Posted by: mystic444 | June 20, 2012

Snopes, George Soros, Elena Kagan, and President Obama

I recently received another of those viral ‘righteous indignation’ emails – this one asserting that is funded by George Soros, and that President Obama appointed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because she (as Solicitor General) had helped him keep the challenges to his eligibility to be President out of court.

Here’s the e-mail:


Wow…read this one! Then check out the suggested web sites!!!

Many of the emails that I have sent or forwarded that had any anti Obama in it were negated by Snopes. I thought that was odd. Check this out.

Snopes, Soros and the Supreme Court’s Kagan.We-l-l-l-l now, I guess the time has come to check out Snopes! Ya’ don’t suppose it might not be a good time to take a second look at some of the stuff that got kicked in the ditch by Snopes, do ya’?

We’ve known that it was owned by a lefty couple but hadn’t known it to be financed by Soros!

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 something about the dockets of the new Supreme Court Justice. Elena Kagan, who Obama appointed, and Snopes said the email 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 to Snopes:

Referencing the article about Elana 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 Courts 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, but I doubt it.

That being said, Ill 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!

Now we know 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 who 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:

If you are not interested in justice or in truth, simply delete.

However, if you hold sacred the freedoms granted to you by the U.S. Constitution, by all means, PASS it ON!

There truly is tyranny afoot. 

I always check Snopes to confirm or deny allegations made in such e-mails; and I thought it was especially important to check out what Snopes had to say about attacks against its own web site (both its funding and its contents).

The allegation that is funded by George Soros was pure assertion, with no supporting evidence given; so all that is necessary to counter the allegation is to give a statement from’s “About” page:

The web site is [and always has been] a completely independent, self-sufficient entity wholly owned by its operators, Barbara and David Mikkelson, 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.

If anyone wishes to produce actual solid evidence that the Mikikelsons lied on their ‘About’ page, by all means go for it. Unless and until such evidence is produced which proves them guilty – beyond a reasonable doubt – of lying, I and other thinking people will accept their statement as true.

To see what has to say about the Elena Kagan/President Obama allegations, you can check out this site. To summarize it, did not assert that there are no dockets of Elena Kagan’s cases in which the name of President Obama appeared as respondent. What Snopes said was that no such dockets and cases as were being alleged existed – that is, no cases in which Elena Kagan acted as personal representative of Barack Obama to defend him against charges by ‘birthers’ that he was ineligible to be President.

As Solicitor General, Elena Kagan had the responsibility to represent the US Government against charges by citizens that their constitutional rights had been violated. In such cases, the name of the current President is usually cited as respondent. The dockets to which the e-mail allegations refer are just such cases.

Many of the cases containing President Obama’s name actually originated under the administration of George W. Bush; but because they were still pending when Barack Obama became President, President Obama’s name was listed as respondent.

None of the cases had anything at all to do with Mr. Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the USA; and Elena Kagan was not acting as his personal lawyer, but as Solicitor General on behalf of the United States of America.

I am certainly no ‘fan’ of President Obama; nor was I a ‘fan’ of George W. Bush. But I figure there’s no need to resort to lies and distortions to oppose them when there are such a large number of legitimate reasons to do so! 😆



  1. Thank you for bringing attention to the hate email’s towards Pres. Obama.
    I have been receiving hate and un truth emails for going on 5 12 years from my spouse’s right winger friends. In fact, for a few years, spouse’s boss had sent us very, hateful emails on a weekly basis. At first I wasn’t going to “take him on” so-to-speak, and just let it ride right off my shoulders, but after various attempts telling him nicely, over and over to stop do forwarding these email’s, they never would stop. So, from then on I have used snopes, Lie Pie, Fact Check, Politifact, Hoax Slayers, etc. and proved him wrong. He kept it up and I kept it up until one day his wife read one of my answers to his email and she boldly told me off! “This is what we believe” was her answer. So there you go. Right wingers can’t stand the truth and whatever they believe they will continue to go on and on with their hatred for our president. (Compliments of Fox News, people.) It has been about two years past and we never heard from them again. I can’t begin to write here how many friends (friends!?) we have lost due to my researching the truth and firing back the truth. To this day we still receive hate email’s from another friend whom I have told nicely over and over again to stop sending us these emails! It hasn’t worked yet and I continue to prove them wrong.

