Sonic Drive-In Red Tray Keychain Promotion
On 19 May 2016 a Facebook user published a photograph and status update reporting that outlets of the Sonic Drive-In fast food chain were selling red tray keychains for $2 that entitled bearers to 99 Route 44 beverages for life: photograph  As is often the case with such high-value discount offers, the photograph rapidly spread outside the user's area and soon flooded Facebook nationally  with some viewers expressing skepticism about the information:  Posters to Sonic's Facebook wall regularly asked whether the claim promotion was real and why they had been unable to obtain the red tray keychain at their local Sonic outlets. Sonic corporate didn't respond to those questions, but an individual Sonic franchise operator replied to a customer's query to say: wall  According to that Sonic operator, the promotion was offered only by a small group of Sonic franchises in Texas. A manager at one of those "red tray" locations told us that the red tray keychains were only available at Texas Sonic locations in Tyler and Longview.  Similarly, 2017 saw the red tray promotion pop up at scattered Sonic Drive-In locations such as Princeton, West Virginia:  The Sonic promotion rumor and social media interest in it has spread confusion similar to that prompted by Wendy's Frosty key chains promotion, which costs $1 and enables purchasers to obtain one free Junior Frosty per Wendy's visit (but are good only for one year from date of purchase). Frosty key chains
In the contest for the hearts and minds of voters, Democrats have been claiming that the economy is really improving and the Republicans have been saying they can make the anemic recovery even more robust.During theonline-onlyportion of the Aug. 28 Providence Journal-WPRI debate among Democrats David Cicilline and Anthony Gemma, both running in the 1st Congressional District, incumbent Cicilline was asked how he would tackle the massive national debt.Cicilline said that in addition to cutting spending and closing loopholes in the tax system, the pace of job creation needs to increase.When President Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Now we've had job growth, I think, for 24 consecutive months, he said.We've heard a lot of chatter about the job numbers and whether they really indicate a recovery, so we decided to look further.First, a look at what the employment situation was like when Obama took office.Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that in January 2009, when the president was sworn in, the country lost 818,000 jobs. (The numbers do not include farm workers and are adjusted for seasonal shifts in employment, but that's the standard way of calculating employment and unemployment rates. )That's 17 percent more than the 700,000 jobs Cicilline cited. (To put the numbers in perspective, the losses for the first three full months that Obama was in office averaged 738,000 per month. The average job loss for the last three full months of the Bush administration was 651,000. )When it comes to thenumber of monthsin which the United States has had job growth, Cicilline's timeframe was also somewhat off.BLS datashow that the last time the United States lost jobs was in September 2010, when 27,000 jobs were lost.That's 22 months ago, not 24.How significant have the increases been?Gary Burtless, a labor economist at the Brookings Institutiontold PolitiFact Nationalin May that the economy needs to create 90,000 to 100,000 jobs each month just to keep pace with the number of people coming into the work force.During 7 of those 22 months, including as recently as April, May and June of this year, job growth was below 100,000. In 8 of the 22 months, it was over 200,000.When we asked his campaign for the source of Cicilline's statement, spokeswoman Nicole Kayner sent usa White House blog itemfrom Aug. 3 reporting: The economy has now added private sector jobs for 29 straight months. We confirmed that with the BLS database, but this is for non-government jobs, and Cicilline didn't make that distinction in his debate comment.Our rulingIn the debate, U.S. Rep. David Cicilline said: When President Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Now we've had job growth, I think, for 24 consecutive months.We want to note, as we repeatedly have, that even though there's been improvement in the job numbers during the Obama administration, a president's ability to influence the economy is severely limited.As for Cicillines comment, he understated the job losses occurring when President Obama took office and, by the most commonly used measure, he overstated by two months the timespan of continued job growth. But his main point -- that there has been growth for nearly two years -- is sound.Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rule itMostly True. (Get updates from PolitiFact Rhode Island on Twitter:@politifactri. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.) Claim:  Las Vegas casino owners and the Nevada Gaming Commission are lobbying to legalize dog fighting.  