So Much for the So-called Fact-Checkers!

So Much for the So-called Fact-Checkers!

07/27/2020 ~ ANN CORCORAN

The Capital Research Center posted a humorous piece a few days ago demonstrating how through simply parsing words, the Leftists at Snopes tried to wiggle out of their “fact-checking” that had concluded that convicted terrorists had not helped fund Black Lives Matter.

(I sure hope none of you rely on Snopes!)

Snopes Avoids Truth of BLM Ties to Terrorism by Torturing Language

In the public policy world, where part of CRC’s mandate is calling out the hypocrisies and fabrications of the other side—hopefully to effect change toward the better—there may be no better measure of success than when the other side is forced to start redefining terms to make their lies sound like truth.

Last week, Capital Research Center achieved that measure of success. Not since President Bill Clinton wrestled with the meaning of what “is” is has America witnessed such tortured verbal parsing.

A Terrorist’s Ties

https://fraudscrookscriminals.com/wp...80-300x171.jpg

Rosenberg is on the board of Thousand Currents

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-p...sand-currents/

It began with a well-received June blog post from CRC President Scott Walter telling the tale of Susan Rosenberg, a convicted terrorist who spent 16 years in a federal prison:

Rosenberg . . . started out as a member of the 1960s revolutionary group Weather Underground, graduated into even more violent, and arguably successful, forms of terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s—including bombings at an FBI field office in Staten Island, the Navy Yard Officers’ Club in Washington, DC, and even the U.S. Capitol building, where she damaged a representation of the greatest of the Democrat defenders of slavery, John C. Calhoun.

At some point after President Bill Clinton commuted her sentence in 2001, Rosenberg landed on the board of Thousand Currents, the 501(c)(3) nonprofit that fiscally sponsors the Black Lives Matter (BLM) Global Network Foundation.

Cut to July 14, when suspected less-than-unbiased fact-checking site Snopes decided it needed to set the record straight about Rosenberg and BLM. Snopes likely weighed in because CRC researchers had done several high-profile media appearances—including appearing on the Mark Levin Show—discussing the piece, and formidable cable news pundits such as Tucker Carlson covered the Rosenberg saga as well.

Poor Snopes. In trying to debunk the Rosenberg connection to Thousand Currents, they found that it was, in fact, all true. So, they consulted their Orwellian playbook and simply questioned the definition of the word “terrorism.”

Then they could rate the claim as only half true. Which is exactly what they did in an odd post (see below) that seems to move backward in time.

More here.

So while we are on the subject of fact-checking. One of my local friends (Dick) sent me a youtube video (see it below before it disappears, he warned).

(You may have already seen it since it has been circulating since the beginning of the month.)

After watching it, the first thing I did was look for so-called ‘fact-checkers.’ I found two.

Perhaps the most interesting of the two was the one from the Associated Press which asserts this at the end of its fact check of ‘Insurgency-911.’

This is part of The Associated Press’ ongoing effort to fact-check misinformation that is shared widely online, including work with Facebook to identify and reduce the circulation of false stories on the platform.

Here’s more information on Facebook’s fact-checking program:

https://www.facebook.com/help/1952307158131536

LOL! Follow that link and see that Facebook uses ‘third party fact-checkers’ which immediately raises the question, so who are they and are they unbiased (of course not!)?

There is another ‘fact-check’ by highly suspect ‘Lead Story’s’ Eric Ferkenoff who is one of Facebook’s independent (ha! ha!) fact-checkers.

So this is what you do. Watch the video, read the fact-checks (consider how they parse words) and see what you think.

BTW, one of my favorite things the Left does is at the outset they say that we think the virus is a “hoax.” By using that word they immediately signal readers/viewers not to believe what they are about to read or see.

I don’t think the virus itself is a hoax and I doubt you do either. The question is whether it has been blown way out of proportion, and has the panic response been warranted.

Decide for yourself (but LOL! if you go to youtube to get the video, you will see that they try really hard to keep you from seeing it and that tells you all you need to know!)

https://youtu.be/-fhGV1LxeKQ

https://fraudscrookscriminals.com/20...fact-checkers/