  2. Kagan represented Obama at the Supreme Court!!! What ARE the duties of the SOlicitor General????

    • Ralph _ I fail to see how you can possibly claim to have read my article, or the Snopes article to which I referred, since we have shown that Elena Kagan was NOT acting as a representative for President Obama in any case cited. She represented the US Government in claims concerning Constitutional matters.

  3. Final comment – sorry for the brief flood – you may or may not be a leftist and dead set against depriving people in the US of their 2nd amendment rights. I suppose I got off point. My main point that I had originally intended to get across was that you can’t get what you’re trying to get from the source itself. If Snopes has a political bias (which it does), then you won’t get an admission from them on it. Also, being aware of the bias should be enough to let you know what subjects to check again elsewhere (anything political should be questionable from Snopes).

    • Jacob – Peace be with you, and thanks for taking the time to put in your ‘two cents worth’ on my article.

      I definitely am not an advocate for ‘gun control’ – unless one defines ‘gun control’ as “being able to hit what one aims at”! 😀 See my article How to Prevent Mass Murder as evidence.

      I checked out the link to the Snopes article about former NC Senator Robert Soles, and it did not seem to me that the Mikkelsons were ‘advocates’ for either a ‘right’ or ‘left’ perspective in their article. It appears to me that they did an excellent job of maintaining a ‘neutral’ position of “just the facts”. They stated that the accusation against Mr. Soles was a mixture of truth and falsehood.

      They neither defended nor denounced Mr. Soles for his guilty plea of misdemeanor assault; they just stated the fact that he made the plea. I personally feel that he wronged himself and the cause of the right of self defense by his plea; but that does not change the fact that he did plead guilty. Therefore, on this point they were saying that the accusation against the former Senator was correct. So if you wish to castigate the Senator, do so; but don’t accuse Snopes of having a ‘leftist’ agenda for simply pointing out the facts of the case.

      But they also pointed out that the facts don’t seem to support the allegation that Mr. Soles had previously been a virulent anti-gun advocate. They showed that two “Second Amendment rights” groups disagreed with such an allegation. The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund, in ranking his voting record on gun rights, gave him a ‘B’ rating in 1998; but by 2004 that rating had improved to an ‘A’ rating – and it continued as an ‘A’ rating through 2008. Grass Roots North Carolina stated that his voting record “is mediocre at worst and [he] has voted with us on most major issues”. Again, Snopes neither defended nor denounced the NRA or Grass Roots – or Mr. Soles – for their gun rights views; Snopes just presented the facts as they found them. It is this determined effort to just neutrally present the facts that I find refreshing in Snopes. If the facts agree with one’s viewpoint, that’s great; but if they disprove one’s viewpoint, well that’s just too bad for the erroneous viewpoint.

      Regarding my referring to Snopes to check out accusations against Snopes, I say “most certainly I do so”. In the same way, I would hope that if you encountered evil sounding accusations against me and what I write, you would actually refer to me or my articles to either verify or rebut the accusations. It is certainly recognized as a legal principle in the USA that the accused has the right to defend himself against accusations; and I would hope that you would give Snopes, me, or anyone else the opportunity to exercise that right.

      I believe my article and Snopes’ article on this subject (allegations concerning Snopes’ sources of financial support, and Elena Kagan having acted as Barack Obama’s ‘personal attorney’ on the matter of the ‘birther’ controversy) are both clear and fair. Since the accuser of Snopes offered no evidence or proof for the assertion that George Soros is a financial supporter of Snopes, it is quite legitimate to just accept Snopes’ denial of the charge. I stated that in my opinion, anyone who wished to actually produce evidence that George Soros finances Snopes (and that therefore Snopes has lied in denying it) is welcome to do so. To my knowledge, though, no one has yet produced such evidence. Consequently, unless or until solid evidence is produced proving Snopes ‘guilty’ – beyond a reasonable doubt – of being financed by George Soros, they must be ‘presumed innocent’ of the charge. Accusations don’t count as evidence.

