SNOPES

Many of the emails that I have sent or forwarded that had any anti Obama in it were negated by Snopes. I thought that was odd. Check this out.

Snopes, Soros and the Supreme Court's Kagan.We-l-l-l-l now, I guess the time has come to check out Snopes! Ya' don't suppose it might not be a good time to take a second look at some of the stuff that got kicked in the ditch by Snopes, do ya'? We've known that it was owned by a lefty couple but hadn't known it to be financed by Soros!

Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros, a big time supporter of Obama! In our Search for the truth department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions.

I went to Snopes to check something about the dockets of the new Supreme Court Justice. Elena Kagan, who Obama appointed, and Snopes said the email was false and there were no such dockets. So I Googled the Supreme Court, typed in Obama-Kagan, and guess what? Yep, you got it; Snopes Lied! Everyone of those dockets are there.

Referencing the article about Elana Kagan and Barak Obama dockets: The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false. I went directly to the Supreme Courts website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to. I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really shocking. Thank You. I hope you will be much more truthful in the future, but I doubt it.

Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them. Folks, this is really ugly.

Chicago Politics and the beat goes on and on and on. Once again the US Senate sold us out! Now we know why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court. Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama. She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer.

It's all about payback time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone who really has no true right to even be there.

Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket: You can look up some of these hearings and guess what?

Check out these examples:http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/081127

November 27, 2008
Is the owner of Snopes.com a liberal?
By Donald Hank

Snopes.com has been accused of being run by a “flaming liberal.” But now a defender of Snopes, about.com, has rushed to their aid, writing a story about how conservatives have attacked poor Snopes. They write, in part:

Is it true that “Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal” and that “this man is in the tank for Obama”?

Well, first off, Snopes.com is owned by two people, not one. They are husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson. [Oh, well, that makes a world of difference. Two people in a team could not possibly be leftists, now could they?]

Second, the Mikkelsons’ political views are between them and the ballot box. I don’t know what they are; you don’t know what they are; certainly the author of this email doesn’t know what they are. According to a boilerplate statement issued by the site, “Neither of the operators of Snopes.com has any affiliation with, has ever made a donation to, or has ever publicly expressed support for any political party or candidate.” [The fact that the owners claim no affiliation and don’t donate money proves what?]

Anyone who has proof to the contrary should come out with it.

Ok, I will. Here is my proof:

First, there is something you should know about about.com. As clearly stated at the bottom left of their home page, they belong to the New York Times, a news outlet most Americans have said they don’t trust and that is demonstrably far left. Hardly inspiring of confidence. Frankly, the reader should be questioning about.com a whole lot more than snopes.com, although the fact that about.com is defending snopes is to snopes’ discredit.

Beyond that, there are little clues that stand out everywhere in the article appearing on Snopes itself and quoted at about.com. One of the biggest clues is the versions of the emails whose veracity Snopes doubts. For example, if you look up the stuff about Obama’s nationality, you find that they print a version that accentuates the silliest claims in order to make the reasonable ones seem silly too. That is what we call a red herring. The Left is very adept at this tactic.

For example:

“...rumors swirling about that Barrack Obama was a Muslim with a middle name of Mohammed...”

Really? Did you ever hear that rumor?

I have gotten hundreds, maybe thousands, of emails on this topic and never heard that one. It is clear that Snopes used this grotesque exaggeration to mask the legitimate suspicion that Obama may not be a US citizen. If Snopes were sincere about disproving that claim, they would not have needed to present this other, much sillier, claim that is so rare most have never read it, and I suspect it may have just been floated by the Left to make conservatives look like rumor mongers.

Worse, the whole tenor of this argument ignores, and masks, the proven fact that Obama was enrolled in an Indonesian school as a Muslim. In other words, it makes the claim that Obama was, at least in his youth, a Muslim seem questionable when in fact we know it to be true. (Not to mention the fact that in an interview with George Stephanopolis, Obama made the Freudian slip of saying “my Muslim faith.”)

The following quote from about.com certainly does not comfort me:

“Second, the Mikkelsons’ political views are between them and the ballot box. I don’t know what they are; you don’t know what they are; certainly the author of this email doesn’t know what they are.”

