Opposing the Truth with Facts
They may provide the facts where the Truth doesn’t threaten or disagree with their proclivities, preferences, lusts, dogma, and indoctrination, but where it does, in politicized or spiritual arguments, Snopes is squarely in their own corner on the Left, not the Truth’s on the Right.
Back in the early days of the internet and email we began receiving chain letters with stories or claims that made one wonder, “Is this true?” Checking the internet for background information, we ran into Snopes.com, a now well-known website that aims to debunk or confirm widely spread urban legends, rumors, and news reports circulating on the net.
From their website (http://www.snopes.com/about-snopes/):
“The Snopes.com web site was founded by David Mikkelson, a project begun in 1994 as an expression of his interest in researching urban legends that has since grown into the oldest and largest fact-checking site on the Internet….”
We were particularly motivated to search out reports brought to us by readers of The Path of Truth that urged people to action. For example, one person sent this mailer in 2009 about illegal immigrants in the US getting Social Security benefits:
This is very worrisome…please read, sign and forward.: Please read this one!
SOCIAL SECURITY CHANGES
It does not matter if you personally like or dislike Obama.. You need to sign this petition and flood his e-mail box with e-mails that tell him that, even if the House passes this bill, he needs to veto it. It is already impossible to live on Social Security alone. If the government gives benefits to ‘illegal’ aliens who have never contributed, where does that leave those of us who have paid into Social Security all our working lives?
As stated below, the Senate voted this week to allow ‘illegal’ aliens access to Social Security benefits. Attached is an opportunity to sign a petition that requires citizenship for eligibility to that social service.
Instructions are below. If you don’t forward the petition and just stop it, we will lose all these names.
If you do not want to sign it, please just forward it to everyone you know.
To add your name, click on ‘forward’. Address it to all of your email correspondents, add your name to the list and send it on.
When the petition hits 1,000, send it to email@example.com
PETITION for President Obama:
Dear Mr. President: We, the undersigned, protest the bill that the Senate voted on recently which would allow illegal aliens to access our Social Security. We demand that you and all Congressional representatives require citizenship as a pre-requisite for social services in the United States.
We further demand that there not be any amnesty give n to illegal aliens, NO free services, no funding, no payments to and for illegal immigrants.
SOCIAL SECURITY CHANGES
It does not matter if you personally like or dislike Obama.. You need to sign this petition and flood his e-mail box with e-mails that tell him that, even if the House passes this bill, he needs to veto it.
We found a Snopes article that laid out the facts proving this report untrue. We wrote back to our correspondent:
The mailer you sent about Social Security is a false alarm. Maybe you have heard back from others on this. Read about it here:
Another time we used Snopes as a reference regarding a mass mailers we received entitled, “Life Is Beautiful,” which warned about a computer virus being spread through email:
“Steve, the warning notification you sent us is a hoax. It’s always a good idea to google these things to find out whether they’re valid before contributing to mass circulation and a massive waste of time.
The situations presented in these mailers were “black and white” – the stories calling for action were either true or false, which could be readily determined with the appropriate facts.
For these kinds of situations, Snopes proved helpful in corroborating or refuting stories circulating on the net. But when weighing in on more complex matters, Snopes often presents facts that don’t tell the whole story. Instead of bringing light to the matter, they perpetuate a darkness in which lies thrive and are propagated.
For example, in the following article, “Jimmy Starter,” Snopes sets out to answer the question: “Did President Jimmy Carter ban Iranian nationals from entering the U.S. in a manner similar to Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims?”
This question was raised in the following manner:
“Several web sites said that Trump’s suggestion followed a precedent set by President Jimmy Carter barring Iranian nationals from entering the U.S. during the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1980.
One such comparison was made in an 8 December 2015 Frontpage Mag article titled ‘Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to US During Hostage Crisis: Trump is Just Like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter,’ which held that:
Trump is a monster, a madman and a vile racist. He’s just like Hitler. Or Jimmy Carter.
During the Iranian hostage crisis, Carter issued a number of orders to put pressure on Iran. Among these, Iranians were banned from entering the United States unless they oppose the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency.
Apparently barring people from a terrorist country is not against ‘our values’ after all. It may even be ‘who we are’. Either that or Carter was a racist monster just like Trump.
