So much for Snopes.com… another propaganda arm funded by George Soros and the Democratic Party!

Meet David and Barbara Mikkelson…

Founders and sole staff of Snopes.com

 

Snopes Exposed–George Soros and Leftists Fund it

Submitted by bobbyw24 on Mon, 08/16/2010 – 16:10

Snopes receives funding from an undisclosed source. The source is undisclosed because Snopes refuses to disclose that source.

The Democratic Alliance, a funding channel for uber-Leftist (Marxist) Billionaires (George Soros etc.), direct funds to an “Internet Propaganda Arm” pushing these views. The Democratic Alliance has been reported to instruct Fundees to not disclose their funding source.

For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the ‘tell-all final word’ on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com.

It is run by a husband and wife team – that’s right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It’s just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.

David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research.

The reason for the questions – or skepticisms – is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues.

A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, ‘supposedly’ the Mikkelson’s claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com.

In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place. I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg’s contact phone numbers – and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec’s at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it.

He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm.

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/83/370/Snopes_Exposed.html

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/142482

About these ads
This entry was posted in Political Commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to So much for Snopes.com… another propaganda arm funded by George Soros and the Democratic Party!

  1. John Viertel says:

    OK. I get that the Mickelsons are not really qualified to get at the truth any more than the rest of us. But where is the evidence that they are funded by Soros?

    • Kimberly says:

      There is no evidence, just false rumors.

      • Joe Worsham says:

        Where is proof of your claim Kimberly? Oh, maybe you got it from Snopes ! Ha !

      • Bruce Simpson says:

        [Replying to Joe, not Kim]… We can site MANY debunking-sites as agreeing with Snopes’ findings on the Soros issue, but you’ll just claim they’re all in bed together with Snopes, or they all look gay. I haven’t found Snopes to be biased at all. I’VE even been disappointed by some of their findings! Live and learn. What I HAVE found is that most of the stuff they’re tasked to examine emanates from the extremist fringes of right-wing ideologies, leading some to believe they have a left-wing slant. No, I think it’s because the left doesn’t lie as much. …But, hey, it’s Saturday, life’s too short, troll away…

  2. Vinny says:

    According to Snoopes this article is FALSE….

  3. Teacherbil says:

    LOL, Vinny!!!

  4. Teacherbil says:

    By the looks of that picture, I’m pretty sure David is gay and Barbara loves cats.

    • Snoop says:

      By the looks of your username I’m pretty sure you molest children.

      Who are you to pass judgment on someone’s sexual preference based on their picture?

      • InvestigatorbyTrade says:

        Because these people are passing judgement without doing any investigations…that’s the whole point. doh!

      • william olsen says:

        It is obvious by looking at them that they are left wing liberal obots..They wouldnt know the truth if it bit them in the ass..They lied about obamas COLB, they lied about his natural born citizenship, they lied about obamas latest release of a long form BC which has been declared the world over a 100% forgery..In fact, Russia declared it to be a forgery within 1 hour of it’s release from the White House…Any 10 year old kid who knows adobe illustrator or photoshop can tell this forgery in less than 3 minutes..These people are nothing but cry babies who lick obamas ass for breakfast, lunch and dinner…Any idiot can see thru them immediately…They are nothing but trash!!

    • jan milliken says:

      by the looks of that picture, I’m pretty sure David and Barbara are having a couple too many calories in a day for their own good.

    • Joe Worsham says:

      Snopes says that photo is doctored, She actually looks like Sophia Loren and David looks like the cat !

  5. Adam says:

    Wait, where did “Soros and the Democratic Party” enter the picture? Quite the misleading headline.

    • Snoop says:

      Completely misleading. If you’re going to be sensationalist for the sake of getting people to read your story at least present some evidence that Soros is the one that is, in fact, funding Snopes.

      Don’t just use poor math by saying that (1) his organization funds internet propaganda companies and (2) it tells the fundees not to disclose their funding sources and (3) Snopes has an unidentified funding source that it won’t disclose so 1 + 2 + 3 MUST = (Evil George Soros) .

  6. kyrilloz says:

    So much for the credibility of SNOPES. Do they just arbitrarily according to how they feel about it, rule on some issue or concern?

  7. JANE RITTER says:

    Is that like the lack of experience, investigative research, knowledge, and EDUCATION,
    as BECK, LIMBAUGH, O’DONNELL, PALIN?

