Snopes Lies by Rick Gordon - Enigmose Political
Snopes.com got its start in the early days of the internet [1995] and rapidly rose in popularity, it had no real competition and it owners and editors were amateur 'hobbyists' who enjoyed debunking Urban Legends and bogus myths. They were good at it, or so it seemed.
People tried, or so they claimed, to find out who exactly was behind this website Snopes. Nobody bothered to check the sites own "About" page which clearly states that Snopes.com is a mom-and-pop operation started and operated by a couple with absolutely no experience in investigative research.
The Strange Case of Kim LaCapria
In recent years the site has been heavily infiltrated by left leaning social engineers who have been adamantly and at times laughingly defending the antics and totalitarian cravings of the Democratic Party and Progressive movement. As a political fact checker they have failed miserably.
The sites primary "political fact checker" Kim Lacapria is a self described Liberal and a rabid feminazi who once claimed that conservatives 'fear female agency'. At one time she accused George HW Bush of being guilty of criminal negligence for the 9-11 attacks. This is what the progressive Democrats consider objective ?
In defense of Snopes, she was investigated and found to be 'probably false' on almost everything she contributed. But unfortunately, as per snopes itself, they were unable to terminate her.
Read the following very carefully because you can't make this stuff up, well maybe you can't.
Barrack Obama ordered a private company to keep her on the payroll That's right the President if the United States issued an executive order ordering snopes to keep this trash on their staff WTF !!!
Prior to her infiltration of Snopes, Lacapria wrote for a blog known as the Inquisitr. The Inquisitr is known for publishing fake news and hoaxes aimed at embarrassing right wing entities and disseminating false information. Lacapria has continued this despicable genre of muck raking and yellow journalism at Snopes, and the saddest part is that they may have been ordered by the President of the United States to allow her to use their banner to disseminate progressive propaganda. I reiterate WTF ?
Contained in all Lacapria articles on Snopes is the disclaimer : 'Kim LaCapria is a New York-based content manager and longtime snopes.com message board participant. Although she was investigated and found to be 'probably false' by snopes.com in early 2002, Kim later began writing for the site due to an executive order unilaterally passed by President Obama during a secret, late-night session (without the approval of Congress). Click like and share if you think this is an egregious example of legislative overreach.
Scientific method describes a method for conducting an objective investigation. The scientific method involves making observations and conducting an experiment to test a hypothesis. An experiment or Study must be reproducible, which is important in science! If you have trouble duplicating results from one experiment to another then there is a flaw in your results.
Some have speculated that this disclaimer is a hoax in the same manner that her writing for the fake news site Inquisitr was mostly bogus. The disclaimer states that Obama issued an executive order in early 2002. In 2002 the POTUS issed executive orders 13252 through 13282 a check of the National Archives finds no order relevant to Snopes or LaCapria among them. [1]
Sample Incidents of Snopes Lies
Hillary Child Molester Defense
Snopes charged in on their Black Horses to defend Hillary Clinton when the story of her defense of a child molester became public. They have been thoroughly debunked by multiple other sources, both conservative and non partisan, and I see no need to wade into it any further as others have already successfully covered this issue.
Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised
Snopes wrong again Hillary Clinton Rape defense
Snopes.com Plays Fast And Loose With Facts In Hillary Clintons 1975 Rapist Defense
No American Flags allowed at Democratic Convention
At the 2016 Democratic Party Convention multiple sources made note that the American flag was conspicuously absent. The Liberal media machine went into overdrive as it was apparent that the omission of American Flags was intentional.
Snopes published an article on the absence of American Flags and used a handful of photographs where the American Flag did appear. The Daily Caller checked the photos. The Snopes photos consisted of a PBS screenshot from day one, before the flags were removed so as not to offend the Democratic Parties foreign sponsors.
Iranian Ransom Money
In January 2016, the Obama regime secured the release of American citizens being held in Iran. Within days, roughly half a billion dollars was transferred to Iran. Most rightfully believed the money was a ransom. The Obama Regime ardently denied it.
Snopes sided with the Obama regime and insisted that the payment was tied to the Iran nuclear deal, not the prisoner release. Snopes completely side stepped relevant facts - most importantly that the Iranian Government itself stated the money received was for the hostage release. [1] I'd like to add a 'LOL' but it is simply too sickening to laugh about.
The case against snopes goes on and on and on - any political or social issue appearing on the site is blatantly slanted to the left and ludicrously so.
Funding of Snopes
There are claims that snopes is funded, in part at least by a group known as the "Democracy Alliance" a socio-fascist front organization.
As per Discover the networks they are ' [a] self-described 'liberal organization' that serves as a funding clearinghouse for progressive groups. ... solicits contributions from left-wing millionaires and billionaires (whom it calls 'partners'), and then ... funnels their money to favored organizations. [2]' The speculation is that snopes is one of the groups they are funding - but there is no solid evidence to prove or disprove this allegation.
Snopes makes the following statement on their site - 'The snopes.com web site is (and always has been) a completely independent, self-sufficient entity wholly owned by its operators and funded through advertising revenues. Neither the site nor its operators has ever received monies from (or been engaged in any business or editorial relationship with), any sponsor, investor, partner, political party, religious group, business organization, government agency, or any other outside group or organization.' [3]
Updates
Fact-checking the fact-checkers: ‘Pants on Fire’ partisans
Do You Trust Snopes? You Won’t After Reading This.
SNOPES, FACT-CHECKER FOR FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE, BOTCHES [Another] FACT CHECK
Footnotes
1. Snopes Gets Busted Trying to Cover Obama Lies
2. DiscoverTheNetwork.org - Democracy Alliance
3. 2002 Executive Orders Dispositions
