter that the bill "only gives 9% to the American people" while the rest went to politicians and their cronies. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said that she voted against the "COVID relief" bill because "only 9% of this bill is COVID-related" while "the rest is allocated to liberal pet projects and blue state bailouts." Twitter voted against   The claim that only 9% of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan is going to COVID relief is largely false. The vast majority of this bill will provide financial relief to people, businesses, and governments who have struggled during the COVID-19 pandemic.  The argument that only 9% of the measure will go to COVID relief appears to be an exaggeration of the fact that the American Rescue Plan will provide approximately $160 billion (about 8.5% of the total) for testing, protective gear, vaccine production and distribution, and other measures to directly combat the virus. $160 billion (about 8.5% of the total) for testing While it's true that only about 9% of this bill goes to fighting the virus directly, that figure does not include the vast majority of funds aimed at providing financial relief to those who have struggled through the pandemic. For example, the 9% does not include the most famous part of the American Rescue Plan, the $1,400 stimulus checks for individuals, which is expected to amount to around $400 billion (or about 21% of the total). This 9% figure also doesn't account for items such as unemployment insurance, a child tax care credit, funding for schools to re-open, rent assistance, and other measures aimed at providing relief to Americans.  $400 billion account for items Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, told NPR that there were two parts to the American Rescue Plan. The first dealt with combating COVID directly, while the second aimed at dealing with the financial crisis that resulted from the pandemic: NPR "There are really two pieces to this bill. One is directly related to the health crisis, but the other, and the larger piece, is related to the economic crisis that the health crisis has created." The vast majority of the American Rescue Plan is concerned with providing relief to people, businesses, and governments that have suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, about $300 billion (or 15% of the bill) "is spent on long-standing policy priorities that are not directly related to the current crisis." In other words, about 85% of the bill is related specifically to the impacts of COVID-19.  Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget In short: The American Rescue Plan is a multi-faceted, $1.9 trillion to bill that provides financial relief to those struggling during the COVID-19 pandemic. While it's true that only 9% of this funding will be used to directly combat the virus (via vaccine distribution and other health measures), this bill provides relief to Americans in several other ways. The $1,400 COVID-19 relief checks, for example, account for more than 20% of this $1.9 trillion bill. In April 2021, as Florida congressman Matt Gaetz was being investigated for lewd and potentially illegal behavior involving underage women, some social media users started to mockingly share a picture of Gaetz with unusually tall hair: investigated   This is not a genuine image of Gaetz' hair.  It comes from a July 2020 hearing before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee concerning the online dominance of companies such as Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple. Here's a genuine screenshot of Gaetz from this hearing (left) and the doctored image (right). It's clear that the height of his hair was embellished in the fake image. House Judiciary Committee   A video of the full "Online Platforms and Market Power: Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google" hearing can be seen below. Gaetz speaks several times during this hearing. He can be glimpsed, for example, around the 3:03:00 mark: You knew it wouldn't take long for the hug to get some love during Sunday's debate between Republicans Marco Rubio and Charlie Crist. Minutes into the 40-minute Florida Senate Showdown, Rubio made a case that he'll stand up to President Barack Obama's agenda and Crist won't.Everyone knows that you won't stand up to the Obama agenda because just a year ago you were campaigning for it, the former House speaker said, referring to Feb. 10, 2009, when Crist embraced the president at a Fort Myers campaign event for the federal stimulus package.We've fact-checked several claims about Crist's support for the stimulus. Indeed, he earned a Pants on Fire rating for sayinghe didn't endorse it.So it was a Rubio comment later in the program that drew our attention.FOX News Sundayhost Chris Wallace asked Rubio, Why is $8 billion and 87,000 jobs bad for a state that has 12 percent unemployment?Well ... if it's bad for America, it can't possibly be good for your state, Rubio said. Let me tell you why the stimulus has failed. The stimulus has failed because since that famous day in February where the governor campaigned with Barack Obama on behalf of the stimulus program, 211,000 Floridians have lost their jobs.211,000 is a big number, so we wanted to check Rubio's facts.Conveniently, the state'sAgency for Workforce Innovationreleased areporton state employment figures just two days before the debate. In it, Florida's record 12.2 percent unemployment rate is announced, along with many statistics on the state's jobs picture, including year-over-year numbers from February 2009, the month Crist campaigned with Obama.The report shows Florida had 8,356,000 jobs in February 2009 and 8,125,000 in February 2010, the difference being 231,000. These are the seasonally adjusted numbers for the civilian