I don't think I would trust snopes to research this one.....

[iddee]

TruthOrFiction.com-Is that forwarded email Truth or Fiction? Research
into stories, scams, hoaxes, myths, and urban legends on the Internet


SNOPES NO MORE ---Owned by Soros - Disinfo Source

Subject: SNOPES NO MORE!


For those of you that put your trust in Snopes...

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:
<A
HREF="http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm">
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm[/url]

<A
HREF="http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790..htm">
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790..htm[/url]



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.

[kathyp]

don't you know that the end justifies the means??  it's all for your own good!

she should have recused herself on this health care mandate also because she'd already expressed an opinion.  any other case with any honorable justice and they would have. 

this is correct.  she is there because she is a reliable part of the Chicago machine. 

[JackM]

sigh

[deknow]

errrrrr...ok.  You can read the snopes page:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kagan.asp
...it documents all of "the dockets"....last updated in 2010.

of course we believe out of hand that this came from truthorfiction.com?
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/k/Kagan-Payback.htm

...but hey....Soros must be keeping close tabs on what you post here idee....and he is buying websites as fast as he can to cover his tracks.

deknow

[JackM]

[iddee]

deknow, you seem to be good at finding things on snopes. Can you find this one? I have tried, but cannot find it.




OUTDOOR CHANNEL PULLS PRODUCTION FROM COLORADO DUE TO CO SENATE
BETRAYING 2ND RIGHTS!
 
From: Michael Bane
Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:09 PM
Subject: OUTDOOR CHANNEL Pulls Productions from Colorado
To: Senator Steve King

Dear Senator King;

I met you yesterday after the so-called "public hearings" on the
anti-gun bills; as I mentioned, I am an Executive Producer for OUTDOOR
CHANNEL. I currently have four series in production, including GUN
STORIES, the top show on OC, with several additional series in
development. My series focus on guns, hunting, shooting and the
outdoors.

This morning I met with my three Producers, and we made the decision
that if these anti-gun bills become law, we will be moving all of our
production OUT of Colorado. We have already canceled a scheduled filming
session for late this month. Obviously, part of this is due to our own
commitment to the right to keep and bear arms, but it also reflects 3
lawyers' opinions that these laws are so poorly drafted and so designed
to trap otherwise legal citizens into a crime (one of our attorneys
referred to them as "flypaper laws") that it is simply too dangerous for
us to film here.

I can give you chapter and verse on the legal implications if you need,
but suffice to say that the first legal opinion was so scary we went out
and got two others. Al three attorneys agreed.

We are relatively small potatoes in television, but our relocation of
production will cost Colorado a little less than a million dollars in
2013.

Secondly, we have proudly promoted Colorado in our productions (and have
been moving more and more production into the state); now we will do
exactly the opposite. What does this mean for Colorado? The community of
television producers is a small one. Last week I had lunch with a major
network producer who was looking to locate his new reality series in
Colorado. That producer is also a shooter, and the new reality series
will now be based out of Phoenix. That lunch cost Colorado over a
million in economic impact.

Thirdly, according to numbers I received from the National Shooting
Sports Foundation (for whom I used to work) yesterday, hunting had an
almost $800,000,000 impact on Colorado in 2012, driving as many as 8330
jobs. Next month I will be in Texas meeting with most of the top
outdoor/hunting producers, and the Number One agenda item will be
Colorado. Already, hunting organizations and statewide hunting clubs
around the country are pulling out of Colorado, and we expect this trend
to accelerate rapidly.

The message we will take to our viewers and listeners is that these
proposed laws are so dangerous to hunters and any other person, be she a
fisherman or a skier who brings a handgun into the state for
self-defense, that we cannot recommend hunting, fishing or visiting
Colorado.. We reach millions of people, and, quite frankly, we have a
credibility that Colorado government officials can no longer match.
Colorado Division of Wildlife is already running ads trying to bring
more out-of-state hunters to Colorado...in light of the flood of
negative publicity about these proposed laws, I can assure you those ads
will fail.

We estimate that as many as one-quarter to one-third of out-of-state
hunters will desert Colorado in the next 18-24 months, which will quite
frankly be a disaster for the hunting industry in Colorado and have a
devastating effect on our western and northern communities (certainly
cities like Grand Junction).

