Kid Rock, Jason Aldean Removed NY From Tour Over Trump Civil Fraud Ruling?
In February 2024, a rumor went viral allegingKid Rock and Jason Aldean removed New York stops on a concert tour in protest of a judge's decision in a civil fraud case to make former U.S. President Donald Trump pay $355 million in penalties. judge's decision For instance, on Feb. 18, 2024, a Facebook post by America's Last Line of Defense went viral with side-by-side photos of Aldean and Kid Rock and the text, "Kid Rock and Jason Aldean Remove New York From the 'You Can't Cancel America' Tour: 'We Support 45'," referring to Trump's ranking as America's 45th president. post  The claim spread on other social media platforms, as well, including X (formerly Twitter), where someusersappeared to show support for the singers. Days earlier, a New York judge ordered Trump to pay the penalties in a sweeping civil fraud verdict, finding he had lied for years about his wealth on financial statements for loans and to make real-estate deals, The Associated Press reported. other social media platforms users The Associated Press reported Conservative pundit Brigitte Gabriel wrote, for example: "Kid Rock and Jason Aldean have responded to New York's extreme attack on President Trump by REMOVING the state from their 'You Can't Cancel America Tour.' This is a BIG DEAL and a sign of the silent majority rising again!" wrote (Screenshot via X) However, the claim about Aldean and Kid Rock was fictional. While they have indeed headlined concerts together before, there appeared to be no evidence of a "You Can't Cancel America Tour," like the posts claimed. Since the tour was made up, so was the notion they had removed New York dates due to their feelings on Trump. headlined concerts no evidence The rumor stemmed from an articleby The Dunning-Kruger Times, a site that is part of a network of websites and social media accounts operated by America's Last Line of Defense's (ALLOD). The article stated: article stated 'We support 45 [referring to Trump],' the tour's website announced, 'Therefore, we won't be bringing the tour to the state that has treated him so poorly.' The tour was set to play more than a dozen dates in New York, adding untold millions to local economies and giving patriotic Americans living in a liberal nightmare the chance to have a night to themselves. The Dunning-Kruger Times describes its output as satirical. The website's "About Us" section states: About Us Everything on this website is fiction. It is not a lie and it is not fake news because it is not real. If you believe that it is real, you should have your head examined. Any similarities between this site's pure fantasy and actual people, places, and events are purely coincidental and all images should be considered altered and satirical. See above if you're still having an issue with that satire thing. The website's creators callpeople who believe its stories "taters." The website states: call 'Taters' are the conservative fans of America's Last Line of Defense. They are fragile, frightened, mostly older caucasian Americans. They believe nearly anything. While we go out of our way to educate them that not everything they agree with is true, they are still old, typically ignorant, and again  very afraid of everything. Kid Rock has been a vocal supporter of Trump. Also, Trump oncedefendedAldean amid accusations of racist imagery in his "Try That In A Small Town" music video. vocal defended We've fact-checked numerous satirical claims stemming from Dunning-Kruger Times, including one about Aldean supposedly saying Garth Brooks was not welcome at Toby Keith's candlelight vigil and another about Mark Wahlberg supposedly joining Kid Rock and Aldean on tour. about supposedly For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. why "About Us." Dunning-Kruger-Times.Com, 1 Aug. 2022, https://dunning-kruger-times.com/about-us/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. "Here's a Look inside Donald Trump's $355 Million Civil Fraud Verdict." AP News, 17 Feb. 2024, https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-letitia-james-new-york-engoron-38bc3a7f2ccb22555c026e9bf70fd5bb.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. "Kid Rock and Jason Aldean Remove New York from the 'You Can't Cancel America' Tour: 'We Support 45.'" Dunning-Kruger-Times.Com, 18 Feb. 2024, https://dunning-kruger-times.com/kid-rock-and-jason-aldean-removes-new-york-from-the-you-cant-cancel-america-tour-we-support-45/.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. PerryCook, Taija. "Is Mark Wahlberg Joining Jason Aldean and Kid Rock on Tour?" Snopes, 12 Dec. 2023, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/is-mark-wahlberg-joining-jason-aldean-and-kid-rock-on-tour/.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. PerryCook, Taija. "Jason Aldean Said Garth Brooks Was 'Absolutely Not Welcome' at Toby Keith's Vigil?" Snopes, 13 Feb. 2024, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/aldean-brooks-keiths-vigil/.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. Sforza, Lauren. "Trump Defends Jason Aldean amid Song Controversy." The Hill, 20 July 2023, https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/4107561-trump-defends-jason-aldean-amid-song-controversy/.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. Walker, Jackson. "Kid Rock Doubles down on Trump Support: 'Toughest Son of a B**** on Earth.'" WPDE, 12 Dec. 2023, https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/kid-rock-doubles-down-on-trump-support-toughest-son-of-a-b-on-earth-president-2024-race-biden-trump-tucker-carlson-presidential-election-republican-gop-race-haley-desantis-nashville-music.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024.