population.However, if you look at seasonally adjusted nonagricultural employment --- a less-inclusive number --- you see the basis for Rubio's claim. There the job loss in a year's time is 211,500.It's the latter number that the Rubio campaign points to. Spokesman Alberto Martinez also shared a report from House Way and Means Republicans that seeks to highlight the stimulus as a job-killer, rather than a job creator, where Florida is said to have lost 240,400 jobs since the stimulus passed.Like any statistics, these are easily sliced and diced to make the key point. But Rubio is very close to the precise number, and in fact, he underestimates it slightly when his point is that Florida has lost a lot of jobs. So we rule this one True. The troubling history of a society ball for young debutantes has come under scrutiny through an unlikely figure  Kimmy Schmidt. No, not fictional Kimmy Schmidt, who was rescued from a cult in the popular Netflix show, but the actor who played her. Ellie Kemper, known for her roles in Bridesmaids, The Office, and Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, was at the center of an internet controversy when someone found old photographs of her winning a title at a debutante ball allegedly linked to a white supremacist group in her home city of St. Louis, Missouri. center According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in 1999, Kemper won the title of Queen of Love and Beauty at the "Veiled Prophet Ball," an annual event for debutantes, that was organized by a society known as the Veiled Prophet Organization (VPO). The ball still takes place in December every year, except in 2020 on account of the pandemic. takes place We found the original clippings from the newspaper in 1999:     The VPO was reportedly co-founded in 1878 by a former Confederate officer and historically excluded Black and Jewish people. Originally intended as a celebration for the citys wealthy, the Veiled Prophet Ball and the events surrounding it were, according to one historian, meant to reinforce the elites values over working class activism in the city. The VPO only admitted Black members in 1979. co-founded Twitter users also honed in on an image depicting a Veiled Prophet from 1878, which shows a person wearing a white costume and a pointed hat. The image was eerily similar to the white robes and hood worn by the white supremacist organization the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Many started calling Kemper the KKK princess alleging ties between the VPO and the KKK and highlighting the racist history behind the VPOs activities. image Ku Klux Klan  We learned that while the group does have a troubling history of racial discrimination within the organization, there is no clear evidence tying the group to the KKK. While Kemper did participate and win a title at the ball in 1999, there is also no evidence that she herself harbors racist beliefs. We reached out to representatives for Kemper for comment and will update this post if we get any more information. Below, we break down the history of the VPO, the ball, and the claims made about Kemper. It began in 1878, when a group of prominent businessmen formed an organization that instituted an annual ball and parade, which was presided over by a mysterious Veiled Prophet. This was usually one member of the organization in disguise, whose identity was not meant to be revealed. The parade ostensibly was meant to generate pride and interest in St. Louis as a prominent city. At the ball, daughters of Veiled Prophet members were presented and the Veiled Prophet would select one to reign as the Queen of Love and Beauty. formed The idea for this organization is commonly attributed to two brothers, Confederate Colonel Alonzo Slayback and his brother, Charles Slayback, a Confederate cavalryman. According to an essay in The Common Reader, a monthly publication by Washington University in St. Louis, the Veiled Prophet was drawn from a poem by Thomas Moore titled The Story of the Veiled Prophet of Khorassan, found in the book of poetry Lalla Rookh, published in 1817. The prophet in the poem is a wealthy man from the East, who is rewarded with opulent receptions wherever he goes. attributed The Common Reader Academics interpret the Veiled Prophet of the poem as a symbol of moral depravity, however, who rapes and corrupts the beautiful and virtuous high priestess Zelica, allegedly the inspiration for the Queen of Love and Beauty. interpret The Veiled Prophet in St. Louis, according to a book the organization published in 1928, is meant to be a beloved despot, evasive but real, who rules with an iron hand encased in velvet. The organizations interpretation of the Veiled Prophet showed him as a symbol of moral rectitude. published According to historian Thomas Spencers book The St. Louis Veiled Prophet Celebration: Power on Parade, 1877-1995, the parade was the business elites response to the workers strike of 1877, meant to awe the masses towards passivity with its symbolic show of power. The St. Louis Veiled Prophet Celebration: Power on Parade, 1877-1995, But it was civil rights protests from the 1960s to the 1980s that made people of the city perceive the parade and ball as wasteful and conspicuous consumption. Black activists with the Action Committee to Improve Opportunities for Negroes (ACTION) protested the events. An integrated group with Black leadership and white members who helped them get access to spaces normally off limits to minorities, the group carried out direct action protests, and sought economic justice through more jobs for minorities. By protesting the parade and ball, they were targeting big businessmen and corporations. perceive protested They also held parody balls which mocked the largely white Veiled Prophet events and crowned a Black Queen of Human