A remarkable carburetor
Claim:  A miraculous car that gets 200 miles to the gallon is sold by mistake then reclaimed by the factory and is never seen again.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 1999] A retiring General Motors employee, after many years of service, receives a car as a retirement gift. (as well as a nice pension, etc.). So he is given permission to select a car from the lot there at the factory. He selects a Chevrolet Caprice, a big, luxury car. After receiving it, he is satisfied with his choice. After all, who wouldn't enjoy driving around in a roomy, comfortable car. After driving it for a while, he noticed something quite odd ... a car like this usually consumes a substantial amount of fuel, but the gas gauge hardly moves at all.  After a few weeks, he gets suspicious. Things like this don't happen. Being the company man he is, he returns it to the factory. Explaining this to the service tech must've caused some strange looks, but they took it in anyway. After he got his car back, he noticed it got the typical gas mileage of a comparable car. Could've this car had some secret "modifications" that allowed him to drive for weeks, on the same tank of gas? Detroit's automakers have purportedly seized, er.. bought out patents of items that improve gasoline mileage like the 100 mpg carburetor, etc. Maybe the R&D department at GM put this theory to practice, and this was an example.  [Collected via e-mail, 1997] A couple journeys from Western Canada to Detroit to buy a new car and presumably save shipping costs while having a vacation in the States at the same time.  Driving back to the prairies, they find to their astonishment that the gas gauge is not moving down to "empty" even though they've been driving for hours.  Arriving home some thousands of miles away from Detroit, they have only refilled the tank once or twice. A few days after returning, the husband looks out at his driveway in the morning to find two mysterious men tinkering with his car (the hood is up).  Running out, they race off; he checks under the hood, finds nothing amiss, and concludes it's just vandals or would-be thieves whom he was fortunate to apprehend before any damage was done.  BUT, when they drive the car, they find their gas mileage is now normal. Variations:  The miraculous car legend ends one of four ways:    Mysterious men appear and tinker with the engine, rendering the car no different than any other.   The car is reclaimed by the factory. If the owner afterwards gets the same car back (sometimes it's replaced outright with another vehicle), it now gets ordinary gas mileage. No-nonsense business types show up to make a fabulous offer for the car, which is accepted. The owner wakes up one morning to find the car vanished without a trace. Origins:  The legend of the miracle high-mileage automobile has been around longer than most of our readers, with a version set it Philadelphia having appeared in a 1948 newspaper. (Even at that time, the story proved unverifiable, with the article's writer identifying it as such and passing it along only as an example of a current rumor   sweeping through the community.) Since that early sighting of more than half a century ago, the legend has gone on to enthrall audience after audience as each couple of years sees it pop up anew. Its origins are as strange as the story itself. Between 1928 and 1935, Charles Nelson Pogue, an inventor from Canada, applied for numerous patents for what he claimed was a new type of carburetor that supposedly completely vaporized gasoline before introducing it to the cylinders, thereby extracting a great deal more energy from the fuel. According to the Pogue patent description, fuel was introduced into the engine in this vaporous "dry" state rather than in the normal droplet-laden "wet" state, thus combining more readily with air, making it burn with far greater efficiency. Better combustion combined with the raising of the engine's operating temperature from 160F to 180F were said to be responsible for vastly improved fuel economy.  So much for the techno-talk. The Pogue carburetor was touted as getting 200+ miles to the gallon. Glowing reports about this miracle of ingenuity's making a 1,879 mile trip on 14.5 gallons appeared in the May 1936 issue of Canadian AutomotiveTrade magazine, reports which Pogue later denied.  A manager of a Winnipeg auto dealership claimed he had driven a Pogue-equipped car 217 miles on a gallon of gasoline. A different dealer principal claimed to have driven 26 miles on a pint of fuel.  The story snowballed onward from those breathless testimonials as one rumor quickly followed on the heels of another. Thieves were reputed to have broken into Pogue's shop and made off with three of his carburetors. There was talk of armed guards and wolfhounds guarding the shop and the now-famous inventor. Wealthy backers (from Winnipeg or Toronto, depending on whom you heard the story from) were rumored  to be bankrolling Pogue, but the arrangements mysteriously fell through. Ford of Canada was said to have bought the invention outright. All in all it was a very exciting time. Alas, one can get by on mere smoke and mirrors for only so long. Those with sense enough to not be deafened by the hyperbole were not long kept at bay with tales of wolfhounds, thieves, and mysterious briefcase-toting moneymen. They wanted to see the carburetor. That, of course, was never permitted. No one reputable was allowed to see the mechanical miracle in action, let alone have a chance to measure its results. After the initial excitement over Pogue's 1936 announcement had faded, more serious types began to openly doubt that the carburetor would work as described.  In the December 1936 issue of Automotive Industries magazine, its engineering editor, P.M. Heldt, said of a sketch of the Pogue carburetor: "The sketch fails to show any features hitherto unknown in carburetor practice, and absolutely gives no warrant for crediting the remarkable results claimed." Other journalists were beginning to voice similar opinions. In response to calls to put up or shut up, Pogue's miracle carburetor was heard of no more. Faced with the choice of believing someone had made claims his invention couldn't later live up to or that a monied bad guy had bought up a technology to forever keep it off the market, at least some chose to believe the suppression theory. That the carburetor never made it to the public, they said, was proof enough of its existence. Those 1930s news stories breathlessly trumpeting Pogue's miracle of technology form the basis of the economical carburetor legend now before us.  As gas prices  fluctuate, our dependence on fossil fuels is driven home time and again. Who wouldn't long for a miracle of engineering that would free us from the tyranny of the gas pump? And thus the groundwork for belief is laid. As sometimes happens in the world of urban legends, desire for something to be true transforms a rumor into certainty that this very thing is fact. Over the years, our legend about a 200 mpg car has bobbed to the surface in community after community, been debunked in numerous respected publications, and bobbed right back up in the wake of those debunkings. The need to believe in this wondrous technology and the evil car manufacturers who are deliberately withholding it from the market appears too strong to combat. A bit of rational thought should be all that's needed to lay this legend to rest. Why would the car manufacturers at all care about keeping such a technological advance away from consumers? Unlike the petroleum companies, they've no vested interest in how much fuel a car uses. An automaker's self interest is best served by getting the newest irresistible technology to the consumer before his competitors do. If any one of them possessed the secret of the 200 mpg car, he'd have rushed it into production, hoping to beat his competitors to the punch. Those who are tempted to believe the Evil Government is responsible for keeping this miracle out of our hands should reflect for a moment on the current state of world politics. The government of the United States would like nothing better than to throw off the yoke of dependence upon foreign oil. A miraculous carburetor would grant that freedom, allowing Americans to continue to enjoy current levels of use without the need to go hat in hand to OPEC or even those dastardly Canadians. The domestic supply would be more than enough. Though rarely is this tale told about anything other than a gas-miserly carburetor, this version describes a miraculous lightbulb: It was around 1920, shortly after he had married, when the old man originally purchased the light bulb from a small store in town. It appeared to