Snopes verdict was mixed – true and false:
Those conclusions are both true, but the manner in which they’re framed in a context in absence of important facts and truth, give a misleading impression. The report is essentially a lie.
The outcry against candidate Trump for his suggestion of an immigration ban on Muslims until ongoing Islamic jihad events could be properly assessed was disturbingly violent and irrational, including calling him a racist with comparisons to Hitler. The counterpoint being made by publications like Frontpage Magazine wasn’t that the current situation was identical to the 1980 hostage crisis in Iran when President Carter issued an immigration ban, but that the Democrats demonizing Trump for proposing steps to deal with the present status of Islamic jihad against the US were hypocritical, since one of their own Presidents took similar measures in his day.
Not only that, but President Carter didn’t go far enough in dealing with the Islamic regime in Iran, which had effectively declared war on the US, leading to the present-day quagmire that now-elected President Trump is left to deal with. Ironically, the Snopes article is correctly titled, “Jimmy Starter.”
The writer doesn’t acknowledge the war Islam has declared and wages on the West – that there is a serious problem requiring serious action. The implication is that Trump and those who support what he’s trying to do are buffoons or worse – deliberate racists. Yet there is another lie: Islam isn’t a racial trait – it’s a poisonous ideology that one can renounce, unlike skin color.
Another man in previous times warned against Hitler and the German Nazi regime, urging England to take drastic measures to deal with a menace threatening their nation, and was treated in similar manner as Trump. That man was proven right then, and he’s also proven right now regarding the warning he sounded about Islam:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome. – Winston Churchill
While Snopes may be factually accurate in the article we’re discussing, it not only misses the truth, it dismisses the truth, which allows the lies they insinuate to predominate in the vacuum.
Islam promotes a diseased state of mind, an ideology inimical to Western and all non-Muslim nations. Those infected should be quarantined, no different than dealing with a pernicious plague. The Snopes mindset supports Islam fulfilling its mandate, which means everyone murdered or subjugated to their demon god.
Another subject where Snopes frames an argument and uses facts to obscure and dismiss the truth is “Global Warming”:
Here’s the claim:
And here’s the verdict:
Who made that claim? Snopes doesn’t say, and in the essay and speech cited, Coleman in no way proposes to offer “convincing evidence.” It’s clear the nature of his presentation is to lay out his belief and conclusion about the matter of “global warming,” appealing to common-sense science in a manner understood by the lay person and not a complex scientific proof or treatise on the subject. He also makes it clear he has surveyed the materials of scientists who do provide the “convincing evidence” that he summarizes. What’s wrong with that?
So when Snopes and those cited in the article complain about Coleman’s lack of credentials or published work in the field, they miss the point and are presenting a straw man argument. Coleman is simply providing the counterpoint to anthropogenic global warming activists who present their theory as fait accompli. Therefore, while Snopes may have some facts straight regarding the claim they’ve presented, the claim and facts have been concocted to tell a crooked story supporting their own unsupported conclusions.
For example, the Snopes article says:
“Moreover, much of Coleman’s criticism of climate change deals with impugning the motives of those engaged in that discipline rather than refuting the science behind their work.”
“Much” is a vague, non-quantified term, and not factual. The Coleman speech cited by Snopes barely mentions the motives of climate scientists, and the essay cited gives his explanation on the matter, which is reasonable and helpful:
I suspect you might like to say to me, “John, look the research that supports the case for global warming was done by research scientists; people with PH D’s in Meteorology. They are employed by major universities and important research institutions. Their work has been reviewed by other scientists with PH D’s. They have to know a lot more about it than you do. Come on, John, get with it. The experts say our pollution has created an strong and increasing greenhouse effect and a rapid, out of control global warming is underway that will sky rocket temperatures, destroy agriculture, melt the ice caps, flood the coastlines and end life as we know it. How can you dissent from this crisis? You must be a bit nutty.
Allow me, please, to explain how I think this all came about. Our universities have become somewhat isolated from the rest of us. There is a culture and attitudes and values and pressures on campus that are very different. I know this group well. My father and my older brother were both PHD-University types. I was raised in the university culture. Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture. They all look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.
And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.