Example:  [Collected via email, October 2014] There is an article on a website known as "Empire News"  which states that casino owners in Las Vegas are attempting to legalize dog fighting as a new gambling incentive !Is this true ????   Origins:  On 12 October 2014, Empire News published an article positing that a steep drop in gambling revenues was inspiring Vegas casino owners and the Nevada gaming commission to push for the legalization of dog fighting in order to reverse that financial decline: article The steady decline in revenue affecting many casinos across the country has forced many gaming houses to seek other sources of income.  As a result, the gambling industry has been quietly seeking a controversial betting offshoot  legalized and industry regulated dog fighting Social media users erupted in anger and disgust at the claim as it wended its way through Facebook and similar sites: "Think of the images of Michael Vick and everything else that comes to mind when you mention dog fighting," said Roger Kenny, administrator with the Nevada Gaming Commission. In a press release he stated, "If we regulate dog fighting, promote it as a sport, eventually people will come to accept it, and it will be as common as blackjack or prostitution.  We'd like to change the negative perception that certain groups have put out there about the activity," he said. If the "as common as blackjack or prostitution" line didn't tip off readers to the article's true nature, the following should have: Dog trainer and television host Cesar Millan said, "This is the most inhumane act that I can think of.  Dogs are our companions and are among the most intelligent creatures on Earth.  Something like this with cats, now that I could understand," continued Millan. "Put a couple of cats in a boxing ring, maybe with little gloves and helmets  nobody's going to give a crap, it's just cats. But with dogs, it's different  they're man's best friend. When I heard this news I wanted to rabidly tear the Commission's collective throat out. Of course, you'd be hard-pressed to find a beast more beloved by the internet at large than cats; and the Vegas dog fighting yarn is just one of many "satirical" stories from Empire News, a web site whose stock in trade is posting outrage-provoking fake news articles. Other leg-pulls from the site include "Record-Shattering Snowfall Coming Soon (Bread and Milk Prices Expected to Soar)," "MTV Begins Production On New Show '12 And Pregnant'," and "Colorado Becomes First State to Legalize Crystal Meth." Record-Shattering Snowfall Coming Soon MTV Begins Production On New Show '12 And Pregnant' Colorado Becomes First State to Legalize Crystal Meth A disclaimer page on Empire News admits the publication "is a satirical and entertainment website." disclaimer page   Last updated:  20 October 2014 On Oct. 11, 2020, Allstate insurance company released a new television advertisement that showed a man going about his day on what turned out to be a tiny island. The aim of the commercial appeared to highlight a new payment option that allowed drivers to only pay for miles driven. This meant smaller bills for drivers who don't drive a lot. released  The ad featured Babe Rainbow's "Morning Song." In the final shot, it was revealed that the man lived on a very small island. We found no shortage of tweets that asked if the island was real: "Morning Song."    The island in the Allstate video is indeed real. It is Ona, located in Norway. RepublicWorld.com reported the news in October. reported  Norway, Ona island lighthouse. (Courtesy: Andrea Pistolesi/Getty Images)  According to Fjords.com: "Ona is the name of the island community which consists of the two islands Ona and Husya. The two islands are connected with a small bridge." Fjords.com VisitNorway.com published a page with information for what tourists could expect when visiting the island: published Norway's southernmost living fishing village. The island serves as a year-round residence for 11 people and has a beauty that attracts travelers from far and near. Ona Fyr is a 15-meter high landmark built in 1865, located on the island's highest point, Onakalven. It is possible to go inside the lighthouse, and from the top, there is a fantastic view out over the sea and towards the mainland. You will also find the exclusive Ona Chocolate here, a small summer caf, two pottery workshops, a craft shop, a chapel, and a long, white sandy beach. The island is a peaceful place where you can enjoy the silence and tranquility. On the island, there are holiday homes located directly on the dock, and local suppliers offer a wide range of activities on-site, including various forms of fishing. While Ona is a real island, it appeared that the final shot of the Allstate advertisement might have been altered in editing to give the island a bit of a cleaner look. For instance, here is the view of the island from the end opposite the one shown in the Allstate advertisement:  Ona, Norway. (Courtesy: Andrea Pistolesi/Getty Images)  A number of YouTube videos also showed that small patches of rock surround Ona, which did not appear in the Allstate video. For example, small patches of rock appeared here at 0:23, but not in the advertisement: number of YouTube videos appeared here at 0:23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP5X-OxbUFI?t=23 Digitally altered or not, Ona appeared to be a quiet, lovely vacation destination for anyone visiting Norway in the future. Speaking of islands, we previously reported about a photograph of a purported "Violin Island" in Costa Rica. That picture first arrived in our inboxes in 2017. reported Claim:  Lou Pritchett penned an "open letter" to President Obama. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2009] AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American. You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.. You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others. You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad. You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations. You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people. You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient. You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do. You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing. Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. Lou Pritchett Origins:  Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.   Lou Pritchett Mr. Pritchett confirmed to us that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter" quoted above: I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had over 500,000 hits. In April 2012, the following update was added to the original: In April 2009, I sent President Obama and the New York Times a lettertitled "You Scare Me" because, as a candidate, he promised to"fundamentally transform America." Now, after observing his performancefor over three years, he no longer scares me  he terrifies me for thefollowing reasons: FIRST-- He has done more to damage America's standing in the world, tolower the standard of living in America, to impoverish future generationsand to shake our faith in the country's future than any other Americanpresident in history. SECOND-- With a compliant Democrat congress, a lapdog media and a weak,almost nonexistent Republican opposition, he has shattered the Americandream of job security, home ownership and rugged individualism formillions of Americans and has poisoned and divided our civil society withhis politics of envy, class warfare, race warfare, and religious warfarewhich he is using as fundamental building blocks for his 'socialist'agenda. THIRD-- culturally, he remains totally out of touch with traditionalAmerican values. This has absolutely nothing to do with race or where hewas born, rather it has everything to do with where, how and with whom hewas raised, schooled, educated, trained and associates with still today. FOURTH-- he has surrounded himself with naive academicians, lawyers,politicians, bureaucrats and socialist leaning czars who arrogantly thinkand behave exactly as he does.People who offer no balanced suggestions or devils advocate positions andthink in lock step with him that big government is the answer to all ourproblems. FIFTH-- he not only encourages but aids and abets the unionization of allAmerican industry, the albatross around the neck of the free market. Inturn, they provide the money and muscle to intimidate his opponents. SIXTH-- he has increased the national debt by over 30% in just threeyears. If re-elected and this rate of increase continues, America will beburdened with an unsustainable 20 trillion dollar debt which will resultin the Country's financial death. Recovery will be impossible ---- Americawill be the Greece of 2016. SEVENTH-- given his fanatical beholding to the 'environmental' and'man-caused global warming' fringe, he has deliberately discouraged U.S.fossil fuel exploration and production while wasting millions of tax payerdollars on solar, wind and algae experiments. He refuses to accept thatoil, gas and coal are not America's enemies, they are America's assetswhich, properly managed, could make us energy independent within ageneration. EIGHTH-- He views the U.S. as a power in retreat which abused its Worlddominance. Therefore he systematically apologizes round the world. LastMarch he whispered to Russian President Medvedev "--this is my lastelection. After my election, I have more flexibility". Just what is thesecret that Obama and Putin are concealing from the American people untilafter the election? With what other leaders has he made similar secretagreements? NINTH---and finally, after all his mis-steps, bad decision making, poormanagement, and zero leadership, the fact that he has the audacity to seekre-election should terrify every American.I predict that if re-elected, future historians and political interpreterswill look back at the eight year period 2008-2016, and conclude "the 44thPresident of the U.S. allowed the takers to overpower the payers whichresulted in the greatest economy in history vanishing from the face of theEarth". Lou Pritchett  April 15, 2012Farewell America, the World will really miss you! Last updated:  12 May 2012 Since at least August 2013 a message has been circulated via Facebook claiming the social networking site was removing posted photographs of military veterans who had lost limbs due to amputation or injury, reportedly because Facebook has deemed such images to be "offensive" and a violation of the company's community standards: Facebook is removing Veteran Amputees photos' and calling them offensive and against the Community Standards of Facebook. Please like and share.  