Justice. In 1972, ACTION even managed to infiltrate a ball through three white women members who obtained tickets. According to The Common Reader: parody balls infiltrate The Common Reader As one woman shouted Down with the VP! another swung down from the balcony on a cable to the stage (the fall crushed three of her ribs). She told an official that she had fallen, and managed to sneak on stage, standing right next to the seated Veiled Prophet. She pulled the veil from his face, and then was quickly rushed offstage by the Bengal Lancers, the VPs protective guard. The VP, a Monsanto executive vice president, put his crown and veil back on, and the ball proceeded as usual. During this period of civil rights protests, the parade avoided Black neighborhoods on its route. ACTION's ultimate goal was to pressure business leaders to give jobs to more Black people. Members of ACTION also lay down in front of parade floats, chained themselves to floats and distributed leaflets, and reportedly picketed the balls with signs like VEILED PROFIT$ or VP=KKK. Percy Green, an activist behind ACTION said of the Veiled Prophet ball, parade, and the businessmen involved, "No wonder these people dont hire Blacks because they are socially involved in these all-white organizations [...]."  avoided pressure lay down said Indeed, the organization remained primarily white until 1979 when it admitted its first Black members, who were three doctors. Older members reportedly insisted that the doctors were admitted because they had earned their place among the elite. insisted We reached out to the modern-day VPO. A spokesperson described the ball as "a venue to introduce young ladies, generally in their sophomore year of college, to the St. Louis community and instill the value of community service. During the preceding summer, the debutants and their families contribute more than 3,500 hours of volunteer time to countless service projects coordinated through the Veiled Prophet Community Service Initiative to participate in the Ball." Rumors of a connection with the KKK grew from the first available image of a Veiled Prophet from an 1878 issue of the Missouri Republican, which shows a figure dressed in white robes with a pointed cap. image   The image does not actually indicate the VPO was connected to the KKK. The KKK did not use this uniform until the early 1900s, when the 1915 film The Birth of a Nation depicted the white robes and hoods. Around 1921, the KKK was mass-producing similar white robes and hoods, decades after this particular image. did not Since that first image, the Veiled Prophets outfits have varied, as seen in these photographs of the celebrations over decades. The outfits include elaborate robes that are more reminiscent of the Popes regalia. This does not, however, discount the role of the VPO in perpetuating exclusionary practices over the course of its history. photographs A spokesperson for the VPO denied any connection to racist organizations. The source did not initially respond to our queries about their exclusionary policy that admitted Black members into the organization as late as 1979. In a statement, the group said: The VP organization is dedicated to civic progress, economic contributions and charitable causes in St. Louis. Our organization believes in and promotes inclusion, diversity and equality for this region. We absolutely reject racism and have never partnered or associated with any organization that harbors these beliefs. The VPO told us, "Membership in the organization is open to men of all backgrounds and experiences. The organization is committed to diversity and actively seeks members with an interest in community service and a commitment to making St. Louis a better place to live for all." It is inaccurate to refer to Kemper as a KKK princess given that the VPO itself has no known ties to the KKK, even though its role in systems that uphold racism cannot be discounted. The ball and parade have continued in a range of forms since then. The organization today is commonly referred to as the Veiled Prophet Organization (VPO). According to a statement the group sent us and its website, VPO carries out volunteer work and donates to numerous causes: website We are proud of our commitment to support civic St. Louis for 143 years, including: Annually hosting dozens of community service projects and donating tens of thousands of dollars and service hours to support a variety of charity partners to create a stronger, more equitable and prosperous St. Louis, including: Beyond Housing, Mission: St. Louis, Missouri Veterans Endeavor, North Side Community School, Promise Community Homes, Brightside St. Louis, Forest Park Forever, and many others. Making many significant infrastructure and cultural gifts to the City, including lighting of the Eads Bridge, the Mississippi River Overlook and the mile-long Riverfront Promenade, and partnering in providing the Grand Staircase beneath the Arch as part of the National Park System and to the irrigation system as part of Forest Park Forever. Hosting two major free events in St. Louis, including Americas Birthday Parade and Fair St. Louis. Both events reflect the diversity of the St. Louis community and include a wide variety of partners  such as PrideFest and the Annie Malone Parade. Kemper came from a wealthy and influential banking family, and she has talked about her upbringing, saying she had a had a very privileged, nice, warm childhood. Her relationship to the organization, which still appears to be influential in St. Louis cultural and social landscape, can be attributed to her social standing and family history. While she may have certainly benefited from her background and privilege, it does not indicate that she is actively a part of upholding racist systems and beliefs. came from On