So when these researchers did climate change studies in the late 90’s they were eager to produce findings that would be important and be widely noticed and trigger more research funding. It was easy for them to manipulate the data to come up with the results they wanted to make headlines and at the same time drive their environmental agendas. Then their like minded PHD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question.
There’s no question that however it came about, scientists in the university and “higher education” system today are safe only when supporting the anthropogenic global warming theory and in danger when opposing it. Reality bears this out – Coleman’s explanation of built-in bias is founded on truth.
Indeed, Snopes does the very thing to Coleman they charge him with doing to “global warming” advocates – claiming he is wrong because scientists who have investigated the matter disagree with his conclusions. How is it that when Coleman says the evidence gathered by scientists speaks against manmade carbon inputs creating catastrophic global warming, he is wrong, but when Snopes says the opposite, they are right?
The question is – which scientists are right – the ones bought and paid for who support the notion of anthropogenic global warming, or those who put their careers and social status on the line by following the facts to the truth, which they’ve embraced and declared? As they say, to get to the bottom of an issue and motivation, follow the money. Snopes doesn’t know, yet presents a verdict without definitive proof. They’re bluffing. Why?
Snopes also has come to the defense of Monsanto and their campaign to whitewash the dangers associated with use of their GMO technology and Roundup weed killer. In this case, it’s been revealed that Snopes has a financial incentive to support Monsanto, a paid advertiser on their site.
Coleman’s observation about questionable motives hits home. You cannot serve God (the Truth) and mammon (money – power and influence in corruption).
See https://foodbabe.com/2017/02/24/do-you-trust-snopes-you-wont-after-reading-how-they-work-with-monsanto-operatives/. An important point made by the author of this article is a principle we’ve touched on:
“When it comes to the topic of food, it is imperative that everyone understands that this field is rampant with corrupt paid-off scientists and front groups that are working to protect profits of corporations at the expense of our health. You can not always trust information coming from self-proclaimed independent experts, and sources must be vetted extensively.”
“Snopes is now 50% owned by an ad agency (Proper Media) and they make money by generating millions of views on the 3rd-party advertisements on their website. It simply makes sense for them to seek out articles that are viral to ‘debunk’, so that they can piggy-back on that traffic and generate more advertising revenue.”
So how can you trust Snopes? You can’t.
The Snopes founders, David and Barbara Mikkelson, reveal their foundational hostility to the Truth in a video interview from the movie, The God Who Wasn’t There, a documentary questioning the existence of Jesus Christ. The Mikkelsons give their “expert” opinion, supporting the movie’s premise with the following explanation of how the Gospel accounts of Jesus Christ are an “urban legend.”
Barbara: “Oh, often these things will start with mishearings, misunderstandings or misrememberings of things caught too quickly in passing of things that were sort of half-heard, half-understood, you know, badly remembered.
But it is more the magic of how they continue to spread, in that at each point along the line, each link in the chain, the person who hears the story makes a decision, unknown to them or not, to pass along the tale, or to just let it drop. See, when these stories end up being repeated and passed to more and more people, they become a far more accurate reflection of society’s inner heart. We tend to pass along the stories that on some level we agree with. Therefore, when you see a story that has grown in impetus, it is because something in it resonated deeply with a great number of people.”
David: “In a way it’s kind of mysterious process. Most urban legends you can’t trace them back to the source – not a source in a sense of where this really happened, but how they began in the first place.
It’s seems to be a very collaborative process where somebody somewhere comes up with a germ of a story somehow either making it up, misremembering something, being inspired by something, and it goes through many hands and it’s shaped and formed until somehow it just reaches this sort of perfect state where it stops changing except for the details of the time and locale and then it sort of crystallizes in that form. Exactly how it starts and get shaped and molded into that is mysterious.”
How stupid can someone get? Apparently very stupid in the arrogance of sin. These are not low IQ people, but they’ve been rendered sheer idiots by despising and rejecting the Truth. The Gospel accounts of the Lord Jesus Christ aren’t passed-along stories that have been “misremembered” and collaboratively formed to reflect “society’s inner heart.” If that were the case, these two know-it-alls would agree with the Bible.