However, there is absolutely no basis for asserting that Facebook has taken such an action or implemented such a policy. No published Facebook guidelines make reference (directly or indirectly) to this class of photograph being unacceptable, and many images featuring amputees and other persons with missing limbs (including both military personnel and civilians) have long been plainly viewable on that social networking site. (In fact, one of the more popular images commonly shared on Facebook in recent years is one that is identified, albeit incorrectly, as showing a group of female veteran amputees.)  amputees amputees Moreover, the content of the warning message itself belies its claim, as it has been posted and shared on Facebook countless times despite its inclusion of a supposedly-banned photograph of a military amputee. The image shown above is a picture of Casey Owens, a U.S. Marine whose legs were amputated after he was injured by shrapnel from an anti-tank mine while he was taking part in a rescue mission in Iraq in September 2004. This particular photograph was taken while Owens was attending the inauguration of President George W. Bush in January 2005: inauguration Casey Owens, a wounded Marine, salutes as his mother Janna Owens cries during the inaugural speech by President Bush. The president pledged to work to heal a country divided by the Iraq war. "We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes, and I will strive in good faith to heal them."  Sydiongco, David.  "Don't Bother Posting the 'Facebook Privacy Notice' That's Spreading Around."
  Slate.  5 June 2012. A graphic featuring an image of former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg next to a quote ostensibly uttered by him about Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, referring to the GOP candidate as "con artist" and a "cheat," has been widely circulated on social media:  I have known Trump for decades. We have traveled in the same business circles. He is known among other millionaires as a con artist and among business owners as a cheat out to stiff everyone. The text of this image first started circulating in July 2016, shortly after Bloomberg made an appearance at the Democratic National Convention to endorse Hillary Clinton. Bloomberg issued several remarks critical of Donald Trump during his DNC speech, including referring to his candidacy as a "con" and mocking his business acumen, but he did not say the words attributed to him above. circulating A full transcript of Bloomberg's speech can be found here, while the relevant portion has been reproduced below: here  I'm a New Yorker, and New Yorkers know a con when we see one! Trump says he'll punish manufacturers that move to Mexico or China, but the clothes he sells are made overseas in low-wage factories. He says he wants to put Americans back to work, but he games the US visa system so he can hire temporary foreign workers at low wages. He says he wants to deport 11 million undocumented people, but he seems to have no problem in hiring them. What'd I miss here?! Truth be told, the richest thing about Donald Trump is his hypocrisy. He wants you to believe that we can solve our biggest problems by deporting Mexicans and shutting out Muslims. He wants you to believe that erecting trade barriers will bring back good jobs. He's wrong on both counts. We can only solve our biggest problems if we come together and embrace the freedoms that our Founding Fathers established right here in Philadelphia, which permitted our ancestors to create the great American exceptionalism that all of us now enjoy. Donald Trump doesn't understand that. Hillary Clinton does. And we can only create good jobs if we make smarter investments in infrastructure and do more to support small businesses. Not stiff them. Donald Trump doesn't understand that. Hillary Clinton does. I understand the appeal of a businessman president. But Trump's business plan is a disaster in the making. He would make it harder for small businesses to compete, do great damage to our economy, threaten the retirement savings of millions of Americans, lead to greater debt and more unemployment, erode our influence in the world, and make our communities less safe. The bottom line is: Trump is a risky, reckless, and radical choice. And we can't afford to make that choice. Nonetheless, some newspapers misquoted Bloomberg and reported that he had referred to Trump as a "con artist": misquoted As Michael Bloomberg said perfectly about Trump during his speech at the Democratic convention in July: Im a New Yorker  and I know a con artist when I see one. It was Florida senator Marco Rubio who referred