In October 2015, links began circulating on Facebook promising users a free carton of Marlboro cigarettes as a celebration of the brand's 100th anniversary:   The embedded links involved a variety of URLs (like the one above), some of which included entirely unrelated scam-bait terms like "iTunes" and "Apple." Users who clicked through to claim their purported free carton of Marlboros were routed to a page reading "Marlboro is Giving FREE Carton of Cigarettes to celebrate 100th Anniversary (150 Cartons Remaining)," which cloned the style of Facebook-based content (but was hosted on a non-Facebook URL):   As noted, URLs visible in the posts didn't point to any credible domains (or any sites linked to Altria, the brand's parent company). Marlboro didn't appear to even maintain any social media accounts, and the brand's official web site was locked to registered users only. So while no official refutations were issued, it seemed safe to assume cigarette brands largely refrained from participating on Facebook (or creating promotions that could land them afoul of strict tobacco advertising laws). By now, most social media users are familiar with survey scams; Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used as bait by scammers (seeking personal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users).  Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau illustrated how folks might spot and avoid bad actors utilizing the reputations of brands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. While Marlboro occasionally sends coupons to registered customers, tobacco advertising and promotion is heavily restricted (including a prohibition on free samples) and is highly unlikely to ever occur on social media in the manner posited above. restricted [05/05/20] CORRECTION: A previous version of this article incorrectly identified the date of Marlboro's 50th anniversary. That reference has been removed. Not long after Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, an image began circulating online claiming that a Mexican supermarket chain was collecting "donations" toward his proposed border wall between the two countries. On 10 November 2016, a YouTube video claimed to show a picture of a receipt from a Soriana Hiper market in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon that included a 10-peso charge for an "additional donation [for] Trump wall." The image then spread online, with one version containing the caption: a YouTube video online, Look what Soriana is doing. Save the picture and share it before it's deleted. Soriana, which operates more than 800 stores around Mexico, refuted the picture in a statement released on 15 November 2016, saying the photo in question was false and "tendentiously manipulated":   The translation reads, in part: We reaffirm our position and commitment with our country as a 100% Mexican company, as one of the biggest job-generators in the country and with an important business platform for our suppliers and commercial partners. Our commitment has always been and will always be with our country, particularly with the Mexican family economy. The "Trump wall" receipt was based off of another fake photo that circulated in 2013, accusing the company of charging customers for a "additional donation" to the Teletn, the annual national fundraiser for childrens' healthcare: 2013 Teletn,   One of Trump's campaign promises was that his administration would not only build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, but make the latter country pay for it. That statement is still on his campaign website. He has since stated:  website. stated It could be some fencing. However, it should be noted that an unmistakable wall already exists along much of the border between Mexico and the United States. wall "Muro de trump esta siendo cobrado en soriana." De Todo Un Poco Consejos Practicos. YouTube. 10 November 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2D1ROTY1SA La Rancherita del Aire, S.A. de C.V. "Circula en redes sociales supuesto ticket de compra con cobro extra por muro de Trump." rancherita.com.mx. 11 November 2016. sdpnoticias.com. "Cobran indebidamente Teletn en tickets de compra." www.tolucanoticias.com. 6 November 2013. Stahl, Lesley. "President-elect Trump speaks to a divided country on 60 Minutes." CBS News. 13 November 2016. Delano, James Whitlow. "This Is What the U.S.