Snopes (Snopes.com)Posted 11 months ago under Uncategorized
Having no formal background or experience in investigative research, Snopes.com is run by a married couple from California who assert their beliefs on controversial issues while pretending to “get to the bottom” of various issues in order to share facts with the public. There is no team of lawyers or public records being scoured here and there are no qualified researchers doing work behind the scenes. Snopes is nothing more than a very popular basement blog that takes on a front as a “fact checking” website. David and Barbara Mikkelson, husband and wife from San Fernando Valley, started their “neutral” blog of shoddy, liberal-bent research over a decade ago, posting time and time again their “final factual words” that aren’t really facts at all. Snopes repeatedly explains away criticisms towards liberal politicians and other leftist public figures while character assassinating conservatives. It’s obvious now that Snopes.com is particularly agenda motivated and biased to help Obama and Hillary Clinton, just as dogmatically as the mainstream media, including CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, Politifact, and Forbes. (1) (6)
Snopes “fact checkers” include whores, prostitutes, and pot-smoking bloggers – busted red-handed:
These are the clowns that Facebook plans to use to “fact-check” and censor real independent news they plan to call “fake news” for calling out the truth on everything from Trumps massive electoral landslide victory to GMO dangers to vaccine toxins.
Debunking the “debunkers” and the ultimate amateur editors’ encyclopedia
The snopes couple is no more reliable than Wikipedia, with their team of amateur editors who lie through their teeth to support an agenda (to criticize anything conservative). The Mikkelson’s simply Google for answers, and it’s a well-known fact now that Google censors their “facts” for all the same reasons. Snopes, also known for their “Urban Legends Reference Pages,” moves to discredit internet rumors and stories of questionable origin, even though Snopes itself is of questionable origin. Anyone with a keyboard and an opinion can create a similar site and claim to debunk urban legends, and if they follow the popular path of supporting the same warped subjects of mainstream media, Western Medicine, socialism, biotechnology, global warming (climate change), and propaganda that supports hoax epidemics like Zika, they will surely find some sort of corporate backing, eventually. Snopes has built its way up to over a quarter million visitors per day, from their hokey “Folklore Society” that they owned up until 2005. (2)
The name “Snopes” comes from the work of William Faulkner, when he was referring to a family of unpleasant people. There was a TV pilot created in its name, but it never turned into a successful venture. In their effort to seem reliable, the Mikkelsons will mark certain subjects or sources “unverifiable” or “undetermined” to make readers believe they have exhausted research efforts to get to the bottom of something that has no true founding. The couple first referred to fabricated urban folklore as “The repository of lost legends,” which bears the acronym TROLL. This may be where the nickname troll originated, referring to someone who peruses the internet and makes opinionated comments on anything and everything to which they disagree, much like Dr. David H. Gorski, aka “Orac,” a cancer surgeon in Detroit, Michigan, associated with a convicted felon Dr. Farid Fata, who is serving 45 years in federal prison for dosing healthy people and killing them with chemotherapy. (10)
Snopes political bias runs amuck
Receiving countless complaints of liberal bias, Snopes applies their debunking “standards” only to legends that don’t jive with their true agenda. The most favorable Snopes responses are to anything regarding George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The couples obvious political standings are reflected by their lack of fact checking when it comes to the subjects they purport, and the propaganda they support. Their inconsistent effort leaves them far from reputable, and their content cannot serve as a reliable source for professional articles, college term papers, or anything scientific.