  8. Randall says:

    Is there a better source to use?

  9. Robert Young says:

    I don’t know about who funds Snopes, but I am convinced about their bias. When they report on the origins of an e-mail, they don’t usually go into a moral inventory. Not so when the subject is Dr. Laura Schlessinger! They never miss an opportunity to produce a laundry list of bad choices and missteps (nude photos, etc.) that are not germaine to the topic but serve only to make her look bad. I e-mailed them about their double standard and guess what? No reply!

  10. Andrea McGriff says:

    Try truthorfiction.com They are neutral (at least up until now) in their reporting. You never know these days…..

    • Lil S Adickes says:

      I wrote to truthorfictioin and asked THEM about snopes. They said that although they woud love to get some of snopes business, snopes was just like them, a mom and pop web site researching questions and is very reputable. In other words, they ALL get their information off the Internet. If you don’t want to accept their answers, look it up yourself.

      • Kimberly says:

        Check out http://www.FactCheck.org They did an investigation on Snopes when the rumors were going around and they say that Snopes is neutral. But everyone should check out things, especially emails, themselves before judging something true or false. Especially a site like this that claims to be a Christian site.

  11. Brenda says:

    Seems to me there are a lot of unhappy people commenting on here, is it because you can’t handle the truth.

    Jane, your comment is laughable…do you have any idea how many hours these people spend researching their facts…and trust me the left is so full of hate for them if they thought for a minute something was said that they thought they could prove was false they would be on it so fast. They have a whole group of researchers, looks like these clowns running snopes depend on where the cat’s tail ends.

    Maybe some of you Soros protectors should really do some research on him. NOT from your friends at MSNBC or Huffington Post, but start from his birth and follow his life. Afraid to find the truth out…progressive libs are always afraid of the truth.

    Bring on your nasty little replies, I know the truth and not afraid of cowards throwing darts behind ‘Big Government and trash like Soros’
    GOD (the father of Jesus Christ) BLESS AMERICA :)

    • angie says:

      I agree 100%…you tell emlike it is! I can take all of the hateful,mean remarks too since I also know the truth and am seeing much of it first hand where I live because I pay attention and don’t turn a blind eye. Let’s be friends Brenda!

  12. Karen says:

    Snopes is a terrible source. After a tragedy that involved one of my friends, there was an email that was sent out – meant only for friends – this email somehow got into the hands of the Mikkelson’s. They wrote a very derogatory story about it and denied the story was, in fact, true. Despite the evidence and proof my friend provided, the ‘article’ remains – totally unchanged and still labeled as no true. My friend provided everything they asked for and he name is still being drug through the mud. It’s unfair and wrong. The Mikkelsons do not investigate and only label things true or untrue based on their own liberal agenda.

    • Bruce Simpson says:

      I have found them to be an exfellent source. You’ve given us no particulars. Without any way of checking your story through Snopes or any other hoax-busting site, we have no way of knowing if what you say is true. Sorry for your pain.

  13. Patricia Day says:

    This is old news. Snopes was outed back in 2004. A group in California was hassled
    because their email about a incident they were discussing had not been ok by the
    great mighty Snopes . The angry emailers went to work and brought all this info.
    into the Light. They were fake then, and they are still fake.

  14. Renee Rogers-Perry says:

    Soros funds hundreds of Leftist organizations around the country. Money is no object to him. I understand that he is not happy with the investments he has made, it is not sitting to well with the current elections and is full speed ahead going into the media business funding news organizations, Newsweek, and other magazines in order to further his agenda that was repudiated by Americans so forcibly. He has swayed public opnion fairly easily in other countries but is finding that Americans are a different breed and although they were duped in the previous presidential election, they are now wise to his stealth government and his puppet mastery of our politicians. You can throw your money around Soro’s, but “We The People” are onto you and your kind! We will not fall prey to your Marxist ideas the next time around! money can’t buy integrity and truth!

  15. Freeman says:

    It became obvious to me that they were left wing hacks early in the Obama campaign. When questions about his past arose, they merely parroted quotes from his campaign headquarters. How’s that for real investigative journalism? Kinda reminds you of the mainstream media lackeys.