-Mexico Border Wall Actually Looks Like." National Geographic. 4 March 2016. In 1975, photographer Garry Gross took several nude photographs of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields that were later published in a Playboy publication called Sugar and Spice. This series of photographs has been the source for controversy for decades. But many internet users were blissfully unaware of the images until one appeared in a meme featuring a photograph of Playboy founder Hugh Hefner and passed around on social media:   The girl in the background of this meme is indeed a naked 10-year-old Shields, and the photograph was truly published by Playboy. Although this meme may have given some viewers the impression that the image appeared in Playboy magazine itself, the picture was actually featured in the Playboy Press publication Sugar and Spice. The above-displayed photograph is one of many that Gross took with the consent of Shields' mother, Teri Shields, in 1975. In 1981, with Sugar and Spice out of print and Shields' profile on the rise, Shields sued Gross, arguing that the photographer should not be allowed to continue to profit from the images, and that the photographs would cause her irreparable harm.  sued The lawsuit was dismissed in a 4-3 decision by the New York State Supreme Court. Justice Edward Greenfield stated that the pictures were "not erotic or pornographic" except to "possibly perverse minds," and that while the images might cause Shields personal embarrassment, they did not constitute "irreparable harm" as Shields' profile had risen in the years since the photographs were taken. decision Greenfield also criticized Shields' mother for trying to "have it both ways," saying the actress had starred in provocative roles in movies such as Blue Lagoon and Pretty Baby:  Wed, Nov 11, 1981  6  The News Leader (Staunton, Staunton, Virginia, United States of America)  Newspapers.com  Wed, Nov 11, 1981  6  The News Leader (Staunton, Staunton, Virginia, United States of America)  Newspapers.com Here's an excerpt from a contemporaneous article published by the Washington Post: Washington Post Washington Post: It was Mom who decided six years ago to let Gross take pictures of her nude daughter for a book, published the next year by Playboy Press, called "Sugar and Spice." Then a funny thing happened to little Brooke: she burst out of her cocoon and turned into a great big star, just like that. Suddenly the pictures acquired a new and alluring value; and suddenly Brooke and Mom decided that, with the book out of print, Gross had no business peddling the pictures anywhere else, even though Mom had signed a release for them. So they went to court, where Justice Greenfield ruled against them. He said that the pictures were "not erotic or pornographic" and that Brooke would not suffer irreparable damage if they were republished; he ruled that Gross had not violated the terms of the release. And so long as he was at it, Justice Greenfield delivered himself of a tidy lecture on the subject of stage motherhood. He described Teri Shields as "a concerned mother"; he said she lived not merely "for" her daughter but also "through" her. He said that her behavior was "maternally protective and exploitative," that she wanted "to have it both ways" by representing Brooke as "sexually provocative and exciting while attempting to preserve her innocence." An appellate court overturned the decision, but in 1983 the original verdict was upheld. upheld This wasn't the only time these nude images of Shields were at the center of a controversy. In 2009, artist Richard Prince, known for "reproduction" photography, used one of Gross' images of Shields for an artwork entitled "Spiritual America." The photograph was set to be displayed at the Tate Modern Gallery, but it was removed after Scotland Yard suggested that it might violate London's obscenity laws. violate Associated Press.  "Judge Lambasts Actress' Mother."
  11 November 1981. Higgins, Charlotte and Vikram Dodd.  "Tate Modern Removes Naked Brooke Shields Picture After Police Visit."