Not true. If Mikkelson were not politically aligned, he would not have endorsed only leftwing TV news channels as he did in an interview on CNN:

DAVID MIKKELSON: Well, other than checking out our site, a lot of different things. One is, of course, if a story is real, you’re generally going to see it in more than one place. If you’re finding something that seems rather sensational and it’s only on one Web site and it’s not something major like CNN or ABC, that’s a pretty good tip that perhaps the story is just a rumor or something that someone made up.

Besides, if the NYT reporter who wrote this didn’t know the Mikkelsons’ political leanings, all he had to do was ask the Mikkelsons or do some quick research, as I did.

Obviously, the Mikkelsons are not conservative. A conservative would have at least mentioned Fox News or a conservative site in this context and would have been proud to tout his conservatism. Liberals hide their views because they know they aren’t popular.

Snopes’ reasons for believing in Obama’s credentials are not comforting either:

“Judge Surrick ruled Berg’s attempt to use certain laws to gain standing...were frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”

For real conservatives, the last people they trust are judges. They know our rights are being stripped one by one and that it is chiefly the judges who are doing the stripping. To hear a judge state that a US citizen has no right to know if a candidate for president is a US citizen and hence in compliance with the Constitution, is just more evidence of a thoroughly corrupt judiciary, not evidence that the lawsuit against Obama was not valid.

The real fact of the matter is that the DNC and the electoral college should have delved into this matter a long time ago and it is clear that they did not.

And we shouldn’t care what the Mikkelsons — or their defenders at the very far-left pro-Obama New York Times — say about this.

Conclusion: be wary of Snopes. I don’t necessarily think they lie, but they present conservative emails in a very unfavorable light, so unfavorable that it is hard to call their presentation objective. You may wish to pass this article along to them — and more importantly, to your friends.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2195441/posts

Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.
Snopes’ Liberal Agenda - Not the Ultimate Source of Truth
Ripoffreport.com/notoriouslyconservative.com ^ | 02 27 09 | notoriouslyconservative

Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 9:18:08 AM by Notoriously Conservative

From ripoffreport.com:

Perhaps you want to discover the origin of an urban legend or verify that the photo of a 45-pound cat someone emailed you isn’t a doctored photo. Maybe you want to know if Proctor & Gamble’s logo is really satanic. Snopes.com (hereafter “snopes”) is good for verifying unimportant stuff like that, but don’t count on them being “fair and balanced” when it comes to anything political or religious.

Although Snopes hasn’t any political philosophy explicitly stated on the website, snopes’ selectivity and analysis of political emails oozes with partisanship. Religious emails don’t fare much better and typically get a liberal hatchet job. In a nutshell, although snopes has to reluctantly admit that most of the conservative political and religious emails are “true” as far as snopes can determine, there is always a caveat, disclaimer, footnote, or lengthy oratory explaining why everything from crime statistics to reports from Iraq must be viewed and understood through snopes’ lens. Some examples and links follow:

An email made its way around the country recently showing a picture of John Kerry at an anti-war rally with Jane Fonda. If a picture is worth a thousand words, Snopes thinks ten thousand words is the only antidote to spinning this photo that Snopes had to admit was true. Indeed, Snopes has gone into high gear to rescue John Kerry from being associated with the extreme left. Snopes uses extensive quotes from Jane Fonda to demonstrate that John Kerry was not as much of a foaming at the mouth liberal as she herself was [is].

Snopes also quotes extensively from New York Times (and thought better perhaps of using their sources at Pravda and Granma) to prove what the “atmosphere” was like at these love-fests that Kerry participated in and spoke at. A small unexplained B&W photo appears on the right hand side of the screen depicting a cleaner-cut John Kerry being decorated in an apparent attempt to show he did in fact do something noteworthy and wasn’t simply a hippie as depicted in the larger, color photo.

Snopes said the derogatory photo “purports” to show John Kerry, only to reluctantly admit in the next sentence that indeed the photo is real. Get your index finger and mouse ready to scroll down the pages and pages of voluminous material on Snopes beseeching you to ignore the photo and get to know the real John Kerry.