      Snopes again just presented the facts concerning Elena Kagan’s cases, as Solicitor General, which bear the name of Barack Obama as ‘respondent’. They have no ‘agenda’ except to get at the truth of the matter. None of the cases had anything to do with the ‘birther’ controversy, and in no case was she representing Barack Obama himself. In every case, she was representing the US Government, not a particular member of that Government. The links are given to verify these facts.

      Even the case given the title “The Real Truth About Obama” – brought up by another commenter – had nothing to do with the ‘birther’ issue. The case concerned someone’s assertion that his Constitutional rights were being violated with regard to his ability to present evidence about Obama’s stance on abortion. It was a Constitutional issue – consistent with Elena Kagan’s duty as Solicitor General – not a personal issue.

      So I have absolutely no hesitation in using Snopes to ‘fact check’ allegations concerning Snopes’ financing and Elena Kagan. However, perhaps you noticed that the very first commenter on my article (“Foo Bar”) gave a couple of other ‘fact check’ sites for verification: and Feel free to refer to those, or any other such site that actually presents facts rather than just appearance and accusation.

  4. A very brief read through of “debunked” myths on gun control acquired through use of search feature provides me all the information I need to know – they are wildly leftist and anti-gun.
    Consider this story:

    Senator R.C. Soles had been an anti-gun advocate for years before using a gun to defend himself during a home invasion. People immediately attacked him as a hypocrite. Rather than reconsidering its views on the subject, Snopes continues by pointing out that Soles stepped down from his position and “plead guilty to a misdemeanor assault with deadly weapon charge”.

    So here we have a senator who discovers for himself how guns can protect against criminals, only to then have to resign his position and accept charges, when he could easily have defended himself again in court. If he had more realistic views on the weapon and respect for himself and the rights he as an individual has against assault and home invasion, the intruder would be dead and unable to add insult to injury with a court case. I refuse to accept the imposition of this sort of wrong-headedness in my country.

    Expect extremely strong opposition.

  5. Really, you used Snopes to fact check about Snopes? Really?

  6. Just a quick note here – enjoyed reading your ‘fact check’ and glad that you took the time to check.
    And, no, there were not inflammatory emails sent around about George Bush. In fact, my Democratic friends do not send those types of emails. I try to ‘enlighten’ my acquaintances who send me things like you posted, but they still keep coming.
    How hard is it to check anyway?

    • Susan – Thanks for taking the time to make a comment. It really doesn’t take a whole lot of time to check the validity of mass e-mailing.

      I tend to forget things pretty quickly, so I don’t remember for sure whether or not I got any anti-Bush e-mails. Back then I was still driving a truck, and gone from home 3.5 weeks per month. I didn’t have a blog then, and e-mails mostly came from family members (when I was able to check them using wifi). At that time, also, I was not familiar with Snopes, and didn’t know how to go about checking things otherwise. [I first found out about Snopes when I got my first e-mail, supposedly from the Coca-Cola Company, announcing I was the big winner in a sweepstakes drawing in conjunction with the Olympics in Africa. The ‘notification’ sounded legitimate, but I had my doubts. My sons immediately recognized it as a scam, though, and told me about Snopes. Ever since then, I’ve been delighted to use that resource to check out anything about which I’m skeptical.]

      It does seem that I got an occasional e-mail about George Bush. However, I think they were mostly legitimate denunciations of his policies. Perhaps there were also some which contained ludicrous stories; but if I remember correctly, they were pretty obviously intended as satirical spoofs. The problem with these anti-Obama mailings is that they seem to be intended to be taken seriously, and from my observation my Republican acquaintances do tend to believe them.