  The Guardian.  30 September 2009. Yardley, Jonathan.  "Sugar and Spice and Not Nice."
  The Washington Post.  16 November 1981. Gambardello, Joseph.  "Judge Scolds Brooke Shields' Mother for Exploiting Daughter."
  UPI.  11 November 1981. Turner, Christopher  "Sugar and Spice and All Things Not So Nice."
  The Guardian.  2 October 2009. Republican nominee Mitt Romney has said he plans to increase defense spending by about $2 trillion over the next 10 years if hes elected president. In the final debate of the campaign, moderator Bob Scheiffer asked Romney, Where are you going to get the money?Romney said he would take it from other parts of the budget -- by abolishing Obamacare and by changing Medicaid to a block grant and turning it over to the states.President Barack Obama said Romneys plan for more defense spending is a bad idea, because it isnt necessary. Romney wants to spend another $2 trillion on military spending that our military is not asking for, Obama said.In this fact-check, we examine the claim that Romney is promoting something the top brass dont want.Romney has outlined out hisnational security policyon his website. There, he warned that restoring the military will not be a cost-free process, and said he will begin by reversing Obama-era defense cuts ... with the goal of setting core defense spending  meaning funds devoted to the fundamental military components of personnel, operations and maintenance, procurement, and research and development  at a floor of 4 percent of GDP.Whats 4 percent worth?The Pentagons budget is expected to run in the range of 3.2 to 3.5 percent of GDP in the next fiscal year. According to theCenter for a New American Security, a group with ties to both Republican and Democratic administrations, even a gradual ramp up to 4 percent would increase defense spending by $2.1 trillion over the next ten years, asreported by CNN.The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group focused on deficit reduction, uses that number too, as do other budget think tanks. Romney seems to accept it, so as far as the $2 trillion figure goes, it seems reasonably accurate.In the past, when asked about increasing defense spending in tough economic times, the Romney campaign has emphasized that the 4-percent goal will take some time to achieve.While the campaign website describes the goal as a floor, campaign spokesperson Andrea Saul called it a target in an email to aBoston Globereporter. The first priority, Saul wrote, is to reverse Obama-era defense cuts.In the same article, one Romney adviser, Mackenzie Eaglen with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said, Thats not a hard number and anybody would be crazy to suggest it is. It would have to be a very slow ramp-up and they would be hard-pressed to even achieve a 4 percent base budget by the end of the first term.This suggests there is some flexibility on Romneys part, although the candidate himself has not expressed that.What the Pentagon is asking forIn the debate, Romney said, Our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We're now at under 285.In fact, the 313-ship plan reflects a 2005 strategic review. In April, theSecretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, presented a new program that sets a goal of 300 ships. Mabuss remarks came at a moment when Romney had been vocal in his opposition to the new approach.A lot of this criticism is based on either incomplete and/or inaccurate or outdated information, or a failure to see beyond the short term or a willingness to protect the status quo in spite of the changing world and in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he said.The presidents budget calls for $487 billion in defense savings between now and 2021. His defense secretary, Leon Panetta, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, have both spoken up for the plan, as have the heads of all five branches of the military.We are developing today the Joint Force the nation will need in 2020,Dempsey told the Senatebudget committee. We will be a military that is able to do more than one thing at a timeto win any conflict, anywhere.Panetta acknowledged that the budget comes with risks but he said the departments plan was based on looking first at the threats the nation might face.The department would need to make a strategic shift regardless of the nation's fiscal situation.,Panetta told the budget committee. We are at that point in history. That's the reality of the world we live in.Administration critics say the reality was just the reverse. A report from the conservative Heritage Foundation said, the administration set a goal of slashing the defense budget, and then crafted a strategy justifying such draconian cuts.The president is the commander-in-chief. Panetta works for Obama and the military answers to him. To the analysts at the Heritage Foundation, the chain of command says it all. But in the past, when military commanders have disagreed with presidents, they have found ways to get their complaints to the public.This is not to say that all commanders are pleased with the trade-offs they face. But Nora Bensahel, deputy director of studies at the Center for New American Security, said she believes the president put a great deal of time into discussions with the military, and by and large, the commanders support the plan.Its hard to see daylight between the military and the White House on this, Bensahel said.Broadly speaking, it is always possible that the service chiefs would disagree over funding of individual programs but that is within the overall budget limits.Our rulingThe president said Romney planned to increase defense spending by $2 trillion and that was money the military hadnt asked for.Military leaders have testified in support of the presidents spending plan, and we found no evidence of disagreement behind the scenes.We rate the statement True. Claim:  Legislation currently under consideration would cut $100 million in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Status:  Was true; proposal has been defeated. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005] You know that email petition that keeps circulating about how Congress is slashing funding for NPR and PBS? Well, now it's actually true. (Really. Check at the bottom if you don't believe me.) Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS: https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ A House panel has voted to eliminate all public funding for NPR and PBS, starting with "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," and other commercial-free children's shows. If approved, this would be the most severe cut in the history of public broadcasting, threatening to pull the plug on Big Bird, Cookie Monster, and Oscar the Grouch. The cuts would slash 25% of the federal funding this year  $100 million  and end funding altogether within two years. The loss could kill beloved children's shows like "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Arthur," and "Postcards from Buster." Rural stations and those serving low-income communities might not survive. Other stations would have to increase corporate sponsorships. Already, 300,000 people have signed the petition. Can you help us reach 400,000 signatures today? https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ Origins:  Although a long-outdated  piece decrying supposed upcoming cuts in funding for the NEA, NPR, PBS, and Sesame Street has been circulating for years (it addressed legislation already voted upon way back in 1995), recent congressional efforts have brought the issue to public attention again. piece In June 2005 the House Appropriations Committee voted to sharply reduce federal financial support for public broadcasting. If this budgetary plan were approved it would eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), money which currently makes up 15% of the funding for public broadcasting.  As the Washington Post reported: CPB A House subcommittee voted yesterday to sharply reduce the federal government's financial support for public broadcasting, including eliminating taxpayer funds that help underwrite such popular children's educational programs as "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster." In addition, the subcommittee acted to eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting  which passes federal funds to public broadcasters  starting with a 25 percent reduction in CPB's budget for next year, from $400 million to $300 million. In all, the cuts would represent the most drastic cutback of public broadcasting since Congress created the nonprofit CPB in 1967. The CPB funds are particularly important for small TV and radio stations and account for about 15 percent of the public broadcasting industry's total revenue. The House measure also cuts support for a variety of smaller projects, such as a $39.6 million public TV satellite distribution network and a $39.4 million program that helps public stations update their analog TV signals to digital format. Although this legislation, if approved, would not  (as claimed in older petitions) affect funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), it would obviously have a significant impact on public broadcasting outlets, which would have to turn to other sources to try to make up the lost revenue. On 23 June 2005 the House of Representatives decided, by a 284-140 vote, to rescind the House Appropriations Committee's proposed $100 million cut in federal funds from the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  Other areas of public broadcasting, however, may still face budget reductions if proposed funding cuts are not overturned: But Elmo and Big Bird remain at risk. The House did not restore all of the public broadcasting funding cuts proposed for 2006. Although yesterday's amendment would bump CPB's general budget back to $400 million, the 2005 funding level, an additional $102.4 million that had been shorn from separate public broadcasting programs was not restored. That money underwrites the production of such PBS children's programs as "Sesame Street," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster." The money that would be cut also pays for satellite technology, basic equipment purchases and a federal mandate program to convert public TV stations from analog transmission to digital signal technology.  Last updated:  24 June 2005    Sources:   Farhi, Paul.  "Public Broadcasting Targeted by House."    The Washington Post.  10 June 2005  (p. A1).    Gold, Matea and Jube Shiver.  "Public Broadcasting Funds May Be Halved."    Los Angeles Times.  