Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

SNOPES EXPOSED


bulldawg
 Share

Recommended Posts

SNOPES EXPOSED

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 this out and they said it 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. So Here is what I wrote Snopes:

Referencing the article about Elena 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 Court’s 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.

*************

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 US Senate sold us out! Well, someone figured out 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 that 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?? Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama!!!

Check out these examples:

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

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

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790.htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790.htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-724.htm

Http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-724.htm

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's hilarious...and has already been debunked several times.

NONE of those cases have anything to do with Obama's eligibility at all...in fact, SOME of them were started under Bush and listed HIM as the defendant.

Most have to do with prisoners rights.

But DO keep posting it...it's always good for a laugh. :D

Analysis: False. The earlier of the two messages above is a forwarded version of an article that appeared on WorldNetDaily.com on August 4, 2010. As you can see by viewing the "Editor's Note" that replaced it a few days later, the website now admits that the court cases in question were incorrectly described as pertaining to Obama's 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 reason the references were removed was because the fact-checking site Snopes.com delved deeper into the details of the specific cases and found that not one of them had anything to do with Obama's eligibility or citizenship. The majority of the filings predated Obama's presidency, in fact, and originally named George W. Bush as the 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.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/Obama-Kagan-Connection.htm

Edited by ajskj
  • Upvote 10
  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, ajskj ... saved me some work. What's really been exposed here is Bulldawg ...

Go Pack Go

TS

I believe in the RV; I don't believe in the cult.

Oh man, you and ajax have exposed me on such a cold, snowy day. You are right, I cannot stand the Obummer and all of his commie comrads.

I support Herman Cain........there you cannot say I cannot stand the fact that a black man is in the white house.

Cheers,

Bulldawg

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The arrogance and attitude of these last few replies is exactly why I am leaving Dinarvets as my primary site. I no longer can stand the people represented who instead of having discourse would prefer to simply insult and put other people's ideas and opinions down. Dinarvets is no longer as it originally presented itself.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man, you and ajax have exposed me on such a cold, snowy day. You are right, I cannot stand the Obummer and all of his commie comrads.

I support Herman Cain........there you cannot say I cannot stand the fact that a black man is in the white house.

Cheers,

Bulldawg

Thou doth protest too much, don't you Bulldawg? Who's Herman Cain?

Go Pack Go

TS

I believe in the RV; I don't believe in the cult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The arrogance and attitude of these last few replies is exactly why I am leaving Dinarvets as my primary site. I no longer can stand the people represented who instead of having discourse would prefer to simply insult and put other people's ideas and opinions down. Dinarvets is no longer as it originally presented itself.

Bye Bye, Try finding a better run Dinar Forum on the net with less bickering, when you don't then we will see ya back here again... biggrin.gif

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thou doth protest too much, don't you Bulldawg? Who's Herman Cain?

Go Pack Go

TS

I believe in the RV; I don't believe in the cult.

You are giving honest cheese heads a bad name. I didn't know that pagan, er, kagan was the one blocking the eligibility process. with the corruption in the regime, it shouldn't be that much of a surprise.

Who or what is urban legends? Are they a credible reporting source? Doesn't sound like it. WND is the worlds largest independent online news paper.

I called boehner's office last week regarding certification. We all know about Huckabee, palin, romney, and Cain (all of romney's positives, none of the negatives. Plus he's black. Love it). What about Obama? His office choked out yes, he would have to **re-certify**. I DARE boehner to say yeah and and sign off on it.

The birthers are the tea party and the tea party is the birthers. One and the same. Go RV!!!!!

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are giving honest cheese heads a bad name. I didn't know that pagan, er, kagan was the one blocking the eligibility process. with the corruption in the regime, it shouldn't be that much of a surprise.

Who or what is urban legends? Are they a credible reporting source? Doesn't sound like it. WND is the worlds largest independent online news paper.

And even WND admitted that this was a lie. Look it up.

As you can see by viewing the "Editor's Note" that replaced it a few days later, the website now admits that the court cases in question were incorrectly described as pertaining to Obama's 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 reason the references were removed was because the fact-checking site Snopes.com delved deeper into the details of the specific cases and found that not one of them had anything to do with Obama's eligibility or citizenship. The majority of the filings predated Obama's presidency, in fact, and originally named George W. Bush as the 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.

Edited by ajskj
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ajax:

Which of the following predates the Obummer? In which is W the defendant?

http://www.supremeco...les/09-8857.htm

http://www.supremeco...les/09-8857.htm

http://www.supremeco...les/09-6790.htm

http://www.supremeco...les/09-6790.htm

http://www.supremeco...iles/09-724.htm

Http://www.supremeco...iles/09-724.htm

Do you also dispute the statement concerning the veracity of Snopes?

