For people who think Snopes is the last word on everything
FYI - Interesting FACTS on Snopes -
from a reader at TIA, who writes:
Check this out. I often do try to check out things with Snope so I don't
pass on untrue things. This certainly scares you with George Soros
heavily financing it. As they inspect `truth', not hard to imagine which
things they might weight more heavily.
I guess like so much on the Internet even the Urban Legends site is flawed.
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 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 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 is there. So,
here is what I wrote to Snopes:
Referencing the article about Elena Kagan and Barack 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.
That being said, I’ll bet you didn't know this: 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 U.S. Senate sold us out! Now we know why Obama
nominated Elena 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? Elena Kagan is the attorney
representing Obama!
Check out these examples here, here &
here.
If you are not interested in justice or in truth, simply delete.
However, if you hold sacred the freedoms granted to you by the U.S.
Constitution; by all means, PASS it ON!
There truly is tyranny afoot.
W.M.F. Posted October 18, 2012
Just sayin' . . .
Related:
I made inquiry about this post to my son, Christopher, in NYC, who wrote back with links to entries my own Snopes searches failed to turn up, in which the interpretation given to the items on the Supreme Court Docket here are disputed. I leave it to anyone interested to examine Richard Barrett's comment posted to this post, in which he offers a similar link. The material claims made by W.M.F., apart from the allegation that Snopes lied about the Docket, of course continue to be a matter of debate in the culture at large. -- PP
6 comments:
There's a reply to this as well:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/Obama-Kagan-Connection.htm
"Analysis: False. The earlier of the two messages above is a viral version of an article that appeared August 4, 2010 on the political news and opinion website WorldNetDaily.com. As you can see by viewing the 'Editor's Note' that replaced the article days later, the website admits the court cases in question were incorrectly described as pertaining to Obama's Constitutional eligibility.
"'Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court,' the disclaimer states, 'and the references have been removed from this report.'
"Indeed, the references had to be removed because the fact-checking site Snopes.com delved into the details of the specific filings cited above and discovered that not one of them had anything to do with Obama's status as a natural-born U.S. citizen. In fact, the majority of the filings not only predated Obama's presidency but named George W. Bush as the original defendant. The dockets list Elena Kagan as Obama's attorney of record because it was her job as U.S. Solicitor General to represent the Executive Branch.
"None of which, sad to say, stopped the grammatically-challenged author of a subsequent message (example #2 above) from repeating the disproven claims and bluntly stating 'Snopes lied,' when in fact the contrary is true: Snopes got it exactly right, yet again.
Richard, you are correct. I initially did a Snopes search on Obama and Kegan and came up with nothing, before posting the piece. But after posting it, I immediately emailed my son in NYC, who turned me on to Snopes years ago, asking him to run a check. He came up with several Snopes "replies," like the one to which you link. He went on to point out that the two individuals who head Snopes are actually members of opposing political parties, but consider themselves "a-political." While I would dispute that anybody can be wholly "a-political," even though he might be disinterested in the particular political parties in power, and while I do insist that Snopes posts I have encountered in the past appear to bear a socio-political bias, I concede that in this instance I was mistaken. My bad.
Dear Dr. "My Bad."
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
Next we will read you writing "He don't have to go to Mass if he is sick."
Mwuhahahahahahahahahah!!! Tricksy, are we?! You will never know . . .
Sorry, Dr; couldn't resist :)
Now, I take this opportunity to thank you for not publishing some of the grotesque grammar I send to you.
The author also cites a Snopes-Soros connection w/o providing any documentation. If you're criticizing a site that thrives on fact-checking, you could at least ensure your own cited 'facts' are documented as well.
Post a Comment