June 7, 2021, Kemper addressed the controversy in a statement on her Instagram account:   She added:  I unequivocally deplore, denounce, and reject white supremacy. At the same time, I acknowledge that because of my race and my privilege, I am the beneficiary of a system that has dispensed unequal justice and unequal rewards. There is a very natural temptation when you become the subject of internet criticism, to tell yourself that your detractors are getting it all wrong. But at some point last week, I realized that a lot of the forces behind the criticism are forces that I've spent my life supporting and agreeing with. I believe strongly in the values of kindness, integrity and inclusiveness. I try to live my life in accordance with these values. If my experience is an indication that organizations and institutions with pasts that fall short of these beliefs should be held to account, then I have to see this experience in a positive light. Soon after Kemper made her statement, VPO sent us an additional statement, addressing their history of racism and exclusion: Upon reflection, the Veiled Prophet Organization acknowledges our past and recognizes the criticism levied our way. We sincerely apologize for the actions and images from our history. Additionally, our lack of cultural awareness was and is wrong. We are committed to change, allowing our actions to match the organization we are today. The VP Organization of today categorically rejects racism, in any form. Todays VP is committed to diversity and equity in our membership, community service initiatives and support for the region. Our hope is that moving forward, the community sees us for who we are today and together we can move this region forward for everyone. We are, and always will be committed to the success of the region and making St Louis a better place to live for all. The organization itself has no known connection to the KKK but did uphold exclusionary and racist policies within its ranks. It was also a target of protests by the civil rights movement. Kemper participated and won a title in the annual ball, decades after it admitted its first Black members. While the ball and organization play a role in a long history of racism in the United States, which implicates many institutions, there is no evidence tying this group to the KKK, nor any evidence that Kemper is actively racist herself. As such, we rate this claim a Mixture. June 2, 2021: Updated with ACTION's Percy Green quote.  June 3, 2021: Updated with VPO's additional comments. June 8, 2021: Updated with Ellie Kemper's statement, and a follow up statement from the VPO. Claim:  A new White House policy eliminates combat pay for U.S. military personnel "unless they are being shot at."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2012] Obama pulls combat pay from service personnel.  President Obama's latest policy outrage makes no attempt to hide his contempt for our military, as he is ordering that our troops serving overseas in war zones overseas are not to receive combat pay unless they are being shot at. A Marine who lives in Florida has just posted a note on Facebook which stated that he received a letter from his MyPay account that he would only be receiving his Hazard pay (Imminent Danger Pay) if he is actually in a hostile area and at risk of being shot at. So I just got a letter from MyPay (the way we get paid in the military), saying that I will only reason Combat Pay while deployed for the days that I take fire or am in a hostile area. Now, as an Infantry Marine, I'm constantly in a combat zone  it may not always be popping off, but for them to take that away from us is bullshit. Now, the aviation tech who sits on Camp Leatherneck, sure, I can see him not getting Combat Pay, but to take it away from the grunts, the ground pounders, the front line of defense ... come on, Uncle Sam. You let the Liberals win a big one here  Florida Marine Corp Soldier  Origins:  This item about the elimination of imminent danger pay (also known as "combat pay" or "hostile fire pay") for all U.S. military personnel save for those who are "being shot at" includes some truth and a good deal of mischaracterization.  It references a policy change that took place back in February 2012 not as an "order from President Obama," but rather with the implementation of the sprawling 2012 National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress: National Defense Authorization Act The first major overhaul in hostile fire pay since World War II has been ordered by a Senate committee in a plan that would pay troops based on their actual number of days in a hostile area rather than a flat monthly rate. Approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee as part of the 2012 defense authorization bill, S 1254, the provision would convert the current $225 for hostile fire and imminent danger pay, paid for any month in which a person spends any time in a designated zone, to a new prorated payment of $7.50 for each day spent in a designated danger zone. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a Vietnam combat veteran and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee's personnel panel, called the change a "basic accounting measure to ensure that individuals receive hostile fire or imminent danger pay only for the time they spend in qualifying areas." Webb said ground combat troops will see "minimal impact" from the change "as they are stationed full time in the qualifying areas." In effect, all members of the U.S. military continue to receive imminent danger pay (IDP) for serving in areas "where members are subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions," whether or not they are actually "shot at."  