Snopes seems to have been exhausted by all the time it spent trying to exonerate Kerry that it lacked the energy to investigate a photo that is also real. In a photo depicting a soldier shaking hands with Hillary Clinton, the soldier crossed his fingers (visible in the photo) to memorialize his displease with being used in a photo-op by the hippie-turned-senator. Try crossing your finger right now the way the soldier did it in the photo. It’s not a reflexive position and must have been deliberate on part of the soldier. Hillary made only one trip to see our troops, so it is not a Herculean task to track down the person who took the photo as well as the soldier in it.

Some more food for thought (all links removed by ripoffreport.com): Verifies quotes from democrats were true but goes on and on trying to defend democrats.

Attempts to speak to veracity of email urging boycott of Sean Penn and Tim Robbins’ movies since they are Sadaam Hussein and Osama bin Laden sympathizers. Snopes says “still under investigation Nov 2003.” I could wrap that investigation up in about 2 minutes. Those 2 are bona fide liberals and whackos (or is that redundant?)

You may have received this email yourself. It is an amazing and true litany of accomplishments of the US military in Iraq. Snopes can’t seem to utter the words “it’s true” so it gets a half green, half red light. It’s truth is called into question by “an Iraqi citizen” A link to the criticism is provided, and just to prove to yourself how absurd it is, you should click on it.

A sample: the pro military email rightfully asserts one accomplishment as: the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent. The rebuttal to this fact: “We certainly hope so, but no one is sure about that yet.” This invincible evidence seems to be enough to persuade snopes.com that the whole email is suspect and worthy of caution.

Another example: Email lists another accomplishment of the US military as: “All 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.” To which the best argument the detractor can come up with is: “That’s true. But every now and then, a school gets a warning about a bomb, so many parents are afraid to send their kids to schools, and when they do so, they will be deeply worried.” Again this vague and fuzzy “counter argument” is flawless logic and enough to satisfy the good people at snopes.com that the whole email is dubious and, to be on the safe side, the hapless visitor to snopes.com should remain anti-war and believe that nothing has been accomplished in Iraq. Visit snopes.com for yourself to really laugh out loud. I simply can’t do it justice here.

A very similar email went around with quotes from leading Democrats attesting to their belief that Sadaam Hussein did in fact have WMD. Snopes naturally had to admit the quotes were true, but always with the caveat, quickly opined that, “some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them.” Please! We’ve all gotten emails like this. You use a quote to get a point across. You can’t make people on your email forward list sift 35 pages of Medeline Albright in order to put her quote “in context” Just another example of snopes’ “bend-over-backwards” policy to rescue Democrats from their own words.

Meanwhile, don’t expect an snopes investigation to proceed much further, snopes is busy crafting explanations for Kerry’s $25 million worth of real estate which is one of the biggest whoppers this web site unashamedly pulls.

Like baptism, being a liberal cleanses you from all stain in the mind of snopes. Former KKK member Sen. Robert Byrd got just such a catharsis and gets an open mic on snopes. Email snopes was “investigating” was “Senator Robert Byrd delivered a fiery floor speech condemning President Bush’s calls for military action against Iraq.” Was it true? Sure was, says snopes, which then proceeds to reproduce the whole speech (for the 9 people in America who want to read it). Instead of a caveat, such as ALL conservative emails get as a matter of course from Snopes, snopes can’t contain itself and adds it’s own 2 cents, “[Byrd’s] eloquence in putting forth his opinions and arguments on this issue has captivated many like-minded members of the anti-war movement.” I see a hyperlink to (link removed) coming any day now.

Many emails are forwards from either soldiers, judges, or military officers who are or were in Iraq. They all have the individual’s name, hometown etc. in the email. Sue enough, snopes investigates and finds out the person exists and the email is true, but, never quite happy, snopes adds the disclaimer: “although true, the email resembles another email sent by someone else” etc. The reader is left to conclude that plagiarism or some form of falsification has occurred. Nonsense. With thousands of our servicemen and civilians in Iraq, many are bound to witness the same events or accomplishments and report on them individually. Snopes needs a basic course on hermeneutics.