    • think4myself says:

      I have had the same experience. I have even tried in the past to access the links they provided to their sources only to find them all as dead ends. They also use circular reasoning. There was one post about Obama must be muslim because he was celebrating Ramadan and when I went to snopes they said it was false. Their proof – they simply said that it was not true, he couldn’t be celebrating Ramadan because he was not Muslim, He said so. I still don’t know if he celebrated Ramadan, quite frankly I don’t care, I was sadly dissappointed by their evidence. “Because he said he was not Muslim”. This man who has been caught lying red-handed over and over, who went to a wahabbiest (sp?) school, quotes the “Holy Quran” and mocks the Bible, believes in 57 states (there are 57 arabic states), is not muslim because he said so. Could you imagine if that was investigative authority for all of their inquiries? LOL They are a joke!

  16. If this is really true, then I think I better switch to Truth or Fiction.com. So many times I have suspected as much. I think I will ask them. That sure be fun.

  17. If this is really true, then I think I better switch to Truth or Fiction.com. So many times I have suspected as much. I think I will ask them. That should be fun.

  18. Evi says:

    The Mikkelson’s are wonderful Chicken schitt’ little Soros people. They’re as credible as a crack whores at a porno convention….which pretty much is the Democratic party.

  19. Jack Fuller says:

    Snopes a left-wing Marxist site?

    LOL, this blog of yours is one giant fucking joke!

  20. Kimberly says:

    As a Christian I get very upset when another so-called Christian posts comments that are not true. The Bible talks about being sure before passing on falsehoods. If you actually researched this article instead of just believing what someone said in an email you would have found that NONE of it is true. Go to FactCheck.org and check it out or find another site that does research and you will see that none of it is true. You should be ashamed of yourselves, saying you are a Christian site and posting untruths.

    • Richard says:

      Unfortunately, I know very few “Christians” who have a clue about the message that Jesus tried to teach and they certainly don’t act very “Christlike” (which is what the term Christian means). You sound like one of the exceptions.
      All of the hatred and virulence expoused on this site and by many of the commentors is certainly not Christ-like and the writers should be ashamed to try and wear the label Christian.

    • Typical Liberal Fascist says:

      I get even more upset when Christians turn to Cesar for “charity” rather than themselves.

      Mark 20:15

    • luke says:

      I find it sad that a christian claims to have some sort of judgment over another’s Christianity. There were those, in the Bible, that did the same thing. I believe they were called pharisees and sadducees. Jesus wouldn’t touch one of them yet he befriended liars, tax collectors and even leprosy. Who are you to say what is another’s heart?

      • Kaycreed@icloud.com says:

        Matthew, Mark & John all agree with Luke!! And Kimberly sounds like a Pharisee for sure, and Richard is her live-in-boyfriend! (That’s true…I checked Snopes!).

        Yes, JESUS befriended liars WHO REPENTED, luke,

        “To grant forgiveness without demanding a change,
        Makes the Grace of God an accomplice to evil.”
        J. Hagee

  21. Fred R. Hogeman says:

    My experience is that Snopes responds to positions when a true or false response favors leftist issues. They ignore and do not respond to positions when true or false responses disfavor leftist issues. Further, if a minor point in a position is false, they tend to label the article as “mixed” or false if that label favors leftist issues. I see considerable bias in Snopes.

    • Bruce Simpson says:

      I’ve been PLENTY disappointed at times when I encounter a questionable factoid and run it past Snopes and it doesn’t go the way I had hoped. “Mixed” is especially frustrating because both sides of the argument to an extent ignore the mix, defy the draw and claim the victory. I find Snopes to be incredibly trustworthy, …at times excruciatingly so! I also find that there seems to be more angst about their validity from the right than from the left or the moderates. Taken together, that says a lot.

  22. rv Chandler says:

    Just shows to go you that unless you see it or experience it you should not take it as fact!!

  23. I have not seen any proof that he does fund Snopes.com BUT is there proof that he does NOT fund Snopes?

    Snopes denies this. They claim that their site is funded by advertising but I find that hard to believe because there has been many websites that were forced to close down because of low advertising revenue. Also Snopes does not sell anything on their site. Other websites like theirs have been forced to sell memberships to keep their sites up and going. The first one I can think of is a site called http://www.wheresgeorge.com I had a membership there myself for a couple of years.

    What I’d really like to know is if their advertising revenue really does support their website. Myself I have a blog that gets web traffic but has never produced a dime in revenue. I had no expectations of making money off it as I am doing it for fun.

    My blog is loaded with ads. When I went to Snopes I only noticed two tiny ads. and none of them appealed to me. In my opinion they have to be making their money somewhere else so who is to say they don’t have some under the table funding?

    There has been more than once I doubted some of the answers they have given. if they want to give answers to political issues they need to go about it differently. If i ran a site like that I’d label my political stuff as “Opinion” I’d also be up front about my political leanings and let the reader decide if my answer was biased or not. I’d do my best not to be but we are all human.

    • HeidiNIndi says:

      I can understand your doubt based on your experience, but I think it’s safe to say that Snopes, which is probably the biggest Urban Legends site, and is, apparently, consulted by individuals and the media, can charge much higher rates for ads on their site than an individual blogger. Also, I’ve read in numerous places that the Mikkelsons were well-off before they started this, so they may have relatively low salaries. Your reasoning is sound, but there are other considerations that could explain it. I have researched this for hours (I’m going to write a post below), and I have found no evidence that the site gets funding from anyone else – liberal, covservative or otherwise.

      In the course of researching this, I read MANY of their political posts comparing how the handled rumors about Republicans vs. rumors about Democrats. I found them pretty even-handed, and their conclusions were not opinion based. They simply stated the facts. However, their commentary analysis does have some opinion in it. Based on the comparison, I did not find them to be biased, though I agree with you that we’re all human, and our perspectives do have some influence on our opinions.

      Overall, though, despite complaints from Conservatives that Snopes has been defending Obama for 4 years, a look back will show that they defended George Bush, too, both confirming nearly all positive stories about him and refuting the vast majority of negative ones. Even when they said a negative story was true, their commentary often defended him & his family (e.g. that Laura Bush killed a high school classmate in a car accident is an undisputed fact, but in their commentary, they defended her against cruel rumors that it was deliberate or that she’d been drinking or was careless).

      Incidentally, they continue this trend with current politicians, as you’ll see if you check out their reviews of the attacks on Mitt Romney.

      So although it’s true that they regularly debunk stories accusing Obama of all sorts of things, a look at their track record on both sides of the political fence undermines the claim that they are liberal puppets. If they were, they’d not only be debunking Obama stories – they’d be confirming Romney attacks.

    • Ingenjören says:

      Is there any proof Soros doesn’t fund you? Of course there isn’t since it is nigh on impossible to prove that something isn’t happening, there is no way for you to prove that Soros isn’t secretly giving you wads of cash that he sneaks to you at odd times. That is why we have this little thing called “presumption of innocence”.

  24. Guy says:

    To bobbyw24. I understand it sometimes makes it easier to make a point by “inheriting” someone else’s story into your own. But, if you are “really” interested in knowing the entire story of Bud Gregg, the State Farm agent, and his client and friend who was the actual person who originally posted the story about the snopes and the Mikkelsons – then contact me through the email I listed – because “I” am the actual person. If you contact the email address I provided, give me your phone number, I’ll give you a call and you’ll know I’m the real person from the detailed facts I provided of the entire account. Look forward to hearing from you.

    • HeidiNIndi says:

      Guy, if you are telling the truth, I would REALLY like to hear your story. I’ve researched this for many hours, and tracked it back as far as November 2008, but I couldn’t track it back farther to find the original writer.

      I’ve also seen how the original article got picked up, edited, and re-posted over and over, each time getting more distorted. This version, which was posted in 2010 is blended with another complaint written around that time, (apparently) by someone named Randy Keith but referring to a different Snopes conclusion (about the Obama-Kagan connection). This post takes parts of your email from 2008, adds the beginning paragraphs that someone added to Mr. Keith’s article (they were not in the earliest version of his article either), and presents them as if they were a single document.

      I’d be extremely interested in hearing what you actually said originally. If you did say they were liberals, Jewish – Democrats (things that were removed from this article but in the 2008 one I read), if you had a reason to believe this or if you were just venting because were irrate about their incomplete research.

  25. HeidiNIndi says:

    IF Snopes took money from Soros, and someone found out about it, it would relatively easy to prove–whatever evidence they saw to make them aware of this funding could simply be made public. Therefore, if this was true, I would expect to see some claim about what information was uncovered and who found it.