This is not a "boycott" in the traditional sense of a centralized,
organized operation; rather, it is more of a grassroots decision on
where shooters, hunters and other sportsmen are willing to spend their
money. Look at the collapse of the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in
February. That venerable multimillion dollar trade show chose to ban
modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines, and within three
weeks it collapsed as all vendors and sponsors pulled out.

Colorado is going to pay a huge price for laws that will do nothing.
Thank you, sir, for your support.
Best.

Michael Bane

OUTDOOR CHANNEL mbane@outdoorchannel.com

[kingbee]

iddee, none of this will mean anything to true believes like the Colorado law giver in this post.  He is like the first chief of the Gestapo and future Luftwaffe Reich Führer Herman Goering. 

On being appointed leader of the Gestapo in 1933 Goering warned German scientist that animal research would hence forth earn them a trip to one of Goering's new fangled concentration camps for reeducation.  But Goering's commitment to animal rights did not extend to Herman Goering's own love of hunting wild boar and stags or to eating same. 

[iddee]

Where's Deknow??

Here's another one I can't find on snopes. Hey, Deknow, how about a little help with the search. You know snopes would NEVER refuse to post one.


US buys Russian
helicopters to give to Afghanistan. HUH?
Here is a Washington Post article that backs this up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061805630.html


Does anyone remember Barack Obama's great promise of the campaign of 2012?
He did not make a promise to America nor to Americans. He did not make a promise to fellow politicians.
Unlike so many of his promises, he is keeping this one. His promise was to Vladimir Putin of Russia .
<


http://www.elnuevosiglo.com.co/sites/default/files/imagecache/400xY/fotoputinyobama.png
What is Obama doing to keep his promise to Putin?
Everyone
remembers the hot mike incident in 2012 when Barack Obama pleaded with Russian President Dmitri Medvedyev to give him time until the election.
After the election, he promised Vladimir Putin, through Medvedyev, he would be more "flexible."
Now we have seen this flexibility.
Barack
Obama is going to spend almost $700 million dollars of taxpayer money to buy Russian helicopters for the Afghan Air Force.
But wait. Just like those TV commercials, this gets better.
When
Congress passed the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, it had an interesting provision. Congress included, as a part of that law a prohibition on the United States buying helicopters from Rosoboronexport, the Russian manufacturer of the Mi-17 helicopter.

<
http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/mi17_ondrejsmrtka.jpg

Unfortunately as always happens, when such laws are passed, Congress always gives the Regime an escape hatch. The law stated that Obama could buy from Rosoboronexport if the Secretary of Defense certified it was in the interest of National Security.
And of course, the Secretary of
Defense, Chuck Hagel, a man committed to destroying the US military immediately signed off on that certification.
Where do we even start with this one?
Congress is outraged over this with
Senators and Representatives from both parties writing letters about this. Of course, this is Congress' fault for allowing a law to be written with such an escape hatch.
More importantly, Americans need to be asking just what the hell the Obama Regime is doing.
Why are we spending $700 million dollars with a Russian arms manufacturer?
Why are we even giving the Afghans these helicopters?

If we are going to give them helicopters, which we really shouldn't, then why not give them American made helicopters and put Americans to work?
Even if we are going to give
the Afghans Russian helicopters, the ones we are giving them are an old Cold War design. There are hundreds of used MI-17 helicopters floating around the world. Why are we paying to give the Afghans brand new helicopters?

In the era of the Sequester, isn't there something better we can do with $700 million? American Medicare cancer patients are being turned away from hospitals and are being denied life saving treatment because of budget cuts. The American military is being gutted to the point of ineffectiveness because of budget cuts.

Or consider this. The United States Air
Force is grounding 17 squadrons because of $591 million dollars in budget cuts. Our Air Force is not able to do its mission because it lacks the money to fly but we have the money to give Afghanistan $700 million dollars in Russian helicopters.
And this is where Barack Obama thinks we should spend our money?