2015: Snopes caught pedaling lies to support biotechnology and cancer-causing food
In 2015, Chipotle changed their entire menu to non-GMO, and coincidentally, shortly thereafter, a rare E-coli outbreak struck their stores. Many health enthusiasts suspected that the powerful biotechnology industry sabotaged the “fast food” stores because they set a precedent for other stores to follow, and GMO food already had a reputation for containing enough pesticides to cause cancer, dementia, and infertility. Even thorough scientific research has proven genetically engineered food causes cancer in animals. (http://www.truthwiki.org/gilles-eric-seralini/)
Still, the highly opinionated and controversial Snopes.com was quick to jump on the bandwagon of calling anyone who suspected foul play a conspiracy theorist, thus further supporting mainstream media in their efforts to discredit natural health, stores that serve healthy food, and websites like NaturalNews.com, (11) that offer insight and actual research into current events and food-borne catastrophes, such as Chipotle’s. In fact, bio-terrorism is no conspiracy theory, as we see pesticides being spread all over Miami now to fight a benign virus spread by mosquitoes, aka the Zika hoax epidemic. (http://www.snopes.com/chipotle-gmo-bioterror/)
Hokey Snopes employs liars and political fraudsters with ulterior motives
The once go-to site for disproving already hokey legends and urban myths (usually anything that couldn’t be proven anyway), such as UFO sightings, Sasquatch, the Loch ness monster, or human-animal hybrids living in the jungle, the “debunking” blog called Snopes was quick to gain recognition and heavy traffic; however, recently the site has attempted to play political “fact checker” while obviously supporting Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House and criticizing anyone who opposes her agenda as haters who are afraid of a female-led administration, which is simply not true. Most people who oppose Clinton are opposed to a continuation of the big government, loss of personal freedoms, loss of medical freedoms, loss of food freedom, incessant wars overseas, massive national debt, endless spending, constant government surveillance of citizens, and the list goes on. (3)
Snopes get “Snoped”
In fact, Snopes’ main writer, Kim Lacapria, previously published fake quotes to gain her own popularity at “Inquisitr.” Lacapria now plays defense for liberals on a regular basis and rarely offers any fact-based evidence for her wild claims. She even defended the Orlando terrorist who shot up the gay night club, saying that just because he was a registered Democrat doesn’t mean he meant to register that way, and that he might have just randomly chosen any affiliation. She defends Facebook also, pretending that they never censor conservative news.
Snopes is just one of Obama’s (and Hillary’s) mass media shilling websites
In the “cash for hostages” deal Obama recently made with Iran, where Iran wouldn’t release our men until a plane full of cash (nearly half a billion dollars) arrived at the location of exchange, the “myth-busting” shill site Snopes rushed to defend Obama, before the State Department fully uncovered Obama’s blatant lie to the American people was spread across mass media. Again, Snopes ignored KEY FACTS in order to print their own “facts” in their rogue attempt to save face for their tyrannical leader. The irony is that every time Snopes gets caught in another one-sided political lie, they lose more traffic, just like their cohorts at CNN, MSNBC, Forbes, Washington Post (8), Boston Globe, Politifact, (7) and the New York Times. (9) Snopes often uses the “straw man” strategy (5), where they argue and rehash points that nobody is disputing anyway, to sound like they have made some valid points in order to convince readers that the rest of their story isn’t fabricated–anything to cover up the heart of the matter, which was the massive ransom payment made by America’s President to terrorists. (4)
When Snopes.com leaves out the giant green “check mark” to fit the agenda of their sponsors
Certain articles and posts by the Snopes couple cite no evidence and no sources whatsoever, all while revealing political offerings and still claiming to be apolitical. As advice to anyone going on line searching for political facts, if going to Snopes.com, proceed with caution. That advice extends to FactCheck.org, where facts are often omitted to steer an undercover agenda. Just as Wikipedia lies and purports corporate-led propaganda about politics, medicine, and food, (12) Snopes.com misleads its readers to suit similar ends goals. Snopes often takes a concept and addresses only the most extreme version, using that angle to exploit the entire story as false. This is intentional misinterpretation. Using intellectual dishonesty and argumentative semantics, Snopes will trick anyone who’s not paying close attention to their tactics. This article provides a perfect example of their insidious tactics. (13) Reddit writers have described Snopes tactics as “hairsplitting mental gymnastic garbage,” and righteously so. (14) (15)