    However, if Snopes did NOT take money, it would be practically impossible for them to prove that. Even if they opened personal and business accounts for an audit by someone trusted by the most extreme Conservatives (and honestly, how many of you would you trust someone who disliked with all your bank accounts?), some would still say the auditor was bought off, or they had a secret account they didn’t reveal, or whatever.

    Considering the difference in how easy it is to accuse vs. to defend, the burden is on the ones making the allegations to show that there is some reason to believe that Snopes is Soros-funded.

    I have spent MANY hours researching this issue. I read over 100 articles alleging liberal slant and liberal funding (nearly all recognizable as recycled versions of the same article written in 2008), and I have not seen a single piece of supporting evidence to back up these statements…NONE…not even a hint. Instead I have seen articles recycled and distorted. Over the past 4 years, accusations became bolder and more inflammatory, but absolutely nobody backed them up. I’m a Republican and a follower of Christ, and frankly, I’m appalled by the brazenness with which these things are spread around as fact when all the evidence indicates they are not true.

    So why do people keep believing and spreading these accusations against Snopes? Well, we all tend to gravitate to stories that support our viewpoints. So if I’m Conservative, I get excited when I hear something condemning one of those evil Liberals. And if I’m Liberal, I’m pleased to see negative stories circulating about one of those nasty Conservatives. If I pass along the story that brings me such joy and someone more with more moderate views checks Snopes, they’ll probably discover that I’m passing along a falsehood and tell me so.

    And how does this cause a problem?

    If I’m Liberal, and I keep passing along information critical of Republicans, because Snopes consistently debunks my stories, I think they have a conservative bias.

    If I’m Conservative, and I’m passing along critical stories about Liberals (which has been happening more lately when the President is a Democrat), because Snopes consistently debunks my stories, I believe they have a Liberal bias.

    Of course, if I’m Moderate, and I consistently check out stories on both sides, I find Snopes to be pretty evenly balanced.

  26. Brad Bolar says:

    Looks much of little bobbyw24′s article was lifted from this site: http://www.metroedit.com/2009/05/how-accurate-is-snopescom/ written over a year before in 2009

  27. Thanks to social networking websites, internet marketing is a lot simpler to do than ever before.
    There are many Best Practices to gathering your FB
    friends. Share INTERESTING stuff that happened to you.

  28. Lee Martines says:

    Why would anybody financially support your website when you print such tripe without verification. You, like many other sorry excuses for supposed information are spreading nothing but lies about the Mikkelson’s, owners of the SNOPES site. They have never proven bias, and stories to the contrary are simply lies. SNOPES id definitely the preferred site for debunking the majority of rumors on the Internet and re supported by TruthOrFiction.com and other websites of the type. They offer the most comprehensive research and reporting. It is almost criminal for you to report the lies that you have sid about this well respected site.

    • MB says:

      how do you know this? what factual data do you have that validates the information they provide is in fact true or in fact they are a well respected site?

      • Bruce Simpson says:

        Truthorfiction.com testimonial about snopes.com: “Snopes.com is an excellent site that has become an authoritative source for information about urban legends and forwarded emails. We regard David and Barbara Mikkelson, the founders and operators of Snopes.com, as colleagues and professional researchers who have earned a good reputation for what they do.” Many other debunking sites have similar testimonials. How many would you like us to post to you before you believe we’re not making it all up?

  29. GK says:

    Here’s what FactCheck.org has to say about this article, which is actually a reprint of a viral email. Bear in mind, FactCheck.org is non-partisan, and was even endorsed by Dick Cheney, among others.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/

    Honestly, it should come as no surprise that Snopes tends to debunk more conservative myths than liberal ones, giving the appearance of a liberal bias. But it isn’t because they actually have a liberal bias, but rather because they were set up primarily to tackle email-based hoaxes and urban legends. It is well known that liberals are better positioned to use television and Hollywood to spread their particular bias. Newsprint, blogs and viral email, conversely, are heavily favored by conservative spinners to spread their particular bias. So when your organization is set up to address a specific medium, then it is only natural that the majority of myths they debunk will come from the spin that is most prevalent in that medium; and in the case of viral emails, conservative spin is much more prevalent. If they were designed instead to address television broadcasts, then one would expect more liberal than conservative myths to be tackled, and would thus give the false appearance of a conservative bias on the part of the debunking agency.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s