17 June 2005  (p. A28).    Murray, Shailagh and Paul Farhi.  "House Vote Spares Public Broadcasting Funds."    The Washington Post.  24 June 2005  (p. A6).    Taylor, Andrew.  "House Rescinds Proposed Cut in Federal Support of Public Broadcasting."    Associated Press.  23 June 2005. 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. Since November 2020, an identically worded bit of text alleging that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "is a private nonprofit corporation" has been shared across multiple social media platforms. The claim has its origins on the website Armstrong Economics  which sells a variety of self-published conspiracy books by the titular Martin Armstrong  and would become a well-shared bit of copy-and-paste "copypasta," reproduced in part below: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention its origins well-shared Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation? [...] The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation. The CDC Foundation receives charitable contributions and philanthropic grants from individuals, foundations, corporations, universities, NGOs and other organizations to advance the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is NOT a government-funded organization. It is not exclusively a government-funded [sic]  very curious. Natural News, which boasts a massive audience of conspiracy theorists, republished it in December 2020. At the time of this writing, versions of this copypasta still creep up on various social media platforms. On May 3, 2021, a Facebook account named The Daily Callout published it along with a picture of purported CDC funding sources. Commenters to that post were evidently confused: republished published   The allegations leveled against the CDC are not all that coherent in these posts. The copypasta suggests the CDC is both a non-profit and a "quasi-government" agency. Further, those issues are tangled up in the separate issue of corporate donations to the CDC. The title of the post, however, provides Snopes with a clearly stated contention: "Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation?" You most likely did not know this, because it is, in fact, not true. The CDC is a federal agency housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The confusion stems from the fact that, in 1992, Congress mandated the creation of a non-profit foundation  the CDC Foundation  that would "not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government" and whose purpose would be "to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for promotion of public health." As part of that goal, the foundation has an endowment and accepts charitable gifts from a variety of entities, including corporations, which are forwarded to the CDC to support specific initiatives.  housed in in 1992 mandated the creation CDC Foundation "The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors," the CDC Foundation argues on its website. "We believe that people, groups and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually." Funds raised by the CDC foundation are donated to various programs and initiatives within the CDC. its website The CDC Foundation is one of two ways corporations can legally provide funds to the CDC. Donations to the CDC foundation are an indirect route as, by law, "officers, employees, and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers or employees of the Federal Government." Direct gifts by corporations to the CDC are also allowed under a portion of the U.S. Code that authorizes the secretary of HHS "to accept on behalf of the United States gifts made ... for the benefit of the Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions." by law a portion For both direct gifts to the CDC and gifts made via the CDC Foundation, conditional funding is allowed so long as those requirements are not, as outlined in CDC policy documents: policy documents The acceptance of corporate donations earmarked for specific causes  both to the CDC Foundation and to the CDC itself  have caused apparent conflicts of interest. In 2015, the medical journal BMJ published an editorial outlining several examples of potential conflicts, including these examples: an editorial In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26m to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemenseach of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection. [...] In 2012, [a company named] Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDCs efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C. The CDC argues that it has policies in place to prevent such conflicts. Its website states that "when we engage with the private sector  we maintain our scientific integrity by participating in a gift review process that is rigorous and transparent. CDCs gift acceptance policy requires a comprehensive gift review prior to accepting a gift. This includes CDC Foundation (CDCF) gifts and gifts given directly to [the] CDC, whether they are monetary or non-monetary." These processes have been refined and standardized several times since 2014. has policies since 2014 While the issue of potential corporate influence over public health policy merits scrutiny, it is also important to consider the scale of private funding compared to the overall congressionally appropriated budget of the CDC. In the 2020 fiscal year, the CDC received $13 million in conditional gifts from the CDC Foundation and $10 million in conditional and unconditional direct contributions from the private sector. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $8 billion in funding the CDC receives from Congress: 2020 fiscal year compared to   Even from a rhetorical standpoint it would be a stretch to argue the CDC proportionally is awash in corporate funding. Narrowly speaking, however, the assertion that the CDC is a non-profit, non-government organization is incorrect because that claim conflates the CDC (a federal agency) and the CDC Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charity). As such, the claim is On 30 April 2016, the web siteDeparted.copublished a clickbait article claiming that American flags were removed from a Pearl Harbor memorial at President Obama's request. The piece had no context beyonda series of photographs of what they said was the flag being taken down. While Departed.copublished several photographs of the memorial  some of which included a flagpole, whileothers were taken after the flagpole wasremoved  they provided little information about the memorial or the flag's removal. No photographs showed any proof, even by inference, that President Obama was either present or responsible for the order: published  As it turns out, there's also a good reason that President Obama was not shown in any photographs: this didn't eventake placeduring Barack Obama's presidential term.The images were first posted in 2007 by the web siteCapVeterans.com.  CapVeterans.com A couple of years previously, the Honolulu Advertiserhad reported that Pearl Harbor was undergoing major renovations and that some veterans were worried about potential changes: changes The memorial's visitor center is overburdened  the lines to bathrooms there are the stuff of legend  and the National Park Service would like to expand its facilities. (Hawai'i entrepreneur Patrick) Brent said he transformed "a filthy parking lot with broken glass and a high crime rate" into a respite for visitors. "Every time we put out a chair, someone sits down," Brent said. But aging survivors of the attack on Pearl Harbor have frequently complained to Brent about his for-profit organization. One veteran told him that the sailors entombed in the USS Arizona are crying because he is selling cola, Brent said. "They attack us because of the respect thing.There is no one in this neighborhood more respectful than myself and my people." We have reached out to the National Park Service for details about this incident, but it's clear that the flagpole's removal had more to do with renovations than politics. Regardless of why it was removed, the flagpole was not taken down on the orders of President Barack Obama.    CapVeterans.com.  "The National Park Service Wants To Remove The Marine Corps PEARL HARBOR Remembrance Memorial."
  2007.



 Gordon, Mike.  "Navy's $84M development deal is changing the face of Pearl Harbor."
  Honolulu Advertiser.  21 February 2005. Claim:  The IRS is sending out unsolicited e-mail providing taxpayers with a web form to use to check on the status of their federal income tax returns and refunds. Status:  False. Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, 2005]  You filed your tax return and you're expecting a refund. You have just one question and you want the answer now - Where's My Refund? Access this secure Web site to find out if the IRS received your return and whether your refund was processed and sent to you. New program enhancements allow you to begin a refund trace online if you have not received your check within 28 days from the original IRS mailing date. Some of you will also be able to correct or change your mailing address within this application if your check was returned to us as undelivered by the U.S. Postal Service. "Where's My Refund?" will prompt you when these features are available for your situation. To get to your refund status, you'll need to provide the following information as shown on your return:  Your first and last name Your Social Security Number (or IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Number)   Your Credit Card Information  Okay now, Where's My Refund? Where's My Refund? Under the Privacy Act of 1974, we must tell you that our legal right to ask for information is Internal Revenue Code Sections 6001, 6011, 6012(a) and their regulations. They say that you must furnish us with records or statements for any tax for which you are liable, including the withholding of taxes by your employer.We ask for information to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States, and you are required to give us this information. We may give the information to the Department of Justice for civil and criminal litigation, other federal agencies, states, cities, and the District of Columbia for use in administering their tax laws.If you don't provide this information, or provide fraudulent information, the law provides that you may be charged penalties and, in certain cases, you may be subject to criminal prosecution. We may also have to disallow the exemptions, exclusions, credits, deductions, or adjustments shown on the tax return. This could make your tax higher or delay any refund. Interest may also be charged. Origins:   In  December 2005 we began seeing copies of the above-reproduced phishing scam, an e-mail purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (sent with a return address of <irs_notice@irs.gov>) and offering consumers a link to a handy web form they can use to check the status of their federal income tax returns and refunds.   