be a normal light bulb. However, when after sixty years it was still going strong, he decided to write to the manufacturers and tell them of this remarkable phenomenon. By return a reply came from the company indicating that they were very interested in the bulb and would like to send someone to see it. Eventually, one of the directors of the firm called and, instead of just showing interest, offered to buy it for 1,000. The old man, of course, refused, as the light bulb had given him good service. However, his curiousity was certainly aroused  why so much money for his light bulb? The director could provide no plausible explanation as to why they were willing to offer so much for the bulb, so the old man decided to explore this mystery further. With the help of a solicitor friend he did a little investigating and discovered that in the 1920s this particular light-bulb manufacturer had bought and tested the patent for an everlasting bulb. Only a few of these bulbs were made and the company, finding the invention worked, destroyed the bulbs and suppressed the idea  after all, it would have put them out of business. Unknown to the company one of the lights had accidentally become mixed up with a batch of ordinary bulbs and this was the light bulb which had lit the old man's kitchen for the past sixty years. (Sometimes lore collides with reality: A long-lived light bulb has been burning since 1901 and currently lights a fire station in Livermore, California.) light bulb Barbara "gasoline allied" Mikkelson Origins:  The legend about the need to suppress the steam-driven carburetor that can produce 200 mpg to protect the oil industry surfaces in an episode of the TV series Spoils of Babylon ("The Foundling: The War Within; original air date 9 January 2014). Last updated:  26 June 2014 The Mexican Pet    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Vanishing Hitchhiker.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1981.  ISBN 0-393-95169-3  (pp. 175-178). The Vanishing Hitchhiker    Dale, Rodney.  The Tumour in the Whale.   London: Duckworth, 1978.  ISBN 0-7156-1314-6  (pp. 114-115). The Tumour in the Whale    Dorson, Richard.  American Folklore.   Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1959  (p. 253). American Folklore    Ellis, William and Alan E. Mays.  "Art Linkletter and the Contemporary Legend."   FOAFTale News.  June 1994  (pp. 1-10).     Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker.  Rumor!   New York: Penguin Books, 1984.  ISBN 0-14-007036-2  (pp. 123-125).  Rumor!    Smith, Paul.  The Book of Nasty Legends.  London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983.  ISBN 0-00-636856-5  (pp. 9, 67).  The Book of Nasty Legends    Vance, Bill.  "Was Winnipeg Inventor Victim of Oil Barons?"   The Toronto Star.  17 April 1993  (p. H2). The Complete and Totally True Book of Urban Legends    Holt, David and Bill Mooney.  Spiders in the Hairdo.  Little Rock: August House, 1999.  ISBN 0-87483-525-9  (pp. 85, 106). Spiders in the Hairdo   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 22). The Big Book of Urban Legends
In late March 2020, amid the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, scams abounded on the internet. One such scam reported that consumers could get a $100 coupon during the pandemic for use at Starbucks cafes by simply clicking on a link. Here is a screenshot of a Twitter post promoting the bogus offer:     Although the links shared with the posts no longer appear to work, we are rating this offer a "Scam" because no evidence exists that the coupon was real. The web address for the "coupon," for example, was not from an official Starbucks website. We asked Starbucks to confirm the offer was a scam but didn't receive a response in time for publication. However, the "offer" being made echoes similar coupon scams that promise "free" or discounted goods from well-known brands if users click on a site  collecting people's private information in the process  but then don't deliver on the promise. As we have reported in the past on such scams: reported These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: general tips Urging Texans to find out how public schools are spending their money, Michael Quinn Sullivan, president of the conservative-leaning Empower Texans, which advocates for limited government, suggests that maybe too many non-teachers are soaking up taxpayer dollars that could be spent on classroom instruction. Everyone says public schools in Texas are underfunded, but are they? Sullivan says in the May 14 Web video, pointing out that more than half of the public school system's funding is spent on expenses outside the classroom. You might say there's a little overhead. There are 321,092 public school teachers in Texas. There are 313,850 non-teachers in our public schools, he continues. Do we really need one non-teacher for every teacher on the public school payroll? We're not weighing in on the value of non-teachers in the schools, but we wondered if Sullivan got his ratio right. He pointed us to the Texas Education Agency website, which has annual snapshots of public education in Texas both statewide and by district. The reports cover 90 statistics including student demographics, average college admission test scores and how many people each district employs broken down by job type. According to the most recent snapshot, 634,942 full-time employees worked in the public education system (not including charter schools) in 2008-09. Of those, 321,092 were full-time teachers and 313,850 staff members held other jobs. Who are all these non-teachers? According to the snapshot, teachers accounted for 51 percent of the schools' workforce in 2008-09. Auxiliary staff  such as security, public information officers and grant writers, according to TEA  were the next biggest grouping, 28 percent, followed by educational, at 10 percent, professional support staff, 8 percent, and administrative staff, 4 percent. This adds to more than 100 percent, the agency said, because some full-time employees divide time between positions. Sullivan said Empower Texans isn't suggesting that all 'non-teachers' are bad  clearly many are needed, but that the one-to-one teacher to non-teacher ratio seems a bit high. In the Web ad, Sullivan sounds a critical note, saying: Hey, we've got bureaucrats to pay. If you think our classrooms are underfunded  and they probably are  the money should be pretty easy to find. Just walk down to your nearest administrative complex. There's a counterpoint. Debbie Ratcliffe, the TEA's communications director, said: It takes a village to run a school district. There naturally are going to be a lot of people on school payrolls that aren't teachers, Ratcliffe said. Just think of the number of bus drivers and custodians and all those kinds of folks. Could you make a school run without them? Yeah, but it sure is a lot harder. Ratcliffe shared a more recent standard report that breaks down the full-time school employees for 2009-10 in detail. As of March 2010, the report says, statewide school district personnel totaled 661,285. Teachers made up about half of that, accounting for 333,090 full-time staff. Almost all the employees that fall under teaching staff are pre-kindergarten through 12th grade teachers. About 400 are labeled not applicable, which Ratcliffe said includes tutors and study hall monitors. The 2010 count puts the number of administrative staff at 25,525, or 3.9 percent of all workers. So who are the other 302,670 employees  the bulk of the non-teachers in Sullivan's claim? About 5,136 are librarians, 11,082 are counselors, 5,916 are nurses and 3,924 are speech therapists, among others. Some 178,140 are classified as auxiliary staff, a category that includes security personnel, public information officers and grant writers. How does Texas stack up nationally? On par, according to the the National Center for Education Statistics' most recent data. In 2007, teachers accounted for 51 percent of all elementary and secondary public school employees. In 20 states, teachers accounted for less than 50 percent of total staff, including Virgina (35 percent). In 30 states, teachers made up 50 percent or more of all staff, including South Carolina (72 percent). According to another report, released in November, instructional aides accounted for about 12 percent of all full-time public school staff nationwide, instructional coordinators and supervisors made up 1 percent, guidance counselors (2 percent), librarians (1 percent), student and support staff (23 percent), school administrators (3 percent), school district administrators (1 percent) and administrative support staff (7 percent). Where does all this leave Sullivan's statement? He correctly