to Trump (more than once) as a "con artist" during the campaign for the Republican nomination: referred We are so excited about what lies ahead for our campaign, Rubio said. You see, just five days ago, we began to unmask the true nature of the front-runner so far in this race. Five days ago, we began to explain to the American people that Donald Trump is a con artist. Two weeks from tonight right here in Florida we are going to send a message loud and clear, Rubio said. We are going to send the message that the party of Lincoln and Reagan and the presidency of the United States will never be held by a con artist. In May 2022, we received inquiries from our readers that asked if an email message from the "Jeff Green Foundation" was legitimate. According to the email, a philanthropist named Jeff Green had decided to give away $1 million each to 20 different lucky recipients. However, this had all the signs of a classic email scam. Jeff Green scam According to a screenshot captured by a reader, the email appeared like this:  We transcribed the scam email below: scam From: Jeff Green Foundation Subject: My philanthropy! To: YOU Reply-To: privatewealth.donation@webmail.hu Greetings to you and your family. In a thousand years, I never thought I would do something like this. My Name is Jeff Green, Below is a Link of me and what i do. https://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-t-green/?sh=1fc2467a41e2 https://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-t-green/?sh=1fc2467a41e2 https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/billionaire-utahn-to-give-away-90-of-his-wealth https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/billionaire-utahn-to-give-away-90-of-his-wealth https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/11/16/richest-utah-native-vows/ https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/11/16/richest-utah-native-vows/ When I was 17, I met a homeless man named James in Five Points, Denver, Colorado. I spent hours listening to him, his stories, and the twists and turns of choice and fate that led him to a life on the streets. His journey deeply affected me, and I found myself dwelling on it a great deal over the following months, unable to shake one core question that was taking root in my mind - Why is he out here on the streets in the December cold while I am living a more comfortable life? I think this adage is generally true: luck is preparation meeting opportunity. But I also understand that many people experience major life events that obstruct their preparation and as a result, opportunity passes them by. I also believe that we all encounter people who can propel us forward or hold us back. No one gets to their situation in life alone, good or bad. I didn't get to this statistically outlying position alone, and neither did James. Money cannot buy happiness. Money can buy things that make life more enjoyable. But those things and that enjoyment are always fleeting. When you think about the problems you face in life, the accumulation of things is rarely the solution. My philanthropy is not about politics or handouts - it is about getting the best outcomes for all the potential talent, which can only benefit our nation, and humankind. It will help people step up to opportunity, not lay back. I will give away the vast majority of my wealth through data-driven philanthropy before or at my death. My target is more than 90 percent of my wealth. But I will also give of my time, my most precious commodity, to allocate those funds deliberately, and to be personally engaged. So I decided I was going to contact 20 people via their email address which I paid for from a Data Firm. If you receive this email, I am giving you $1 Million. Thinking about it again, I must be crazy to do something like this but crazy is what made me who I am today so lets go for it! All you have to do is reply to this email with your full names and you will be paid $1 Million. My Life's Mission is to deploy capital against humanity's toughest problems. Jeff Green. A search of Twitter showed that several users were curious whether the "Jeff Green Foundation" email was legitimate: Twitter    We didn't find any similar messages available on Facebook, but it's likely that some users were discussing the email in private posts only visible to friends. Facebook Some of the paragraphs in the "Jeff Green Foundation" email scam were copied and pasted from the text of a genuine letter written by a real philanthropist named Jeff T. Green. In November 2021, Green truly did pledge to try to give away "more than 90 percent" of his billions in wealth. scam a genuine letter billions However, there's no indication that Green or his foundation had anything to do with the email scam. scam We quickly noticed several issues with the "Jeff Green Foundation" message. Before the email got into the "when I was 17" story from the genuine letter, several words were either capitalized or not capitalized that should have been the reverse. For example, one usage of the word "I" was left to be lowercase as "i" in the same sentence