The change that came about in February 2012 was that previously service members received a flat monthly payment ($225) for each month in which they spent any time at all in an imminent danger pay area; instead, they are now paid a per diem rate of $7.50 for each day they actually spend in such areas.  Service members who come under fire still receive the full monthly hostile fire pay amount regardless of where they are serving. As described by the Air Force Times, the reasoning behind the change in policy was as follows: Beginning with Feb. 15 [2012] paychecks, troops will be paid only for the actual days they spend in a qualifying danger pay location, Pentagon officials said. Under the previous policy, troops who spent any portion of a month in a danger pay location received full monthly danger pay of $225. The proration amounts to $7.50 per day. So, for example, if an airman spends only 10 days of the month in an eligible area, he will have only $75 in IDP added to his paycheck. The change would fall mostly on rear-echelon and headquarters staff whose occasional and short visits to a hostile area, such as attending a change-of-command ceremony in Afghanistan, had provided them the same $225 monthly hostile fire pay that went to the front-line airmen or soldiers facing imminent danger every day of the month. Because changes of command often happen on the first day of a month, someone arriving May 31 to attend a June 1 ceremony previously drew $450  two months of danger pay. Those one- or two-day visitors benefited from what ground combat troops had derisively called "sightseer pay." The change was designed mainly to prevent people who briefly visit a combat or danger zone from receiving the same pay as someone assigned to a deployed unit. Under the previous rules, a person could schedule a visit to an eligible area on the last day of one month, depart the next day and collect two full months of danger pay. Exceptions will be made for troops who are "exposed to a hostile fire incident." Regardless of location, those troops will receive a monthly payment of $225. A 2 February 2012 Armed Forces Press Service release explained the implementation of the new policy:  release Service members now will receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas, Pentagon officials said. The change, which took effect [1 February 2012], was included in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which President Barack Obama signed into law Dec. 31. "Members will see the prorated amount in their Feb. 15 pay records," Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. John Kirby said. The act called for DOD to pay service members imminent danger pay only for the time they spend in areas that qualify for the pay. In the past, service members received $225 per month if they spent any time that month in an area where the pay was authorized. "This is a more targeted way of handling that pay," Kirby said. Now, service members will receive $7.50 a day for days spent in these areas. Personnel who travel to the designated areas for periods less than 30 days should  keep track of the number of days they are in the area to verify that they are paid for the correct number of days, officials said. The military services are working to waive or remit debts for members who may have been overpaid for January, officials said. The services can waive this "when there is no indication of fraud, fault, misrepresentation, or when members were unaware they were overpaid," Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said. Proration is based on a 30-day month, which translates into a rate of $7.50 per day. It does not matter if the month is 28 or 31 days long, officials explained; if service members serve in affected areas for the complete month, they will receive the full rate of $225 per month. The Defense Department defines imminent danger pay areas as places where members are subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions. Service members who come under fire, regardless of location, will receive the full monthly hostile-fire pay amount of $225. Service members will receive notification of the change via emails, on the MyPay system, on social media sites and via the chain of command. Last updated:  31 December 2013    Tighman, Andrew.  "New Danger Pay Rules Begin."   Air Force Times.  7 February 2012. Claim:  The federal government is preventing Volkswagen's XL1 model car from being sold in the U.S. because the vehicle is too fuel-efficient.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] Volkswagen's New 300 MPG Car Not Allowed In America Because It Is Too Efficient Would like to know of the article is valid. Origins:  For many years conspiracy rumors have circulated positing that a collusion between Big Oil and the U.S. government has prevented the American public from having the opportunity to purchase fully developed, market-ready automobiles capable of obtaining fuel efficiencies of 200-300 MPG.  Such rumors have taken the form of everything from mysterious forces stealing cars equipped with miracle carburetors to keep that technology's existence a secret, to the federal government's enacting regulations intended for the sole purpose of keeping high-mileage vehicles out of the U.S. market in order to protect the interests (and profits) of American oil companies. miracle carburetors high-mileage April 2014 saw the emergence of yet another entry in this vein, courtesy of Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist (the same "journalist" who promulgated the ridiculous story about a passenger on missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 who supposedly hid his cell phone in his rectum and used it to post a picture to the Internet after the flight was hijacked), positing that Volkswagen has a terrific 300 MPG vehicle that only costs $60,000 all ready to go, but it can't be sold (or even seen) in