cites the number of teachers and non-teachers, per the education agency's latest snapshot report. More recent data available from the agency shows both have increased; still, the ratio of teachers to non-teachers is about the same. But Sullivan's online call to action doesn't do justice to the state's actual mix of school workers. The majority of non-teachers aren't administrators or paper shufflers; they're people who work directly with students including counselors, librarians, therapists and bus drivers. We rate Sullivan's statement as Mostly True. This story was updated to correct the total number of public school employees to 634,942. Adam Hasner, fake conservative? That's the contention being made by George LeMieux, as the two Republicans vie for the GOP nomination to take on incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson. LeMieux, a former U.S. senator, is challenging Hasner, a former Florida House majority leader, on two core issues: taxes and spending. LeMieux campaign e-mails and Web posts on Aug. 1, 2011,show a cartoon Hasnerwearing a joker hat and holding a mask in his hand. He is attending his own masquerade ball  one where hes only pretending to be conservative.The Masquerade Ball gown Hasner has chosen on the key issues of taxes and spending is a prime example. Hasners rhetoric simply does not match his record. Hasners record includes: Increasing Spending  A 40% increase during his time in the legislature. Requesting over $92.2 million in earmarks. Billions in new taxes and fees. Voting to accept Obama stimulus money.The earmark claim caught our eye. Hasner, elected to the Florida House of Representatives in 2002,served as majority leaderfrom 2008-10 before term limits ended his run. That means plenty of time to rack up requests for pet projects. But did he request over $92.2 million in earmarks? And if he did, how did that compare with requests by other lawmakers?A more detailed look at Hasners record atGeorgeForFlorida.comclarifies the LeMieux campaign was talking about Floridas twist on the earmark, the Community Budget Issue Request. As weve written inother earmark fact-checks, its a way state legislators use to request funding for local projects. Lawmakers had to file requests  for a local park, say, or a new community wastewater system  and attach their names to each one.The Legislaturestopped the practicein 2009 as budgets got tighter. But the Florida House keepsan archive of such requests, funded and unfunded, at FloridaHouse.gov.A PolitiFact Florida analysis oflawmakers requests from 2003-08shows Hasner indeed made use of CBIRs to ask for state funding for everything from acommunity child care center in Delray Beach($25,000) to support for amedical cluster and research institutein the Miami area ($20 million). He requested $1 million for manatee avoidance technology, made regular requests on behalf ofbrain injury prevention effortsamong seniors ($199,450) and asked for taxpayer aid for drainage improvements, boardwalk replacements and reclaimed water systems.Over six years, his requests total just over $92.2 million.Well mention that the archive doesnt make it clear which projects ultimately won funding, and indeed some requests may have been made year after year precisely because they failed to attract lawmaker support. Rep. Adam Hasners Community Budget Issue Requests 2003-08 That means the amount of local funding Hasner requested for his district was in the bottom half of lawmakers in four out of six years, though it jumped to the 60th percentile in 2006, the year before he served as deputy majority leader, and the 86th percentile in 2007, the year before he took the top seat.But even in 2007, the amount Hasner requested was eclipsed by top CBIR filers, such asRep. Marti Coley, R-Marianna,who wanted $202.3 million for projects in her district  nearly four times Hasners total.A couple of other notes.First, we feel we should at least mention that LeMieux has a record of voting for earmarks while he was in the U.S. Senate. LeMieux, whohadnt held elected officebefore he was appointed to U.S. Sen. Mel Martinezs seat in 2009 by his former boss, Gov. Charlie Crist, has claimed henever requested a single earmark. But he didnt have to: Earmarks bound for Florida were already packed into appropriations bills before LeMieux took over for Martinez. LeMieux voted forseveral such bills. He also activelylobbied for local stimulus projects. Later, he voted for a moratorium to ban federal earmarks through 2013  but so did Sen. Bill Nelson.Meanwhile, as the Florida economy faltered, Hasner cut his own local funding requests in 2008 to a single item  $385,000. That put him last among more than 100 lawmakers who made local funding requests. And he was in the leadership when the decision was made to stop such requests altogether. Hasners campaign, for the record, thinks its unfair to call Community Budget Issue Requests earmarks, which campaign spokesman Douglass Mayer said evokes last-minute congressional handshake deals.The difference here is transparency, Mayer said. CBIRs are submitted with full accountability and voted on in the light of day. Earmarks are snuck in the backdoor of the federal budget process to avoid accountability.But CBIRs are often referred to as Floridas version of the earmark, and documentation from the LeMieux campaign makes the reference clear.Where does this leave us?LeMieuxs campaign says that (Adam) Hasners record includes  requesting over $92.2 million in earmarks. On the numbers, LeMieux is right -- from 2003-08 Hasner requested $92.2 million for projects through a process called Community Budget Issue Requests. But we think there are a couple of caveats worth noting. First is the CBIR process itself -- which was open and transparent. Legislators made requests for dollars in writing and were forced to explain what the money would be used for. Second, it's important to note that Hasner wasn't particularly aggressive in requesting money through CBIRs and more than 100 House members asked for more than he did in 2008. Lastly, it strikes us as hypocritical for LeMieux to attack competitors over earmarks when his own record  where it exists  shows votes and personal lobbying for local spending. We rate this claim Mostly True. Intermittently, rumors have circulated on social media holding that the United States government was found guilty in 1999 of conspiring to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. Furthermore, according to these rumors, the reason this relatively new information (King was murdered on 4 April 1968) comes as a surprise to many is the "mainstream media" intentionally suppressed it after the government's role in King's death was exposed:  It's common for exaggerated claims to contain a few elements of truth, and that factor comes into play in this conspiracy theory rumor for a few reasons. One is rudimentary research would confirm the claim's basics (i.e., the verdict in a wrongful death civil action did allow that "government agencies" participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King), leading readers to believe the entirety of the rumor was factual. Another is the shaky foundation on which the conspiracy theory rests is a matter of some nuance. As well, the gravity of the trial's supposed conclusion, when contrasted with the relatively little public discussion of that addendum to King's life, has lent credence to the belief the trial in question and its outcome were deliberately omitted from the news. Historical figures like Martin Luther King, Jr. tend to be the subject of complicated conspiracy theories, particularly when they are vectors for widespread societal change. The man who was charged with King's murder, James Earl Ray, confessed to the crime and pled guilty; he then recanted his confession, hinted at a conspiracy, and sought to withdraw his guilty plea and secure a trial. However, any claim made by Ray about his guilt or innocence should be weighed against his strong incentive to be freed from prison (where he died in 1998). Also at issue is the difference between Ray's guilty plea in 1969, which avoided his undergoing a criminal trial, and the case cited by the rumors, which was a civil trial heard in 1999. The latter (King vs. Jowers) was a civil suit brought by agents of King's estate (including his widow, Coretta Scott King) against a man named Loyd Jowers, who claimed to have taken part in a conspiracy to assassinate King. In a criminal trial the guilt of the defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but in a civil suit the plaintiff need only support his claim with a preponderance of evidence to prevail. Loyd Jowers was a Memphis restaurant owner who inserted himself into the narrative about King's