|date:||Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 2:16 AM|
|subject:||Re: FW: Snopes No More...|
|:||Important mainly because it was sent directly to you.|
I believe you forwarded the earlier version of this anonymous spam a year or two ago.
If you don't trust Snopes, try other fact-check sources,eg:http://urbanlegends.about.com/
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.
Note on George Soros: A later variant of this forwarded email alleges, without proof, that Snopes.com is financially backed by hedge fund tycoon and liberal philanthropist George Soros. This, too, is false. Snopes.com is entirely self-supporting via advertising sales.
Better yet, learn how to retrieve information yourself. Those with unreasoned beliefs cannot emotionally accept the notion that they may be wrong. They protect themselves from reality by being surrounded with filtered information of their bias.
" Reality has a liberal bias."
Fact checking of their beliefs is not something they want. Politically,it is characteristic of the Republicans Remember:
Paul Ryan is being chastised by some in the media this morning for being factually challenged in his speech Wednesday night at the RNC. For instance, factcheckers agree that Ryan falsely implied that President Obama broke a promise to prevent a car factory in Ryan’s hometown from closing, when the factory shut down before Obama took office.
And Ryan repeated now-debunked statements about Obama’s proposed Medicare cuts and other Republicans have repeated claims that have been deemed false about the president changing welfare-to-work requirements. A Romney pollster raised eyebrows this week for saying “we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.” What’s true and what’s not in speeches made at the RNC?
And there was this: In describing his pro-life position in August 2012, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) stated that women who are victims of what he called "legitimate rape" rarely get pregnant. He was twisting reality to accommodate his beliefs.
My advice is, if someone doesn't want to be identified with spam they written, you should fact- check before putting your name behind it, even if it fits your beliefs. Especially then, as they may be playing you for their purpose.