America because politicians in the pay of oil companies are conspiring to keep it unknown and unsellable in the U.S.: Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist ridiculous You won't find the 300 MPG Volkswagen XL1 in an American showroom, in fact it has even been denied a tour of America because it is too efficient for the American public to be made widely aware of, and oil profits are too high in America with the status quo in place. No tour has been allowed for this car because the myth that 50 mpg is virtually impossible to obtain from even a stripped down econobox is too profitable to let go of, and when it comes to corporate oil profits, ignorance is bliss. The answer is obvious. Simply for the sake of raking in huge profits from $4 a gallon gas, getting guzzled at 10X the rate it should be, the corporations have via campaign contributions and other types of pay outs succeeded in getting the FED to legislate the best cars off the road for irrelevant trumped up reasons.  Even after being hand made with "exotic" materials in an intentionally limited edition, the Xl1 still only costs $60,000. There is a lot more of a market for this car than 2,000 units at that price, have no doubt, this car is being held back on purpose. In this case the vehicle in question is the Volkswagen XL1, a two-person,  "one-liter" concept car (i.e., a vehicle capable of averaging 100 km per liter of fuel, or about 235 MPG) originally shown to the public back in 2002 and modified (and renamed) several times since over the intervening years.  The latest unveiled version of the XL1, already put into production, is a plug-in diesel-electric hybrid described thusly by Green Car Reports: XL1 Green Car Reports The Volkswagen XL1 is a plug-in diesel hybrid with a body seemingly beamed in from a future time. It's the physical representation of the benefits of reducing weight and improving aerodynamics. The small body may only take two people, but it's allowed for an incredibly streamlined body with a drag coefficient of only 0.189. Low weight  only 1,752 lbs  means only a small engine and electric motor is needed to deliver respectable performance. Much of the car is constructed from carbon fiber, aluminum and titanium. VW says the car will do 261 mpg, though the real figure will be lower than that should it ever be tested under EPA guidelines. Even so, it'll still use comfortably less fuel than any vehicle currently on sale. A diesel engine of only 0.8 liters and 2 cylinders capacity produces 47 horsepower, with a further 27 horses delivered by the electric motor. Power reaches the wheels via a 7-speed dual-clutch gearbox. Those figures sound miniscule by modern standards, but the XL1 should reach 62 mph in 12.7 seconds. Top speed is 98 mph. Operating alone, the small battery can deliver up to 31 miles of range, and can be charged via plug or regenerative effect. It's true that very few, if any, Volkswagen XL1s will likely be seen on U.S. roads in the immediate future, but that situation will be due to a confluence of factors that does not include a government/Big Oil conspiracy to keep them out of the U.S. First of all, it's not true that the XL1 has "been denied a tour of America because  it is too efficient for the American public to be made widely aware of."  Existing safety and traffic regulations do limit where the current XL1 models can be legally driven in public roads in the U.S., but Volkswagen has taken at least three of the vehicles on tour around the U.S., and the staff of Jalopnik drove one around Manhattan at the end of 2013. Jalopnik Second, the primary reason the XL1 won't be seen in the U.S. anytime soon is that Volkswagen is only producing 200 units for retail sale (not 2,000 as claimed above), all of them to be sold in Europe via some sort of selection (i.e., lottery) process.     200 units But why only 200 cars?  And why only in Europe? As for the first part, the answer is that new vehicles like the XL1 are expensive to develop and produce (and therefore expensive for consumers to afford), and similar forms of automobiles have not yet met with tremendous success on the commercial market, so any automotive company that puts such a model into full-blown production risks sinking a whole lot of money into something that may not sell well at all (especially in the U.S. market, where consumers have very different expectations and preferences than European car buyers do). The XL1 is in many ways still a concept/prototype vehicle, and so Volkswagen is testing the waters by putting out a limited production run to see how many consumers are really interested in shelling out the equivalent of U.S. $150,000 (not $60,000 as claimed above) for a two-person car.  And the testers at Car and Driver found that while the XL1's fuel efficiency might be superb, it might also be somewhat overblown as presented in promotional materials: Car and Driver The XL1 should run 31 miles solely on electric power, says [VW development engineer Ulrich] Mitze. But on the cold and rainy April day we drove it, the small, 60-cell, 5.5-kWh, 150-pound lithium-ion battery pack needed a recharge after only 22 miles.  According to the on-board computer, we are fuel hogs. Having started with a full tank (2.6 gallons) and fully charged batteries, we ended our trip after 67 miles; fuel consumption plummeted at one point to a dismal 128 mpg. Achieving the XL1's theoretical 749-mile range would take a right foot as light as a moonbeam. As for why only Europe, the answer is that the U.S. does have many safety standards in place (enacted many years ago a variety of reasons, none of which was to keep high-mileage vehicles off the U.S. market) that all automobile manufacturers have to meet in order to legally sell their vehicles in America, regulations that sometimes require manufacturers to modify or retrofit models that were produced for sale under less strict regulations in Europe (or other parts of the world).  