death in the course of a 1993 television interview during which he claimed to have been party to a larger conspiracy to assassinate King. However, Jowers had long asserted he had no involvement in the event before suddenly and bizarrely claiming, twenty-five years after the fact, he had been paid to hire a hit man to kill Martin Luther King. He then repudiated his claims when required to testify to them under oath: claiming At the time of the assassination, Loyd Jowers owned and operated Jim's Grill, a tavern below the rooming house where James Earl Ray rented a room on April 4, 1968. Until 1993, Jowers maintained in several public statements that he was merely serving customers in his tavern when Dr. King was shot. He did not claim any involvement in the assassination or significant knowledge about it. In December 1993, Jowers appeared on ABC's Prime Time Live and radically changed his story, claiming he participated in a plot to assassinate Dr. King. According to Jowers, a Memphis produce dealer, who was involved with the Mafia, gave him $100,000 to hire an assassin and assured him that the police would not be at the scene of the shooting. Jowers also reported that he hired a hit man to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill and received the murder weapon prior to the killing from someone with a name sounding like Raoul. Jowers further maintained that Ray did not shoot Dr. King and that he did not believe Ray knowingly participated in the conspiracy. Since his television appearance, Jowers and his attorney have given additional statements about the assassination to the media, the King family, Ray's defenders, law enforcement personnel, relatives, friends, and courts. Jowers, however, has never made his conspiracy claims under oath. In fact, he did not testify in King v. Jowers, despite the fact that he was the party being sued. The one time Jowers did testify under oath about his allegations in an earlier civil suit, Ray v. Jowers, he repudiated them. Further, he has also renounced his confessions in certain private conversations without his attorney. For example, in an impromptu, recorded conversation with a state investigator, Jowers characterized a central feature of his story  that someone besides Ray shot Dr. King with a rifle other than the one recovered at the crime scene  as "bullshit." Consequently, Jowers has only confessed in circumstances where candor has not been required by law or where he has not been required to reconcile his prior inconsistencies. The U.S. Department of Justice found Jowers' claims were without merit and explained that he'd never been able to provide any support for later assertions about his involvement in King's death: When Jowers has confessed, he has contradicted himself on virtually every key point about the alleged conspiracy. For example, he not only identified two different people as the assassin, but also most recently claimed that he saw the assassin and did not recognize him. Jowers also abandoned his initial allegation that he received $100,000 with which he hired a hit man to kill Dr. King, claiming instead that he merely held the money for the conspirators. Additionally, Jowers has been inconsistent about other aspects of the alleged conspiracy, including his role in it, Raoul's responsibilities, whether and how Memphis police officers were involved, and the disposal of the alleged murder weapon. Furthermore, the Justice Department's investigation determined no physical evidence whatsoever supported Jowers' multiple and conflicting accounts of his involvement in King's assassination, and Jowers stood to profit from his assertions: investigation It was not until 1993, during a meeting with the producer of a televised mock trial of James Earl Ray, that Jowers first publicly disclosed the details of the alleged plot, including the names of the purported assassin and other co-conspirators. He also initially sought compensation for his story, and his friends and relatives acknowledge that he hoped to make money from his account. In summary, we have determined that Jowers' claims about an alleged conspiracy are materially contradictory and unsubstantiated. Moreover, Jowers' repudiations, even under oath, his failure to testify during King v. Jowers, his refusal to cooperate with our investigation, his reported motive to make money from his claims, and his efforts along with his friends to promote his story all suggest a lack of credibility. We do not believe that Jowers, or those he accuses, participated in the assassination of Dr. King. Unfortunately, the jury who heard the case of King vs. Jowers (in which the King family was represented by James Earl Ray's former lawyer, William Pepper) returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that Loyd Jowers had participated in a conspiracy to kill King, and that "governmental agencies" were party to the conspiracy: verdict THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict? THE JURY: Yes (In unison). However, the verdict was of no real significance given that virtually nothing was at stake (this was not a criminal trial, and the defendant was only being sued for a mere $100 and thus had little motivation for vigorously defending himself), allowing the King family to present a mostly unopposed version of events and guide the jury to return the verdict they desired. As noted in the New York Times' report of the verdict, the one-sided presentation of the case allowed for no other result: report John Campbell, an assistant district attorney in Memphis, who was not part of the civil proceedings but was part of the criminal case against Mr. Ray, said, "I'm not surprised by the verdict. This case overlooked so much contradictory evidence that never was presented, what other option did the jury have but to accept Mr. Pepper's version?" And Gerald Posner, whose recent book, "Killing the Dream" made the case that Mr. Ray was the killer, said, "It distresses me greatly that the legal system was used in such a callous and farcical manner in Memphis. If the King family wanted a rubber stamp of their own view of the facts, they got it." The Justice Department also found the evidence presented in the civil trial to be lacking in credibility: The evidence introduced in King v. Jowers to support various conspiracy allegations consisted of either inaccurate and incomplete information or unsubstantiated conjecture, supplied most often by sources, many unnamed, who did not testify. Important information from the historical record and our investigation contradicts and undermines it. When considered in light of all other available relevant facts, the trial's evidence fails to establish the existence of any conspiracy to kill Dr. King. The verdict presented by the parties and adopted by the jury is incompatible with the weight of all relevant information, much of which the jury never heard. All of this is therefore a very slender thread on which to hang the claim that the "U.S. government was proved responsible for King's assassination." (In the event, the verdict referred only to "governmental agencies" rather than the U.S. government specifically, a term that could include anything from local police to the CIA.) And contrary to the rumor's assertion, the 1999 civil case involving Jowers was widely reported by major news outlets at the time (including, as referenced above, the New York Times). More to the point, however, Jowers (who didn't even testify) was the only named party in the civil suit brought by the King family, and the judgment awarded in that case was a paltry $100, widely described as a token award to mark the trial's outcome. No other parties (including any branches or agents of the United States Government) were named as defendants in King v. Jowers, and no identification was provided by Jowers of the purported other parties with whom he colluded to assassinate King. By all accounts, the two main parties involved, the King family and Jowers, had disparate goals served by the civil suit's outcome; and no substantive evidence was presented to establish any of the claims made by Jowers had any merit. In a statement about the 1999 civil suit, Coretta Scott King cited several unrelated and unspecified agents in her description of the parties she believed were responsible for her husband's murder: statement There is abundant evidence of a major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. And the civil court's unanimous verdict has validated our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies, were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution. Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law. The one thing the conspiracy rumor correctly states is a 1999 civil trial reached a verdict that cited the existence of a conspiracy to assassinate Martin Luther King, Jr. What it neglects to mention is the relative worth of such a judgment: The verdict in question was civil rather than criminal, the sole named defendant was someone who stood to gain both publicity and money from repeating his claims, and the King family's motivation in bringing the suit was to validate their long-held suspicions a larger conspiracy was at play in the death of the civil rights leader. Given the minor sum of money awarded, a jury would have little incentive to not find in favor of an account supported by both sides of a flawed case. The U.S. Justice Department concluded in June 2000 the "allegations originating with Loyd Jowers ... are not credible": After reviewing all available materials from prior official investigations and other sources, including the evidence from King v. Jowers, and after conducting a year and a half of original investigation, we have concluded that the allegations originating with Loyd Jowers and Donald Wilson are not credible. We found no reliable evidence to support Jowers' allegations that he conspired with others to shoot Dr. King from behind Jim's Grill. In fact, credible evidence contradicting his allegations, as well as material inconsistencies among his accounts and his own repudiations of them, demonstrate that Jowers has not been truthful. Rather, it appears that Jowers contrived and promoted a sensational story of a plot to kill Dr. King. Questions and speculation may always surround the assassination of Dr. King and other national tragedies. Our investigation of these most recent allegations, as well as several exhaustive previous official investigations, found no reliable evidence that Dr. King was killed by conspirators who framed James Earl Ray. Nor have any of the conspiracy theories advanced in the last 30 years, including the Jowers and the Wilson allegations, survived critical examination. Yellin, Emily.  "Memphis Jury Sees Conspiracy in Martin Luther King's Killing"
  The New York Times.  9 December 1999. If you browse Snopes.com, you'll likely come across the advice, "If it seems too good to be true, it it probably is" on pages about social media scams. While this platitude is certainly worth considering when browsing the internet, a few exceptions exist. social media scams The Germany-based search engine Ecosia claims to use its profits to plant trees around the world. Its home page even carries a tally of the number of trees that have reportedly been planted by Ecosia users:   For many people, this business model may seem "too good to be true" and has led to some skepticism about the legitimacy of this company. A search on Google, for instance, results in several articles and blog posts questioning the legitimacy of the search engine and asking whether Ecosia is a scam. As far as we can tell, Ecosia is a legitimate search engine that truly uses a portion of its profits to help plant trees around the world.  Ecosia was launched in 2009 by Christian Kroll. At the time, the search engine was partnered with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and promised to donate "at least 80 percent of its income from sponsored links to WWFs rainforest protection programme in Brazils Juruena-Apui region." WWF announced the partnership in a blog post: blog Those people unable to make it to the Copenhagen Climate Conference this month can still contribute to stopping climate change  by using a new search engine from their own computers. The same day the conference begins on Dec. 7, web users can start using a new green search engine called Ecosia. The new application, powered by Yahoo! and Microsofts Bing search engines, will allow internet surfers to protect about 2 square meters of Amazon rainforest just by clicking on sponsored links. Although users do not donate any money themselves, the company behind Ecosia will donate at least 80 percent of its income from sponsored links to WWFs rainforest protection programme in Brazils Juruena-Apui region. The green search engine is a very modern and inventive method of saving the world climate without a huge effort, says WWF Germanys director Eberhard Brandes. Every year billions of dollars are being earned in the internet only from advertising revenue, says Christian Kroll, founder of Ecosia. There is a more eco-friendly way of using these huge profits: the money should better be used to fight global warming. Since 2009, Ecosia has partnered with a number of other environmental organizations. The company reports it uses a portion of its profits to fund these organizations, who in turn work to plant trees around the world.  Ecosia makes money the way most other search engines and websites do: through advertising revenue. While this money covers various business expenses, such as advertising and operational costs, Ecosia claims that the majority of its revenue goes toward funding tree-planting projects.  Ecosia releases monthly financial reports so users can see exactly how the company is spending its money. The most recent full report comes from July 2019. The following report shows that 52% of its total income (approximately 80% of its surplus revenue) was invested in tree-planting projects; 5% was spent on advertising; 30% was spent on operational costs; and 12% went into company "reserves," which are used to fund larger environmental investments: financial reports   We have been unable to independently verify these numbers. However, we checked the websites of several of Ecosia's reported benefactors and found that many of these organizations list Ecosia as one of their partners. Dr. Simon Pfister, managing director of Green Ethiopia, an organization working to grow forests in Ethiopia that received approximately $150,000 from Ecosia in June 2019, told us that Ecosia accurately reported its donation in the company's financial report.  Ecosia is also a Certified B Corporation. This means that Ecosia underwent a third-party evaluation that determined the company had an overall positive impact on its workers, community, and environment. According to the company: Ecosia Certified B Corporation. B Corp Certification doesnt just evaluate a product or service; it assesses the overall positive impact of the company that stands behind it. And increasingly thats what people care most about. Certified B Corporations achieve a minimum verified score on the B Impact Assessment  a rigorous assessment of a companys impact on its workers, customers, community, and environment and make their B Impact Report transparent on bcorporation.net. Certified B Corporations also amend their legal governing documents to require their board of directors to balance profit and purpose. The combination of third-party validation, public transparency, and legal accountability help Certified B Corps build trust and value. B Corp Certification is administered by the non-profit B Lab. Ecosia lets users plant trees by searching the web. In donating 80 percent of its surplus ad revenue, the search engine has raised almost $3 million for reforestation projects since its founding in December 2009. Ecosia's mission to cultivate a world where the environment doesnt need protecting has it working to plant one billion new trees by the year 2020. By supporting high-impact reforestation efforts  as well as neutralising all CO2 emissions related to its search  Ecosia aims to achieve the highest positive environmental impact per dollar possible. By publishing its monthly donation receipts online, Ecosia aims to live up to its users demands for transparency. And by working to improve its charitable web service day after day, Ecosia aims to show the world that small changes can make a big difference. In its mission to plant one billion trees by 2020, Ecosia is working with experts and communities to reforest areas of the world that need it most. Sustainable, high-impact planting strategies mean improvements to the environment, local economies and social stability. Ecosia truly uses a large portion of its profits to fund tree planting projects. Of course, for anyone searching for an environmentally friendly search engine, planting trees isn't the only factor to consider. Ecosia is largely powered by Microsoft's Bing search engine. While Microsoft's global operations have been carbon neutral since 2012, the data centers powering Bing don't run entirely on renewable energy. Microsoft is working toward this goal, however, and expects to be driven by 100 percent renewable energy by 2023: Bing 2012 100 percent renewable energy In our data centers, we will continue to focus on R&D for efficiency and renewable energy. In 2016, we announced that we would power our data centers with more renewable