as an oddly-placed comma: "My Name is Jeff Green, Below is a Link of me and what i do." Additionally, the sentence was poorly worded. The message also asked recipients to respond to privatewealth.donation@webmail.hu. The idea that a billionaire philanthropist would publish an email with such poor grammar and, at the same time, ask people to respond to a fairly generic Hungarian email address, did not scream "legitimate." We reached out to a company associated with Green to see if they had been alerted to the scam that used his name. We will update this story if we receive a statement. scam In sum, no, the "Jeff Green Foundation" emails that promised $1 million each to 20 different people was not a legitimate giveaway. Jeff T. Green. The Giving Pledge, https://givingpledge.org/pledger?pledgerId=430. Stack, Peggy Fletcher. Richest Utah Native Vows to Give Away 90% of His Billions. The Salt Lake Tribune, 16 Nov. 2021, https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/11/16/richest-utah-native-vows/. Swant, Marty. Billionaire Jeff T. Green, Founder Of The Trade Desk, Joins The Giving Pledge. Forbes, 16 Nov. 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/martyswant/2021/11/16/the-trade-desk-founder-jeff-green-joins-list-of-billionaires-to-sign-the-giving-pledge/. Tavss, Jeff. Billionaire Utahn to Give Away 90% of His Wealth. KSTU, 16 Nov. 2021, https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/billionaire-utahn-to-give-away-90-of-his-wealth. As social media users sorted through a flurry of news articles, opinion pieces, calls for boycotts, and other hot takes in September 2018 about Colin Kaepernick's involvement in a new Nike ad campaign, some stumbled across what appeared to be a news article reporting that Ford USA was following Nike's example by making the former NFL quarterback the face of their new ad campaign: articles   This item was not a social media link to a genuine news article, nor did the featured image show a genuine Ford advertisement featuring Colin Kaepernick. This item was created as a joke for the political humor section of the Reddit social news site. Kaepernick became a controversial figure in 2016 when he started kneeling during the pre-game performance of the U.S. national anthem in protest of racial inequality and police brutality. A number of conservative football fans, including President Trump, maintained that Kaepernick's protest was disrespectful to veterans, so when Nike announced that the former football star would be featured in their latest ad campaign, social media users urged each other to boycott the brand and started posting images purportedly showing them destroying various pieces of Nike apparel. 2016 Twitter user @Patterico apparently found the videos of people burning their shoes to be amusing but noted that the entertainment value would increase if people were burning Ford F-150 trucks instead: I'll pay Ford $10 if they put Kaepernick in a commercial for F-150s so I can watch some dumbass torch his pickup on Twitter, who's with me  Patterico (@Patterico) September 4, 2018 September 4, 2018  Reddit user u/fakenewsanchorman saw this tweet and decided to create a fake news item (note the username) stating that Ford USA had indeed named Kaepernick as their new brand ambassador. On 5 September 2018, his meme was posted to the Political Humor subreddit under the title "Please Make This Actually Happen." Political Humor That Reddit user admitted in the comments section that his image did not reflect a genuine news item, but we double-checked with FoxNews.com to see if reporter Judson Berger had filed any such report. This article does not appear on Berger's author page nor anywhere else on the Fox News web site. author page This bit of fake news may have sparked sparked interest in a genuine, albeit outdated, article about Ford's stance on the national anthem protests. In September 2017, the company officially took the side of the protesting players, saying that they respected the "individuals' right to express their views": article "We respect individuals' rights to express their views, even if they are not ones we share," the company said. "That's part of what makes America great" ... Martha Firestone Ford, owner and chairwoman of the Detroit Lions and a member of the Ford family, issued a statement criticizing President Trump for his comments. "Our game has long provided a powerful platform for dialogue and positive change in many communities throughout our nation," she said. "Negative and disrespectful comments suggesting otherwise are contrary to the founding principles of our country, and we do not support those comments or opinions." Abad-Santos, Alex.  "Why the Social Media Boycott Over Colin Kaepernick Is a Win for Nike."
  Vox.  6 September 2018. Sandritter, Mark.  "A Timeline of Colin Kaepernicks National Anthem Protest and the Athletes Who Joined Him."
  SB Nation.  25 September 2017. Wiener-Bronner, Danielle.  "Ford: We Respect the Right of NFL Players to Protest."