Most
people reading this story will not have heard about it.
Why?
Because
the Obama Propaganda Media is moving in lock step to make sure there is no bad news that might damage Obama's presidency.
This
is a story that should damage him and outrage every American.
Ask
your Senator or Congressman why this outrage is being allowed and take a moment to share this story with your friends.
The
only way we will ever stop Obama is if the American people know what he is doing.

Attachment(s) from David James
1 of 1 File(s)
US buys Russian helicopters to give to Afghanistan.pdf

__._,_.___

[melliferal]

Why are we spending $700 million dollars with a Russian arms manufacturer?
Why are we even giving the Afghans these helicopters?

If we are going to give them helicopters, which we really shouldn't, then why not give them American made helicopters and put Americans to work?
Even if we are going to give
the Afghans Russian helicopters, the ones we are giving them are an old Cold War design.

The Post article explains that the Afghan military already knows how to fly and service these helicopters; buying them new designs would require even more money to train them on these matters.

In addition, it's prudent to be giving them machinery which is sufficient for their home mission but is tactically inferior to US equipment.

The
only way we will ever stop Obama is if the American people know what he is doing.

He will be gone in three years; think positive.

[iddee]

Quote from article... "Even if we are going to give
the Afghans Russian helicopters, the ones we are giving them are an old Cold War design. There are hundreds of used MI-17 helicopters floating around the world. Why are we paying to give the Afghans brand new helicopters?"

Explain this.

[sterling]

>> he will be gone in three years.

I wouldn't bet on that. If the Dems win the house in 2014. They will change the law and run him again. If he gets amnesty passed and releases  some Govt. lands for oil drilling to boast the economy he will get reelected.

[melliferal]

>> he will be gone in three years.

I wouldn't bet on that. If the Dems win the house in 2014. They will change the law and run him again.

No they won't.  I'm willing to bet $100 it won't happen. 

The two-term limit is set by the Constitution.  That means a constitutional amendment is needed to change it; which requires not only a 3/4 majority in Congress, but 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify.  The process itself would likely take longer to complete than the current president has left in office, so he would not be able to benefit from any change.

[luvin honey]

Haha! It is kind of ironic (I mean, who snopes Snopes?)

[kathyp]

The process itself would likely take longer to complete than the current president has left in office, so he would not be able to benefit from any change.

the exception would be some kind of national disaster that caused the constitution to be suspended.  while that's possible, it's unlikely.   

[iddee]

Melliferal, you didn't answer my question about new versus used............

[sterling]

>> he will be gone in three years.

I wouldn't bet on that. If the Dems win the house in 2014. They will change the law and run him again.

No they won't.  I'm willing to bet $100 it won't happen. 

The two-term limit is set by the Constitution.  That means a constitutional amendment is needed to change it; which requires not only a 3/4 majority in Congress, but 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify.  The process itself would likely take longer to complete than the current president has left in office, so he would not be able to benefit from any change.

How long was FDR in office?

[kathyp]

it was because of FDR that they set the limit.  up 'til then, people were observing the tradition of no more than two terms.  FDR, being the liberal that he was, considered himself and his agenda to be more important than tradition.  it's the end that counts, you know?  whatever you have to do is justified as long as you accomplish your goal.

[kingbee]

Where's Deknow??

Here's another one I can't find on snopes. Hey, Deknow, how about a little help with the search. You know snopes would NEVER refuse to post one.


US buys Russian
helicopters to give to Afghanistan. HUH?
....

True but there is a good reason for it.  There are few roads in Russia especially in the vast and frigid Northern and Far Eastern parts of Mother Russia.  Besides, Russia has some quite mountainous and rugged terrain.  Helicopters also provide a significant part of the transportation needs in Eastern Russia.  Therefor Russian helicopters are engineered to be more rugged, fly higher, lift heavier payloads, be easier to maintain, and they fly further on a single tank full of fuel than any US helicopter.

You could say that this is a Hallmark Greeting Card moment. BECAUSE...

When you care enough to send the very best....  discriminating helicopter buyers give Russian whirlybirds.   

[iddee]

Kingbee, I think your account has been hacked. The last few posts have been off the wall, and I just can't believe it is really you.

[luvin honey]

And here I was starting to think he sounded kind of sane