If Volkswagen wants to test-market their XL1 in limited quantities, there's no reason for them to expend millions of dollars preparing and certifying those vehicles for U.S. safety standards when they can vend  their small lot of cars just as well in the European market without all the added expense.  As noted by USA Today: The XL1 [is] a spaceship-like, ultra-high-mpg, plug-in diesel-electric hybrid. VW used exotic, but obtainable, materials and technologies to craft a mileage-above-all car able to get 261 mpg in European tests, equating, very roughly, to perhaps 200 mpg in U.S. tests. Barely a real production model, it's made in a factory, but largely by hand. It couldn't meet U.S. safety rules and needed changes in German rules to be on the road there. And if one buys into the conspiracy theory that the government and Big Oil are colluding to keep high-mileage vehicles off the U.S. market in order to protect profits from gasoline sales, one has to wonder why those powerful and malevolent entities aren't doing anything to stop Americans from purchasing cars produced by Tesla, superbly-performing vehicles that use no gasoline at all yet still deliver premium performance, have great range for electric cars, have received the highest rating of any automobile ever evaluated by Consumer Reports, are top-rated for safety even under tougher U.S. standards, but are widely available for purchase in the U.S.: Tesla Most Americans may never actually see a Tesla Model S sedan in person, but you will want to know why this car is so important to the automotive industry and what all the media fuss is about. Tesla Motors was founded in 2003 by a group of intrepid Silicon Valley engineers who set out to prove that electric vehicles could be awesome. The name of the company pays homage to Nicola Tesla, a Serbian American inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist, and futurist best known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC) electricity supply system. As the California automakers first production model, the Tesla Model S is 100 percent electric, a car so advanced it sets the new standard for premium performance. This is not a hybrid, nor is it equipped with any kind of "range expanding" gasoline engine. At the heart of the vehicle is the proven Tesla powertrain, delivering both unprecedented range and a thrilling drive experience. The Tesla Model S has won the 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year award, received the highest rating of any automobile in history from Consumer Reports (99 out of 100) and achieved the best possible US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rating. Unlike the internal combustion engine with hundreds of moving pieces that spark, pump, belch, and groan, the Tesla motor has only one moving piece: the rotor. As a result, Model S acceleration is instantaneous, like flipping a switch. Hit the accelerator. In 5.4 seconds, Model S is traveling 60 miles per hour, without hesitation and without a drop of gasoline. As in so many cases, what is attributed to furtive conspiracy is more easily explained away as wishful thinking colliding with the hard, cold realities of economics. Last updated:  14 April 2014    Healey, James R.  "Test Drive: VW XL1 Shows How to Get 200 MPG."   USA Today.  7 December 2013.     Ingram, Antony.  "261 MPG Volkswagen XL1 Production Confirmed, Debuts Geneva."   Green Car Reports.  21 February 2013.     Ingram, Antony.  "Orders for 261-MPG Volkswagen XL1 Exceed Production of 200."   Green Car Reports.  28 October 2013.     Zoellter, Juergen.  "2014 Volkswagen XL1."   Car and Driver.  June 2013.     Green Bay Press Gazette.  "2014 Tesla Model S Sedan Takes the Electric Car to a New Level."   14 April 2014. Austin MayorSteve Adler, who seeks a second term this November, reacted to a game-show moment with a swaggering claim. In anApril 25, 2018, tweet, Adler responded to this clue fromthat nights episodeof Jeopardy: Per Rick Perry, its the blueberry in the tomato soup. Perry, the Republican former governor,often offers the blueberry characterization of the Democrat-dominant capital. On the program, a contestant correctly answered Austin for $600. Next, Adler said in his tweet, accompanied by a photo of the Jeopardy clue: What is the safest big city in Texas with an unemployment rate under 3% that has been named the best place to live in the entire United States two years running? Is all of that true about Austin? Not all: In 2017,we found Half Truean Adler reference to Austin as the state's safest big city. Not for the first time, we noted then that theFBI advises againstusing crime data it collects to declare one city safer than another. That said, such statistics at the time suggested both that the five-county Austin region in 2015 had a lower violent-crime rate than other Texas regions and that El Paso had a lower violent-crime rate than Austin in the first half of 2016. Seeking mayors factual backup The morning after Adler posted his comment, which was retweeted more than 200 times, we reached mayoral spokesman Jason Stanford. Stanford advised by phone that Adler didnt have fresh information to offer in support of his 2018 safest big city in Texas statement. He suggested we check federal statistics to confirm Austins jobless rate and told us that U.S. News had consecutively named Austin the nations best place to live. Checking Austins unemployment Our search for Austins jobless rate on the Texas Workforce Commission website showed that from January through March 2018, the latest month of available data, the city's jobless rate ran shy of 3 percent. We also fetched a longer view showing the citys jobless rate mostly staying below 3 percent from January 2017 on (all the rates not seasonally adjusted). Austin's unemployment rate was last above 3 percent, according to the TWC, when it was 3.1 percent in August 2017. The Austin rate's 15-month low, 2.5 percent, occurred in December 2017:          SOURCE:Website,Unemployment,Texas Labor Market Information, Texas Workforce Commission (search completed April 26, 2018) Austin ranked best place to live two times in a row On April 10, 2018, U.S. Newsannouncedthat for the second straight year, the online publication found Austin the best place to live in the United States among the country's 125 largest metropolitan areas;Colorado Springs, Colo.,placed second. The rankings were based on affordability, job prospects and quality of life, U.S. News said, and on surveying thousands of U.S. residents to find out what qualities they consider important in a home town. The methodology, U.S. News said, also factored in data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the FBI and the Bureau of Labor Statistics--plus U.S. News rankings of the countrys high schools and hospitals. Austin, the self-proclaimed Live Music Capital of the planet,earneda score of 7.7 out of 10 for the 2018 rankings, U.S. News said, with even its few downsides having upsides. The story says: The median sale price for a single-family home in Austin is well above the national median. Then again, the story says, Austinites' pocketbooks benefit from no personal or corporate income tax, and a low state and local tax rate. Another semi-warning in the story: Summers in Austin take some getting used to, with temperatures often scorching. Though, the story says, the metro area experiences mild weather throughout the rest of the year, though temperatures have been known to drop in the winter. The story also notes: Austin is among the nation's worst metro areas for traffic congestion. But, the story says, that can be addressed with flexible work schedules, due diligence when choosing a neighborhood and, for those wanting to get in some exercise while commuting, using public transportation, walking and biking. Our ruling Adler referred to Austin as the safest big city in Texas with an unemployment rate under 3% that has been named the best place to live in the entire United States two years running. Hizzonerwas right about Austins jobless rate of late and Austin getting named the citys best place to live two years in a row though its worth clarifying that the rankings considered only the countrys 125 largest metro areas. Whether Austin is the safest big Texas city rests on interpreting crime data the FBI counsels against using to compare communities. This said, we previously found that the five-county Austin region in 2015 had a lower violent-crime rate than other Texas regions while in the first half of 2016, El Paso had a lower violent-crime rate than Austin. On balance, we rate this Adler claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. On July 6, 2019, fans of actor Cameron Boyce were shocked and saddened to learn that the 20-year-old Disney star had passed away after experiencing a seizure. As celebrities and fans mourned the loss of Boyce on social media, a rumor began to circulate that actress Debby Ryan had suffered a heart attack after hearing the news about her former co-star's death: passed away   There was no truth to this unfounded rumor, which was widely disseminated by a viral video posted to YouTube by @Dancetayley and titled "Debby Ryan Rushed to Hospital After Finding Out About Cameron Boyce." The video, which racked up nearly 2 million views within a day of its initial posting, included a number of screenshots of tweets from random people who claimed that Ryan had suffered a heart attack: YouTube   None of those tweets originated with verified sources, however, and no credible news outlets reported that Ryan experienced a heart attack. This rumor likely stemmed from the fact that Ryan's voice was absent from the conversation immediately following Boyce's death. While many other co-stars and celebrity friends posted messages to social media mourning the loss of Boyce after the news of his death broke, Ryan's social media accounts were largely silent. Fans began to wonder why she hadn't commented yet, and some of them started to claim without evidence that she had suffered a heart attack. messages There were, of course, innumerable potential reasons why Ryan didn't immediately post to social media that did not involve a heart attack. For example, she might simply have taken some time to process the news that her co-star had passed away. While Ryan didn't immediately post to social media, she did like a tweet posted by actor Charles Esten, who co-starred with Ryan and Boyce on the show Jessie: tweet   Ryan, who turned off her Instagram comments following Boyce's death (likely because a large number of fans were continuously reminding her that her friend had just died), also posted a video to her Instagram story of Boyces acceptance speech for the Pioneering Spirit award at the 2018 Thirst Gala. Instagram comments posted Instagram story Here's the full video of Boyce's acceptance speech. The portion of his speech included in Ryan's post is transcribed below:  Its crazy, we can tweet whenever we want and we can use social media and Instagram and make the world a better place, instead of a worse one, which so many people use it for... We need to use what we have and make the world a better place for other people, other people, people who need us. BBC News.  "Cameron Boyce: Disney Descendants Star Dies Age 20."
  8 July 2019. McBride, Jessica.  "Debby Ryan Shuts Off Instagram Comments After Cameron Boyces Death."
  Heavy.  8 July 2019 Sager, Jessica.  "Adam Sandler, More Co-Stars Mourn Death of Cameron Boyce."
  Fox News.  7 July 2019