  CNN.  25 September 2017. The Georgia night sky could -- loudly -- come to life if a piece of legislation becomes state law. Senate Resolution 378 would allow revenue from the sale of consumer fireworks to be used to help fund trauma care and firefighter services in Georgia. Currently, nothing with more pop than a sparkler can be sold in this state. The expansion would allow the sale of more high-powered fireworks, such as rockets, firecrackers and Roman candles. The resolution, if approved, would require a statewide voter referendum in November 2014. One prominent sponsor of the bill, Sen. Jeff Mullis, said theres a practical reason for such a law. We lose millions of dollars of revenue because people go out of state to buy fireworks, said Mullis, a Republican from Chickamauga, a 10-minute trip from the Tennessee border. Mullis claimed in a press release that the sales tax on these purchases will raise and [sic] estimated $5 million each year for vital emergency services. Lawmakers propose a 6 percent tax on fireworks sales with the proceeds being evenly split for trauma care and a firefighter safety council. An additional 1 percent tax could be collected by cities and counties. PolitiFact Georgia received a reader request to figure out if Mullis is correct in his assertion that Georgia loses millions of dollars because people travel to Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee to get their fireworks. We try to stay away from fact-checking revenue projections. Mullis, a former firefighter, said via email that his primary concern is Georgia is failing to capitalize on a form of commerce that could add millions of dollars to our state's bottom line, as well as jobs which would be created as a result of new industry. Marietta resident Bill Tugwell owns the large Alabama fireworks store on U.S. 431 between Phenix City and Eufaula that many metro Atlantans pass on their way to vacation along the Florida Panhandle beaches. The parking lot is often filled with cars bearing Georgia license plates. I dont think its millions plural, Tugwell said regarding how much money Georgia loses to other states. I think its closer to a million. Some states have interesting purposes for their fireworks laws. Florida allows people to buy an estimated 2,000 forms of fireworks that are listed under the category of sparklers. For anything that explodes or lifts off the ground, you need a permit. Some of the permitted uses for more powerful forms of fireworks include scaring birds away from crops. There shouldnt be a critter left in Florida, quipped Julie Heckman, executive director of the American Pyrotechnics Association, a Maryland-based trade group. Revenue officials in Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee said they did not have any research showing how much money Georgians spend on fireworks there. Economics academics at colleges and universities in those states said they havent seen or conducted such research. A Senate spokeswoman sent us a report by the American Pyrotechnics Association that says consumers nationwide spent $649 million on fireworks in 2011, up from $284 million in 1998. The figures were not broken down by states. Jeff Humphreys, director of the University of Georgias Selig Center for Economic Growth, suggested we could come up with an estimate by calculating a per capita breakdown of how much money Georgians would spend on fireworks if the menu of products was expanded. Since slightly more than 3 percent of the nations population lives in Georgia (9.9 million residents), that would equate to about $20 million being spent by Georgians in 2011. Humphreys advised us that there would be a multiplier effect on top of the direct fiscal impact due to reduced shopping outside Georgia if fireworks were available for purchase inside the state, but he said it would not be large. A 6 percent tax or fee could be worth at least $3 million annually. In 2006, Indiana lawmakers imposed a 5 percent safety fee on retail fireworks sales. Indiana collects about $2.5 million a year from the fee, state data shows. Indiana has about 6.5 million residents. Michigan collected $755,262 from a 6 percent fireworks safety fee during the first eight months of its new law to allow more powerful fireworks to be sold, the Detroit News reported. The newspaper reported the revenue collected was far below projections. Michigans new fireworks safety fee and guidelines took effect in January 2012. Michigan has 9.8 million residents, nearly the same amount as Georgia. Bill Weimer, a top official of a company in Ohio that sells many of the fireworks not currently sold in Georgia, believes Mullis claim is accurate. Weimer looked at the amount of fireworks sold in Indiana and believes the same volume of fireworks will be sold in Georgia or more. You can do the math, said Weimer, vice president of Phantom Fireworks, which sells fireworks to several national retail chains. Phantom Fireworks has been working with Mullis and other lawmakers trying to pass SR 378. So where does this leave us? Mullis claimed Georgias economy loses millions of dollars in revenue because residents travel outside the state to purchase their fireworks. Its probable, but there