Of course, the web form the recipient is directed to after clicking on the provided link is not from the real IRS web site,  but an imitation hosted on a server in a foreign country (Mexico in the example we received) that harvests information scammers can use for identity and financial theft by prompting the user to input all sorts of personal data (name, Social Security number, address) as well as other financial information (credit card number, ATM PIN). phishing The IRS does not ask for personal identifying or financial information via unsolicited e-mail, and in no case would the IRS need information such as credit card numbers or ATM PINs in order to respond to inquiries about the status of tax returns or refunds.  Taxpayers can contact the IRS via telephone at  1-800-829-1040 for questions regarding their taxes, or they can visit the genuine Where's My Refund? page on the IRS web site. Where's My Refund? Last updated:  20 December 2005    Sources:   Tri-Town News [Howell, NJ].  "IRS Warns of E-Mail Scam."   8 December 2005. After the police shooting of 20-year-old Latrell Allen in Chicago's Englewood community on the afternoon of Aug. 9, 2020, unrest in that city extended through that night and into the early morning hours of the following day, with looters hitting some stores in Chicagos wealthiest shopping district on North Michigan Avenue. Latrell Allen extended The following evening, members of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement held a solidarity rally in that city with some of the people who had been arrested for looting the night before. Shortly after those events, social media users began circulating a meme stemming from that event, quoting a "BLM leader & organizer" named Ariel Atkins as saying, "I don't care if someone decides to loot, because that makes sure that person eats or has clothes. Anything they want to take, they can, because these businesses have insurance":  That was an accurate quote, according to Chicago NBC affiliate WMAQ-TV, who reported on the Aug. 10 event: reported Members of Black Lives Matter held a solidarity rally on Monday night [August 10] with the more than 100 individuals who were arrested after a night of looting and unrest in Chicago. The rally was held at the South Loop police station where organizers say those individuals are currently being held in custody. I dont care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macys or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats, Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, said. That makes sure that person has clothes. Black Lives Matter Chicago organized the rally after overnight unrest throughout the city, with police saying that more than 100 individuals were taken into custody for a variety of offenses, including looting. That is reparations, Atkins said. Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance. Atkins said essentially the same thing a few days later, when she was interviewed by Chicago NPR station WBEZ on the subject of "why she supports looting": interviewed A lot of people are really attacking our pages. Theyre like, Oh, you support the looters. And yeah, we do, 100%. Thats reparations. And like however people choose to protest, especially if it was definitely in line with what happened with the shooting, which would be powerful to see people reacting ... without organizers just being like, Were angry and this is what were gonna do. Were gonna take the power back. I feel like these stores, these Macys, these Guccis, the PNC Banks, theyre not here for us. The city puts way more money and investment into spending time and protecting their spaces and making sure that they exist. And yet our people are constantly being pushed out of the city ... Unemployment is incredibly high, like we are in an incredible situation, and the fact that anybody gives a s*** about these businesses over what is happening in this city right now and the pain that people are in and the suffering that is taking place, I dont care. I will support the looters till the end of the day. If thats what they need to do in order to eat, then thats what youve got to do to eat .... The whole idea of criminality is based on racism anyway, because criminality is punishing people for things that they have needed to do to survive or just the way that society has affected them with white supremacist B.S. So its like her deciding what is criminal and what isnt. WMAQ-TV [Chicago].  "Black Lives Matter Holds Rally Supporting Individuals Arrested in Chicago Looting Monday."
  10 August 2020. Black, Curtis. &nbps; "Latrell Allen Police Shooting Exposes Gaps in Body Camera and Foot Pursuit Policies."
  The Chicago Reporter.  14 August 2020. Yoon-Ji Kang, Esther.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  10 August 2020. Wildeboer, Rob and Chip Mitchell.  "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say."
  WBEZ [Chicago].  12 August 2020.