Bulldawg

  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ajax:

Which of the following predates the Obummer? In which is W the defendant?

http://www.supremeco...les/09-8857.htm

http://www.supremeco...les/09-8857.htm

http://www.supremeco...les/09-6790.htm

http://www.supremeco...les/09-6790.htm

http://www.supremeco...iles/09-724.htm

Http://www.supremeco...iles/09-724.htm

Do you also dispute the statement concerning the veracity of Snopes?

Bulldawg

Yes, you are dead wrong about Snopes. Your links don't work, by the way.

Don't like Snopes???

The Truth:

There were cases filed in the Supreme Court by "The Real Truth About Obama, Inc." that were denied by then Solicitor General Elena Kagan but these cases did not question President Obama's eligibility as a natural born citizen.

This rumor stemmed from an article released by World Net Daily (WND) on August 4, 2010 that alleged that there were several cases questioning the President's citizenship and that they were denied by Kagan. WND posted this statement on their site correcting the error:

"An earlier version of this story incorrectly described a series of cases for which Elena Kagan represented the government as eligibility cases. Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court and the references have been removed from this report."

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/k/Kagan-Payback.htm

Here...this is simple....the Gary Holt case is a prisoners civil rights case filed under the Bush administration.

The James Julius Brown case has nothing to do with eligibility...and also was filed under the Bush administration.

Luis Lutz is a truck driver whose case was filed under Bush and has to do with the treatment pf contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Al-Ghizzawi is a Libyan trying to get released from Gitmo.

The real truth about Obama had to do with a group wanting to disseminate information about Obamas position on abortion. It's actually a challenge to Federal Election Commission regulations.

Nice try though.

Ajax:

AND ONE MORE....

An e-mail suggests that Elena Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court because she used her position as solicitor general to fend off all the lawsuits challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president. It says that, of course, all the requests were denied so Obama owed her big time. Is this true?

No, it’s not. Not even close.

But it’s an intriguing tale, made even more so by subsequent charges of lying against Snopes.com, which debunked the original e-mails.

Those e-mails began circulating in August after an article published online by WorldNetDaily claimed that a search of the Supreme Court’s website “reveals Kagan’s name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues.”

But when Snopes.com looked at the docket items cited by the e-mail, it found that none of them were about whether Obama is legally qualified to be president.

A check of those dockets confirms that. There’s a case about a prisoner civil rights issue, one about a contractor in Iraq and another on a Ugandan in the Guantanamo Bay prison. But not a single one of the dockets is about Obama’s presidential eligibility. In fact, Snopes.com points out, most of the cases were filed against the government before Obama’s presidential candidacy but were rolled over to the current administration, a common practice.

David Emery, who does fact-finding research for the urban legends section of the information website About.com, looked at Snopes.com’s article and called it “exactly right.”

The reason the cases come up under a search for Obama and Kagan on the Supreme Court website is that Obama is listed as the respondent (such lawsuits often list the president as respondent) and Kagan, the solicitor general at the time, was the counsel of record for the federal government. The solicitor general is not a personal lawyer for the president, but merely functions as a representative of the interests of the federal government.

WorldNet-Daily beat a hasty retreat from the article after Snopes.com came out with its findings. That article was removed from WND’s website and replaced with a rewritten article on a different topic that had the following editor’s note, Snopes.com reported:

“Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described a series of cases for which Elena Kagan represented the government as eligibility cases. Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court and the references have been removed from this report.”

You’d think the controversy would end there since WND admitted its error.

But it’s not where the story ends.

Within a few weeks, Snopes. com received an e-mail from a reader who apparently “made the very same mistake that WND did (i.e., erroneously assuming that any docket item containing the names Kagan and Obama was a presidential eligibility case) and accused us of being politically biased liars.”

The e-mail the reader sent also was posted on the Web, Snopes.com said, and winged its way to blogs and to numerous inboxes. That prompted a rash of e-mails to Snopes.com, accusing it of lying and saying that it couldn’t be trusted because it said that no Obama/Kagan dockets existed.

Snopes.com never claimed that the names Kagan and Obama weren’t on any dockets. It merely listed the dockets mentioned in the original chain e-mails and documented that not one of them dealt with presidential eligibility issues.

Snopes.com devoted a page on its website to its response to these accusations. On it, it says that every one of the people who sent an accusatory message was sent a detailed response explaining why they were mistaken.

To date, Snopes.com says, “we haven’t received a single apology.”

Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-11-07/story/fact-check-kagan%E2%80%99s-court-nomination-not-related-obama-cases#ixzz1CkJ1Jpss

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-11-07/story/fact-check-kagan%E2%80%99s-court-nomination-not-related-obama-cases

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.