energy, setting a 50 percent target by the end of 2018 and topping 60 percent early in the next decade while continuing to improve from there. We hit the first target nearly a year ahead of schedule, and today we are sharing the news that we will reach the 60 percent milestone before the end of this year. Were therefore setting our next milestone on the path to 100 percent renewable energy, aiming to surpass the 70 percent target by 2023. Well also launch a new data-driven circular cloud initiative using the Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor performance and streamline our reuse, resale and recycling of data center assets, including servers. For comparison's sake, Google announced in 2017 that its search engine was being powered by 100% renewable energy. announced While Microsoft may not be at quite at 100% renewable energy yet, Ecosia claims that its own servers run on clean power thanks to its new solar plant. Additionally, Ecosia's carbon footprint is lessened due to its involvement with various tree-planting projects around the world. The company says: carbon footprint Renewable energy: Did you know that the CO2 footprint of an average search is estimated at 0.2 grams? Not so with Ecosia. We recently built our own solar plant, so that we can run our servers on clean power. This is even better than buying renewable energy from existing plants, as the plant can deliver clean energy to the grid and replace electricity derived from fossil fuels. Carbon-negative: By planting trees and offsetting its energy use with renewables, each search with Ecosia actually removes 1 kg of CO2 from the air, which makes Ecosia a carbon-negative search engine. Heres the math: an average search generates around 0.005  of revenue. It costs roughly 0.25  to plant a tree, which means that Ecosia can plant one tree every 50 searches. On average, these trees will each remove 50 kg of CO2 during an expected 15 year lifetime. To sum up: Ecosia makes money through advertisements on its search engine. While a portion of that money is used to fund the operational costs of the business, about 80% of its surplus revenue is donated to environmental organizations and tree-planting projects around the world.  Smith, Brad.  "We're Increasing Our CarbonFee as We Double Down on Sustainability."   Microsoft.  15 April 2019. Google.  "100% Renewable is Just the Beginning."
  Retrieved 27 August 2019. Ecosia.  "Financial Reports and Tree-Planting Receipts."
  15 May 2019. World Wildlife Fund.  "Clicks to Help Save Amazon."   3 December 2009. On Jan. 9, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump posted a tweet, written partially in all-capital letters, asking people how their "409K'S" are doing, and although he deleted the tweet and re-posted it without the "409K" reference, the errant tweet was captured by at least two archiving services.Trump then deleted that tweet and posted a new tweet, substituting in the correct reference, "401K." A 401(k) is a retirement-savings benefit offered to employees by some companies. Funds are generally automatically deducted from paychecks and deposited into an account that is tied to stocks. Therefore the performance of 401(k) accounts are linked to the highs and lows of the stock market. archiving services  new tweet  Many Americans, however, do not have access to this benefit, as it is dependent on their employer. Regardless of whether they have one, most Americans do not have enough money saved for retirement, according to economic data. do not most U.S. stocks have been experiencing a record bull market for roughly a decade, which Trump generally claims credit for, although it started under his predecessor, Barack Obama. record started Elkins, Kathleen."Only Half of Americans Have Access to a 401(k)  Heres How to Save for Retirement If You Dont."
CNBC.18 March 2019. Chang, Sue."Welcome To the Longest Bull Market in Wall Street History."
CNBC.22 August 2018. Chang, Sue. "The Dows Tumultuous History, in One Chart."
MarketWatch. 3 February 2018. Martin, Emmie."Heres How Many Americans Have Nothing Saved for Retirement."
CNBC.28 June 2019. Native American tribes have beenamong the hardest hitby the coronavirus pandemic, and Joe Biden claims that President Donald Trump has not done enough to help. Donald Trump has failed to live up to our trust and treaty obligations to Native Americans,Biden told The Arizona RepublicMay 21. He took more than a month to allocate Congress emergency funding to tribes  and only did so after tribes sued. He has failed to provide tribes with adequate protective personal equipment and medical supplies. Its unacceptable. Indian treaty rightsrecognized and established rights, benefits, and conditions for tribes who agreed to cede millions of acres of land to the United States and to accept the United States protection. Under a trust responsibility legal principle, the United States federal government is obligated to ensure the survival and welfare of Indian tribes. Is Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, right that it took more than a month for tribes to get funding allocated by Congress, and that it happened only after suing the Trump administration? The chronology lines up, but omits important context. The Treasury Department has argued that payments were delayed because it is required to consult with tribes and the Interior Department regarding how much money to allocate to tribes.That consultation processstartedbefore the lawsuit over the delay in payments.A separate lawsuit filed by tribes to prevent corporations in Alaska from receiving aid has also affected the process. Congress passed theCoronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, and Trump signed it into law March 27. The $2.2 trillion measure included a $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund for states, local governments, and tribal governments. The law set aside $8 billion for tribal governments. The law said the Treasury secretary had to make the payments within 30 days; so by April 26, all entities were supposed to have received funds. It wasnt until May 5 that the Treasury Departmentsaidit would begin making funds available to tribal governments. So that part of Bidens claim adds up. By May 5, the Trump administration was facing several lawsuits by multiple tribes: for delay of payment. The lawsuits also challenged the administration for intending to direct some of the funds to theAlaska Native Corporations, which are regional and village corporations recognized under Alaska law and created by Congress as part of theAlaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. In the lawsuit to stop the corporations from getting a share of the $8 billion, tribes argued that corporations do not meet the statutory definition of tribal government, or Indian tribe and therefore did not qualify for the relief. A federal district judge on April 27 issued apreliminary injunctionto prevent the Treasury from giving money to the corporations. Pending a final determination, the judge did not direct the Treasury secretary to immediately disburse the entire $8 billion to the tribes. In its May 5 announcement, the Trump administration said it would begin paying tribes 60% of the $8 billion, or $4.8 billion, based on population data. The remaining 40% would be paid at a later date based on employment data and tribe expenses related to COVID-19. Amounts calculated for corporations would be held back until pending litigation relating to their eligibility is resolved. The Navajo Nation, which joined tribes in the lawsuit, on May 5saidthe judges April 27 ruling led to the (Treasury) Departments announcement to begin distributing funds to federally-recognized tribes. In a separate lawsuit over the delay in the disbursement of funds, lawyers for the Trump administrationarguedthat providing funds to tribal governments required a more involved and difficult process than the one for states and local governments. While the CARES Act imposed a 30-day deadline for funds disbursement, it also called for a consultation process among tribes and the Treasury and Interior departments. According to the Trump administration, Treasury staff spent about 2,200 hours on efforts to get tribes the appropriated money. The same federal district judge from the corporations case said that those hours of labor arguably should have produced better results, but a court intervention was not warranted. Egregious delay is the governing standard, and the Secretary is not there quite yet, even in the midst of a public health crisis, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta wrote in a May 11opinion. Mehta did not find that the Treasury secretary was lagging unreasonably behind in delivering the funds. The Secretary has not been twiddling his thumbs, he said, citing language from a precedent. Mehta said he would not give the Treasury department a deadline for disbursing the rest of the funds, but if it took the department double the amount of time Congress directed for the disbursement, then the question of egregiousness becomes a closer one than it is today. Biden said Trump took more than a month to allocate Congress emergency funding to tribes  and only did so after tribes sued. It did take more than a month for tribes to begin receiving funds appropriated by Congress, and they began to flow after lawsuits were filed against the Trump administration. But a consultation process for disbursing the funds began before the administration was sued. We rate Bidens statement Mostly True. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has often used economic statistics to attack President Barack Obamas administration, and he did the same following the Democratic National Convention. American homeownership rate in Q2 2016 was 62.9% - lowest rate in 51yrs, TrumptweetedJuly 30, 2016. WE will bring back the 'American Dream! We havent fact-checked Trump on this particular statistic before, so we took a look at the data. On the numbers The homeownership rate isdefinedas the proportion of occupied households actually owned by those living there. A Census Bureaureportreleased last week contains Trumps 62.9 percent figure, referring to the non-seasonally-adjusted homeownership rate. Trumps tweet referred toFederal Reserve Economic Datafrom the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. His math checks out  the homeownership rate (again not seasonally adjusted) was last this low in 1965, 51 years ago. As the graph shows, the rate grew steadily since 1995, reaching a 69 percent peak in 2005. But it has been in decline ever since. Otherstudiespaint a similar picture, such as one finding the share of first-time home buyers in 2015 was 32 percent, the lowest since 1987. So Trumps data is accurate, but there are some caveats. Demographic trends Experts told us millennials are largely to blame for the dropping homeownership rate, but its as much their lifestyle preferences as it is a sign of a poor economy. Many millennials graduated college at the onset of the 2008 recession, meaning more people chose to live with their parents, said Adam DeSanctis, economic issues media manager at the National Association of Realtors. Onesurveyidentified rising student and credit card debt, as well as difficulties saving for down payments, as key deterrents. At the same time, lifestyle choices  such as marrying later in life, going to college and having fewer children  all contribute to lower levels of homeownership, DeSanctis said. Jed Kolko, an independent housing economist,arguesthat lifestyle shifts, not financial variables, are primarily responsible for more youth living with their parents. Many millennials have expressed little desire to own a home, said Byron Studdard, a financial adviser at Studdard Financial, which focuses on estate and retirement planning. Witnessing the financial crisis and their parents difficulties paying off their mortgages, as well as general desire to be mobile, serve as deterrents. Studdard also cautioned against comparisons to 1965, because that was a different generation that was more likely than millennials to view homeownership as the first step to prosperity. Im not sure the homeownership rate is necessarily going to be a good indicator of if America is great again, like it was when we had the World War II generation, Studdard explained. How big a problem is it? While the falling homeownership rate is not a positive, economists we spoke to disagreed on how problematic it was. In aNew York Timesarticle, Kolko wrote that the homeownership rate is misleading because it fails to capture renters. He said the headship rate  the percent of adults heading a household  is a better figure that captures both owners and renters. Increases in the headship rate still stimulates household construction, he said. That rate, according to the Census Bureaus 2015 Current Population Survey, has been going up as of 2013. Slight decreases in owner-occupied households were outpaced by increases in renter households, said Ralph McLaughlin, chief economist at Trulia, a company providing real estate information for buyers and sellers. Yet renter-households still boost demand for construction and other goods, he said. The comparative benefits of renting versus owning a home are still disputed, said Aaron Terrazas, a senior economist at Zillow, an online real estate database company. On the other hand, DeSanctis said the low homeownership rate poses problems for the American economy. Owning a home has typically been a major source of investment for the middle class, and renting does not fulfill the same investment function. As a result, the country has become more unequal in recent years as rising home values have benefitted current homeowners greatly at a time more people are renting and facing escalating rental prices each year, he said. He said Trump has a point in identifying the troubles people have buying a home, especially as rising rental rates and housing prices surpass income gains. The biggest housing losses immediately after the recession affected middle-aged adults, Terrazas said. Our ruling Trump said homeownership is at its lowest since 1965. The numbers back him up. However, there are some caveats. Some of the decline is due to lifestyle, and not economic, changes. In addition, experts told us the housing market is not in as dire straits as one statistic suggests. On balance, we rate this claim Mostly True. During Russia's invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, American social media users enthusiastically shared posts that called for a boycott of Lukoil gas stations on the East Coast, on the basis that they were Russian owned. As one very widely shared tweet summarized: social media users enthusiastically shared posts called boycott Russian summarized "#BoycottRussia. Lukoil gas is Russian owned."   wrote "Fill your tank elsewhere. Lukoil is a Russian multinational corporation headquartered in Moscow. Their CEO, Vagit Alekperov, is a Russian oligarch worth an estimated $19.6 billion. Lukoil gas stations are all over PA, NJ and NY." These posts undoubtedly contained a significant element of truth. Lukoil is indeed a large Russian-headquartered multinational petroleum and natural gas producer, with a U.S. subsidiary that oversees a network of gas stations, primarily in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. Moreover, the company's billionaire president, Vagit Alekperov, has ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. has ties However, Lukoil typically does not operate those U.S. gas stations itself. Rather, it operates on a franchise basis, meaning any successful boycott of Lukoil-branded gas stations would likely have a negligible effect on the parent company or its billionaire president, but could prove financially devastating for dozens of U.S. franchise owners and their hundreds of local employees. In brief, Lukoil itself might be "Russian owned," but its U.S. gas stations are U.S.-operated and locally staffed. As such, we're issuing a rating of "Mixture." Lukoil emerged from the dissolving Soviet Union in the early 1990s, and entered the American market a decade later. According to the company's website, Lukoil acquired the American company Getty Oil in 2000, taking over and rebranding its existing network of gas stations. the company's website The first Lukoil-branded gas station was opened in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan in September, 2003. Notably, the grand opening was attended by Putin himself  who was in the U.S. at that time for talks with then-President George W. Bush. In the photograph below, Putin can be seen outside the Manhattan Lukoil, with Alekperov to his right, and U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to his left: attended by Putin himself  Russian President Vladimir Putin (C) and Lukoil President Vagit Alekperov (L) listen as U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) (R) gestures as he speaks about U.S.-Russian relations during the opening of Lukoil's gasoline station September 26, 2003 in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York City. Lukoil, a Russian oil company, acquired Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. and its 1,300 stations in November 2000. (Photo by Stephen Chernin/Getty Images)  At the time, Lukoil was reported to have taken over Getty's existing network of 1,300 gas stations, but by 2022, the number of Lukoil-branded gas stations in the United States had declined to around 230  most, if not all, located in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York.  