Ron Springfield, Illinois U.S.A.

Thanks to ripoffreport.com

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2039929/posts

Check out the lies about john kerry on this link:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/kerry.asp

http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/snopes-com-exposed-left-wing-website-not-quite-the-impartial-arbiter-of-truth/

Alamo City Pundit
259 Annoyed Texans Couldn’t Have Been Wrong . . .

SNOPES.com Exposed: Left Wing Website Not Quite the Impartial Arbiter of Truth

April 5, 2010 by Johnny Alamo

If you’re like me, the first thing You did when you received an e-mail saying that the moon was full of UFOs or that President Obama was a Kenyan trained Ninja assasin, you went off to SNOPES.com to see what the deal was with those crazy e-mails. And for the most part, SNOPES has been a reliable informant on the truth about these Urban legends.

Or . . . apparently not. I began to notice that Snopes was taking more of a Leftist tack with things I obviously knew to be true, and was unwilling to revise their opinion when things went more for the right-wing than the lefties. This message board post HERE agrees, especially when it comes to politics; and especially lefty politics.

(And just in case this Message Board post “disappears,” I’ve reprinted the post in toto so it will be archived. Should the author have any problems with that, they can contact me and we’ll fix it post-haste; but as of this printing they haven’t responded to my e-mails.)

For those of you that think snopes is god when it comes to knowing the truth or not. By the way you might want to check this out on snopes.

I present this for your own evaluation.
Who “Snopes” are was written up in READERS DIGEST and agrees with this account.
(no politcal bias was mentioned in the article).

SNOPES EXPOSED

For the past few years http://www.snopescom/ has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the ‘tell-all final word’ on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it – kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team – that’s right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It’s just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?

The reason for the questions – or skepticisms – is a result of Snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues.

A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, ‘supposedly’ the Mikkelson’s claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place. I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg’s contact phone numbers – and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec’s at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm.

Yet, Snopes.com issued a statement as the ‘final factual word’ on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things – not!

Then it has been learned the Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in their website findings.

Gee, what a shock?

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line fact ‘proceed with caution.’ Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that’s all the Mikkelson’s do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their ‘not’ fully looking into things.

http://http//www.wikipedia.org/ or http://http//www.snopes.com/

I have found this to be true also! Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False. Then they gave their liberal slant! I have suspected some problems with Snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder.

Truth or Fiction, is a better source for verification, in my opinion.
TruthOrFiction.com-Is that forwarded email Truth or Fiction? Research into stories, scams, hoaxes, myths, and urban legends on the Internet

I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to You tube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes.com, ever for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don’t even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore.

A few conservative speakers on MySpace told me aboutSnopes.com. A few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it is true. Anyway just FYI please don’t use Snopes.com anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well. Many people still think Snopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual. We need to make sure everyone is aware that that is a hoax in itself.

Thank you,
Alan Strong

Alan Strong CEO/Chairman
Commercial Programming Systems, Inc.
4400 Coldwater Canyon Ave. Suite
200 Studio City, CA. 91604-5039

Now mind you, Snopes is still a good resource for the weird chain mails and such. I just wouldn’t trust them with anything political.

Anyone with differing opinions? Email me at alamocitypundit@hotmail.com or hit the Comments section.

Exclamation Snopes Exposed—George Soros and Leftists Fund it

Snopes receives funding from an undisclosed source. The source is undisclosed because Snopes refuses to disclose that source. The Democratic Alliance, a funding channel for uber-Leftist (Marxist) Billionaires (George Soros etc.), direct funds to an “Internet Propaganda Arm” pushing these views. The Democratic Alliance has been reported to instruct Fundees to not disclose their funding source.

For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the ‘tell-all final word’ on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com. It is run by a husband and wife team - that’s right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It’s just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research.

The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues.

A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, ‘supposedly’ the Mikkelson’s claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place. I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg’s contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec’s at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm.

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/83/37...s_Exposed.html

This is just a few from search engines. You may trust them if you wish but I was not stomping on anything and that in itself is an untruth.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.