is no specific research to support his argument. We do know some Georgians go outside the state to buy fireworks, and it does seem like people spend millions of dollars on fireworks in other states. It would be useful if there were more hard numbers out there to back up Mullis claim. But based on the specific numbers we have from other states and our own estimates, he seems to be in the ballpark. We rate his claim Mostly True. As President Barack Obama and Republicans in Congress continued their high-stakes stand-off over raising the debt ceiling and other budget issues, Obama held a press conference to press his case that he's a reasonable guy. One of the main points of contention is whether an agreement should include tax increases of any kind, such as closing tax loopholes or tax increases on the wealthy. Republicans oppose raising taxes.During a press conference on July 15, 2011, Obama was asked if the negotiations would be going better if he had started making his case to the public months ago, pushing a proposal that included tax increases and spending cuts. Obama rejected the premise. You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren't sold is not the problem, he said. The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically into various positions because they boxed themselves in with previous statements. We won't weigh in on Obama's diagnosis of being dug in, but we were interested in the poll numbers on whether the public supports a balanced approach or not.The most recent poll we found largely supported Obama's statement. A Gallup poll conducted July 7-10, 2011 posed the question this way:As you may know, Congress can reduce the federal budget deficit by cutting spending, raising taxes, or a combination of the two. Ideally, how would you prefer to see Congress attempt to reduce the federal budget deficit: only with spending cuts, mostly with spending cuts, equally with spending cuts and tax increases, mostly with tax increases, or only with tax increases?The answer only spending cuts got 20 percent. The other answers were mostly spending cuts, 30 percent; equal spending cuts and tax increases, 32 percent; mostly tax increases, 7 percent; only tax increases, 4 percent; unsure/other, 6 percent.We'll note that Obama counted in his favor people who favored only tax increases or who weren't sure, so he wasn't completely accurate. If you deduct those groups, only 70 percent support the balanced approach. But the poll did support his overall point.Other polls also showed support for Obama's statement, but not quite at an 80-percent level.A poll from Quinnipiac University conducted July 5-11, 2011, asked: Do you think any agreement to raise the national debt ceiling should include only spending cuts, or should it also include an increase in taxes for the wealthy and corporations?In this case, 67 percent favored including tax increases, while 25 percent favored spending cuts only. Another 8 percent were unsure.In June, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that most people, 46 percent, favored a combination of cuts and tax increases, compared with 26 percent who said cuts alone and 13 percent who said raise taxes. An ABC/Washington Postpoll from April found the number was higher, at 59 percent. We reviewed polls and consulted experts a few weeks ago for a fact-check onwhether people support tax increasesor not. Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who studies polls on taxation, told us polls usually show support for balanced approaches, particularly if people don't have to pay the higher taxes themselves. Generally, combinations of tax hikes and spending cuts are most popular. It seems fair to most people. Spending cuts are favored in the abstract. Tax hikes are favored as long as they don't affect me. Generally, people don't think anybody should have to pay more than a quarter of their income in total taxes, she said. Finally, a few other cautions on poll numbers.Pollsters have long noted that when you ask questions with different wording, you get different results. All the polls we looked at phrased the question slightly differently.A few recent polls also suggested that people find the whole debt ceiling debate confusing, or they aren't following it very closely. A Pew Research Center/Washington Postpoll from May asked people how well they felt they understood what would happen if the government does not raise the federal debt limit; 47 percent said not too well or not at all well. And the July Gallup poll found that 42 percent of respondents were following the issue not too closely or not at all. Getting back to Obama's statement, he said, You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. Even the best poll doesn't show support quite that high -- he would more accurately have accounted for the small numbers that support only tax increases or were unsure, putting the number at 70 percent. But his overall point is correct that polls show most Americans support a balanced approach when given a choice between cutting spending or raising taxes. So we rate his statement Mostly True.