Importantly, most  if not all  of those gas stations are operated as franchises. Franchising is a popular business model in the United States, with the best-known examples being fast food restaurants such as McDonald's and convenience stores like 7-Eleven.  popular business model in the United States Roughly speaking, the franchisee (local entrepreneur) pays the franchisor (main company) some fees: typically an up-front franchise fee, and regular royalties  usually a percentage cut of their income from sales. In return, the franchisor gives the franchisee the right to operate a business using their well-known brand, for a defined period of time, usually several years. The company might also provide advice or assistance with logistics, advertising, marketing, and so on. The local entrepreneur is also contractually obliged to operate the business in accordance with certain prescribed methods, customer service models, and so on. Lukoil  or more specifically, Lukoil North America, a Delaware-registered LLC with an address in Moorestown, New Jersey offers three-year leases to franchisees in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. In fact, as of March 2, the company's website listed for lease 13 different gas station sites in those states: Lukoil North America, a Delaware-registered LLC 13 different gas station sites   offer to lease" document The aforementioned Bidder is submitting the below rental offer to lease the LUKOIL branded service station listed above, and is prepared to enter into an Agreement with LNA for the lease of the same, subject to the conditions specified below. The lease term is generally three (3) years, however a longer term can be approved, at LNA's discretion, provided a sufficient site improvement or supply commitment is made to justify a longer term.   Google post "LUKOIL gas stations in the United States are independently owned and operated by local business owners who are members of the communities they serve, and 100% of the gasoline and diesel fuel sold is sourced from American oil refiners." Snopes asked Lukoil for details on the exact number of Lukoil-branded gas stations in the United States, and the number of those operated on a franchise basis, if not all. We also asked for precise details about the company's revenue from franchise fees, royalties and/or rent paid by U.S. franchisees, but we did not receive a response in time for publication.  However, Lukoil's 2021 financial results, which were published on March 2, gave an indication of the relatively small role of U.S. gas station revenue in the company's overall income, most of which stems from oil and gas exploration and production inside Russia. Lukoil's 2021 financial results In 2021, according to Lukoil, the company had total sales of 9.4 trillion rubles ($88 billion), and its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) were 1.4 trillion rubles ($13 billion). Of that $13 billion, just 8.3% ($1 billion) was made up of "refining, marketing and distribution" outside Russia. Although a more detailed breakdown is not available, it is reasonable to suppose that income related specifically to U.S. gas stations made up an even smaller fraction of that $1 billion, given that Lukoil refines, markets, and distributes petroleum in several other countries throughout the world.  It's also not clear whether, in the event of an effective widespread boycott of U.S. Lukoil-branded gas stations, franchisees would still be obliged to continue paying fees and rent to Lukoil North America even if they had no income from gas or convenience store sales. Therefore, a successful boycott could require financial devastation  if not ruination  among many dozens of local entrepreneurs in the United States, as well as sudden unemployment for their hundreds of workers, in order to achieve what would be only a very small financial impact on the Russian parent company, or its bosses in Moscow.  On March 3, Lukoil's board of directors issued a statement in which they expressed their "deepest concerns about the tragic events in Ukraine," and called for an immediate end to the conflict and a "lasting ceasefire." issued a statement Maass, Peter. The Triumph of the Quiet Tycoon. The New York Times, 1 Aug. 2004. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/magazine/the-triumph-of-the-quiet-tycoon.html. PRESS RELEASE MARCH 02, 2022 LUKOIL RELEASES FINANCIAL RESULTS UNDER IFRS FOR 2021 PJSC LUKOIL Today Released Its Audited Consol. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3AnFU75r0Wkh4J%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.lukoil.com%2Fapi%2Fpresscenter%2Fexportpressrelease%3Fid%3D577486+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us. Accessed 3 Mar. 2022. Updated [March 4, 2022]: Added reference to the Lukoil board of directors March 3 statement about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Back in December 2016, the America's Last Line of Defense junk news website published an article falsely reporting that First Daughter Malia Obama had been indicted on food stamp fraud charges (emphasis ours): article A member of the First Family will face fraud charges early in 2017, but it isnt who you might think. President Obama is certainly guilty of fraud for his use of a fake birth certificate and for pretending hes a Christian and Michelle Obama is certainly guilty for the $180 million in lavish vacations and 200 staffers she keeps to walk her dog and weed her garden on the taxpayers dime, but they seem to be impervious to any kind of action against them. Malia, however, isnt going to be so lucky. It seems that while putting in her paperwork to go to school at Harvard, the oldest Obama daughter, who recently turned 18, lied on her financials and failed to disclose the $9 million she has ion the bank. Thats not an issue with the school, as shes going on a full scholarship for being the daughter of a president, but it didnt bode well with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Thats because Malia decided that she would fail to disclose her assets when she applied for food stamps. Yes, you heard that right. Obama has trained the youth of America to be so dependent on the government that even his own daughter thought she was entitled to free stuff just because shes not technically working. This item was a fabricated report that originated solely with America's Last Line of Defense (LLOD), a junk news website that frequently publishes political misinformation as "satire." A number of clues on the site indicate the satirical nature of its content, such as the "you're an idiot" tag at the top of the article, the disclaimer in the site's "About Page," and a special note beneath the article mocking its conservative targets: About Page   DISCLAIMER: The Resistance may include information from sources that may or may not be reliable and facts that dont necessarily exist. All articles should be considered satirical and any and all quotes attributed to actual people complete and total baloney. Pictures that represent actual people should be considered altered and not in any way real. While this story is ridiculous and can in no way be verified, conservatives tend to not reads below the pictures of Patriotic pets. It is here that we can gather to point at them and laugh as they head back to the Facebook page to make an immediate connection between Malia, food stamps and black people. Yes, it really is that predictable. Although the rumor that Malia Obama was indicted on food stamp-related fraud charges originated with a 2016 junk news article, several social media users have continued to spread the false rumor in the ensuing years. In April 2019, nearly two-and-a-half years after this fake article was originally published, we encountered a meme asking, "What happened to Malia Obama's Food Stamp Fraud Charge?": meme   The answer to the question posed in this meme can be answered quite simply: Nothing, because those charges never existed to begin with. America's Last Line of Defense has published a number of articles offering false claims about Malia Obama. We've previously covered items asserting that Malia once said white people will be "blended out," that she was expelled from Harvard, that she was busted for streaking at college, that she founded an anti-Trump website, that she attacked an old woman, and that she was arrested for purchasing marijuana. None of the aforementioned stories was true. blended out expelled streaking anti-Trump website attacked purchasing marijuana. America's Last Line of Defense.  "An Obama Was Just Indicted for Fraud -- But Its Not Who You Think."
  December 2016.