The Gospel accounts come from firsthand witnesses and those who carefully relayed the testimony of these witnesses:
“Since many have attempted to arrange a narrative about the matters which have taken place among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed up accurately all things from above, to write to you in orderly fashion, most distinguished Theophilus” (Luke 1:1-3 EMTV).
Seeing the Messiah crucified, and, after being entombed in the earth three days and nights, seeing Him raised from the dead, isn’t something you “misremember.”
“The former account I made concerning all things, O Theophilus, which Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many convincing proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking of the things concerning the Kingdom of God” (Acts 1:1-3 EMTV).
Not only did Jesus appear to those who accompanied Him in His earthly ministry – He also appears by His Spirit to all whom He chooses ever since. Luke met Him, as did Paul the apostle:
1 Corinthians 15:3-8 EMTV
(3) For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
(4) and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
(5) and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
(6) Thereafter He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, of whom the majority remain until now, but some have died.
(7) Thereafter He appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
(8) And last of all, as of one born out of due time, He appeared to me also.
But the Mikkelsons reject all valid testimony out of hand and apply their experiential knowledge of myth-making and urban legends to the Truth, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Why? The answer comes from Barbara as she describes “inspirational” stories and urban legends about “the great, all powerful, always benevolent, God” in the video interview:
“Unfortunately,” she says, “any number of these stories, when upon further examination, tend to have a dark underside to them in that although they seem to push one message, in reality they can often push a quite different one.”
Asked for an example, Barbara tells the story of a woman in a dangerous spot who avoided rape because protected by angels, whereas another woman in the same place that night was raped. She asks:
“Did she not pray, was she not good enough, was she somehow evil or undeserving? Are all victims of all tragedies evil or undeserving or not worthy of a benevolent God’s love and protection? See, to believe in a God Who intervenes and Who will protect an individual you have to also believe in a God Who will reject the appeals of others, Who will not answer certain prayers, Who basically just cast any number of people to enter the maw of whatever horrible outcome is about to occur, simply because He doesn’t like them as much, they’re not as worthy…
“Is every rape victim a sinner? Did every person who was ever hurt by a mugger, was that person somehow not worthy? Every person who has ever been murdered or tortured? See to believe in this divine protection is also to believe that there are whole classes of people who obviously deserved the horrors that were visited upon them.”
Yes, Barbara and David, God doesn’t answer all prayers.
“But we know that God does not hear sinners, but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He hears him” (John 9:31 MKJV).
Yes, Barbara and David, there is divine justice and wisdom in all that happens on earth:
“Do not be deceived, God is not mocked. For whatever a man sows, that he also will reap” (Galatians 6:7 MKJV).
“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him Who is able to destroy both the soul and the body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them shall fall on the ground apart from the will of your Father” (Matthew 10:28-29 EMTV).
Luke 13:1-5 EMTV
(1) And some people were present at that very time, reporting to Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
(2) And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things?
(3) Not at all, I tell you; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.
(4) Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that these were offenders more than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem?
(5) Not at all, I tell you; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”
The Mikkelsons don’t want to face the truth about their sins and themselves as sinners, so they lie about the truth. Telling such lies, they’re also murderers, because those who believe them also won’t face the truth and repent. They gather or encourage others to perish with them.
As for some of those sentimental stories circulating on the net, we address them here: Sappy Stories with Mushy Morals.
In summary, facts can be helpful or detrimental to the cause of truth. Snopes often falls on the side of detrimental. When they blatantly disregard and deny the eyewitness testimony of corroborating witnesses who laid down their lives maintaining their testimony of the Son of God, have they not proven themselves to be adversaries of the Truth? Proceed with caution.
“Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar, just as it is written: ‘That You may be justified in Your words, and You may overcome when You are judged’ (Romans 3:4 EMTV).
So, what is the answer to knowing the Truth of any matter? There’s only one way: Turn from your wicked ways, faulty understanding, knowledge, and thoughts, and those of all men. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ; call on His Name! Only then can you be assured of Truth and Security:
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7 KJV).
Proverbs 3:5-8 KJV
(5) Trust in the LORD with all your heart; and lean not unto your own understanding.
(6) In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths.
(7) Be not wise in your own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
(8) It shall be health to your navel, and marrow to your bones.
In those words are found The Answer to every conceivable question or problem you may encounter.
July 24, 2017