  7. I got an email about President Obama decorating the White House in an Eastern theme. Subject of the email was No More Flag. Well I checked out and it said it was false. So I wrote back to the person who sent it to me and she sent me the email about Soros financing Snopes. I did my research though (unlike a lot of other people) and found that it also was false. I was able to find information debunking it on several sites.

    These emails that circulate are such lies but unfortunately too many people think they are true.

    • Vicki B. – Thank you for your comment. It is so sadly true that most ‘righteous anger’ e-mails that circulate around the Internet are simply false. It’s almost not even necessary any more to check them out to see if they’re true. Yet every once in a while one comes to me that is actually true, so I guess I still need to check each one.

      I got one recently from my mother-in-law, about a Tennessee High School principal who gave a speech before a football game protesting the fact that they were no longer allowed to open the game with public prayer. Snopes verified that one as being true. I disagreed with the principal’s position about public prayer at school events, so you could say I believe the message of the e-mail to be ‘false’. Nevertheless the principal did say the things the e-mail attributed to him.

      On the other hand, I got one a few days ago from my brother, attributing some anti-immigration and xenophobic statements to the actor/comedian Robin Williams. Snopes said that one was false – Robin Williams never said those things. That is the more usual result of fact-checking, isn’t it?

      • Thank you for your response! I debated about posting anything because so many times when I do I get nothing but nasty responses. And it seems to me that most of the nasty emails that circulate are about President Obama. I have not received one of those “false” emails about Governor Romney.

        • VickiB – I appreciate the few comments I get; and there are few enough of them that I am generally able to reply to them. If I received multiple comments daily, I probably wouldn’t be able to do that.

          You will almost certainly not be getting any nasty responses from me – even if you should disagree with something I say. I don’t require commenters to agree with me; just don’t be crude, rude, and insulting in the comments. Any commenter who makes use of such tactics will probably not get his/her comments published on my blog. So you don’t really have to be concerned about nasty responses from other people on my blog either.

          It seems to me that you are correct that Mr. Romney doesn’t seem to get his ‘fair share’ of ‘righteous indignation’ viral e-mails. I don’t know why that is; I’m pretty sure that former President George W. Bush got his share of distorted and lying attacks – so it’s not necessarily that Democrats are just ‘morally superior folks’. 😀

          I’m neither Republican nor Democrat however, so I’m not a ‘fan’ of either Obama or Romney. (Well, I’m registered as a Democrat – I did that when Clinton was running the first time. It was a ‘knee jerk’ reaction to the ‘Christian Right’ influence in the Republican party after I had renounced my fundamentalist/reformed Christian faith. By the end of Clinton’s first term, I had come to realize that ‘Democrat’ was no more an accurate ‘fit’ for me than was ‘Republican’. I’ve never bothered to change my registration to something else, though.)

          So I get to attack both parties! 😆 But I prefer my ‘attacks’ to be based on fact, not fiction.

  8. […] itself has responded to the e-mail claims, though, and other blogs have also taken it on, so I’m not going to spend any more time on the […]

  9. These guys list this link which has the petitioner listed as “The Real Truth about Obama”. What was this case about.

    • @ Jerry S. – Here’s what the Snopes article to which I linked has to say about this case:

      The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., a case which, although the plaintiff’s name might suggest a presidential eligibility issue, is actually a challenge to three Federal Election Commission regulations which the plaintiff organization alleges are “unconstitutionally overbroad” and thereby infringe their right “to disseminate information about presidential candidate Senator Obama’s position on abortion.”

      You can verify this by clicking the link to “The Real Truth About Obama, Inc.” in the Snopes quote. Therefore, once again it did not concern Obama’s eligibility to be President. It was apparently a “free speech” challenge concerning spreading information on Obama’s opinion on abortion. And the case did not challenge Obama personally, but some Federal Election Commission regulations which the plaintiff thought undermined his free speech.

  10. See also:

    • @ Foo Bar – Thanks for posting those additional links.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: