Connect with us

Fake News Media

BLP Catches Snopes in Another Misleading ‘Fact Check’



Ever since Snopes was ordained as one of Facebook’s unimpeachable ministers of truth, Big League Politics has been keeping an eye on the loosy goosy “fact-checking” organization, and recently we caught them in another misleading story that casts President Donald J. Trump in a less than positive light.

The topic for debate was whether Trump “cancel[led] protections for whales and sea turtles.” Generally, Snopes will pose a question, then rate the assertion within the questions – this time “Trump cancelled protections for whales and sea turtles” – as either “true,” “mixture,” or “false.”

In response to the assertion that Trump cancelled such protections for sea-dwelling creatures, Snopes itself wrote the following:

Trending: Female Christian ‘Pastor’ Rejects the Truth of Christ, Says It is ‘Holy’ to Sell Porn Pics on OnlyFans

“The decision was not made by Donald Trump himself, nor did it overturn or cancel several other existing protections for marine mammals both off the West Coast and nationwide.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

That seems pretty cut and dry. Snopes admits that Trump indeed did not cancel protections for “marine mammals.”

Yet the assertion that Trump did cancel such protections is not rated as “false,” as one might expect. Rather, it was rated as “mixture.” Apparently, in May 2017,  the National Marine Fisheries Service “decided not to implement a proposal that would have shut down one particular fishery off the coast of California if a certain number of protected marine mammals were entangled in fishing nets and killed.”

That fact, which is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Trump cancelled protections for marine mammals, was enough for Snopes to give the assertion a “mixture” rating.

Big League Politics reached out to Snopes for clarification, considering that this case seemed relatively cut and dry. We received the following response from David Mikkelson, founder and CEO of Snopes: 

“We know from long experience that when readers pose policy questions along the lines of “Did President [XXX] set/change this policy?” they are generally using the president’s name as a metonym for the current government/administration,” Mikkelson said. “Therefore, we have to address the broader question in order to avoid being misleading. Regular readers of our site know quite well that we have published numerous articles disclaiming negative rumors about President Trump, and we are therefore obviously not “afraid” to do so.”

Essentially, Mikkelson admitted that Snopes does not take the questions that they set out to “fact check” at face value, but rather they interpret the questions completely subjectively and then provide their supposedly unbiased analysis. This tactic gives the organization wiggle room in providing their analyses of straightforward questions.

This is not the first time Big League Politics has caught Snopes using dubious tactics in their “fact-checking.”

Regarding a story about whether a Facebook group for an Antifa group in Melbourne, Australia was legitimates, Snopes deferred to an anonymous blogger in Australia to provide the answer. Not only did they assert that the blogger’s name was Andy Fleming, which was later found to be untrue (Andy Fleming is a pseudonym), but Fleming’s expertise was less than convincing.

BLP reported:

To verify this claim, Snopes reached out to a truth power-broker, anonymous blogger “slackbastard,” whose (unconfirmed) name is supposedly Andy Fleming.

Feeling uncomfortable with trusting an anonymous blogger, Big League Politics reached out to Mr. slackbastard to find out how he – and consequently Snopes – knew the Melbourne Antifa page was fake. It turns out, they know because… well… they just know:

Mr. slackbastard gave a number of reasons why we should believe him and Snopes’ version of the events.

  1. He lives in Melbourne. (Obviously he knows everyone in Melbourne).
  2. He’s been “participating in anti-fascist activism for years.” (One can only imagine the amount of brain damage caused by such activity, which actually tends to discredit his claims further).
  3. He “knows other anti-fascists in Melbourne.”
  4. Finally, the page was a “garbagefire.” (Garbage fire spelled as one word).

Not to worry, though. In case readers were skeptical of an anonymous blogger’s opinion on whether an Antifa Facebook account was fake, Snopes also linked to a BuzzFeed story which says that some Antifa Twitter accounts are fake. Close enough, right?

BLP Passage Ends. 

The enormous power wielded by Facbook’s “fact-checking” organizations allows the tech giant to de-platform news stories that Snopes and others deem to be “fake.”

How can “fact-checkers,” who undoubtably hold politic biases of their own, be trusted with the power to arbitrate what is true and what is false?

Fake News Media

PATHETIC: Reason Magazine Calls Proud Boys ‘White Nationalist’ and Criticizes President Trump for Not Condemning Them

Reason Magazine lies again.



The smear merchants are out in full force after President Donald Trump refused to condemn the Proud Boys at the first presidential debate on Tuesday night.

The controversial clip can be seen here:

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Although President Trump said he would disavow white supremacist groups, he would not disavow the Proud Boys, who are led by a dark-skinned Cuban man, or militia forces, who have defended property when cops were ordered not to do so in left-wing sustained riot situations.

Perhaps the most pathetic attack against President Trump comes from Reason Magazine, the globalist propaganda rag funded by the Koch network. Reason associate editor Scott Shackford lied about the Proud Boys, calling them a “white nationalist” group, and lied about President Trump, implying that he refused to disavow white supremacy, in his cheap smear piece.

“Trump still, unlike Biden, seems unable to repudiate violence from people who support him,” Shackford wrote.

Reason was immediately taken to task by their own libertarian-leaning fan base, who may not support President Trump but aren’t willing to accept blatantly false propaganda about the man.

“The Proud Boys are not “white nationalists.” Why lead with something so demonstrably untrue?” wrote commenter Geiger Goldstaedt.

“Given that they welcome people of color into their group and have zero white nationalist causes. I will take a person’s word for it whether they are white nationalist. It’s not exactly a cause that’s easy to stumble into,” wrote Ben of Houston.

“Reason’s race-baiting false witness is a sin and malignant societal cancer. They are scum,” buybuydandavis wrote.

They were similarly eviscerated on social media:

Big League Politics has reported on how Proud Boys have done nothing wrong except support Trump and defend themselves against ANTIFA terrorists. Group members have paid a steep price for their patriotic activity:

Two “Proud Boys” members were sentenced to four years in prison by a Manhattan judge on Tuesday after they defended themselves against ANTIFA terrorists who attacked a New York event featuring their leader, Gavin McInnes, over a year ago.

Big League Politics covered the scene last year when ANTIFA terrorists defaced the Metropolitan Republican Club (MET) in an attempt to threaten the organizers into canceling the event the day before it was scheduled to commence. They threatened to return and use violence if the MET went on with the event.

When the MET refused to bow to the will of the domestic terrorists, ANTIFA showed up yet again and provoked event attendees with violence…

In the aftermath, ANTIFA terrorists escaped charges while examples were made out of the Proud Boys. The fake news media invented a narrative that the Proud Boys were the provocateurs, which was seized upon by liberal city and state officials, and the result was a show trial where two Proud Boys ended up being convicted and sentenced to prison terms for self-defense.

Maxwell Hare, 27, and John Kinsman, 40, were each sentenced to four years in prison by Justice Mark Dwyer, who made clear in his remarks that his ruling was meant to send a political message.

“It’s a shame when some people jump up and down on a platform,” Dwyer said, referring to McInnes, “and their followers, their soldiers, get into trouble.”

“I’m not sure the most moral responsibility belongs to these two defendants,” he added.

Dwyer also made a thinly-veiled reference comparing the Proud Boys to Nazi streetfighters in 1930s Germany.

“I know enough about history to know what happened in Europe in the ’30s when political street brawls were allowed to go ahead,” Dwyer said during the sentencing. “We don’t want that to happen in New York.”

10 Proud Boys members were charged as a result of their response to the coordinated ANTIFA terror attack on the MET last year. Seven ended up taking plea deals while one other individual is still awaiting trial.

“This is pure clown world. The fake news is leading to real sentences,” McInnes explained in his response video to the sentencing.

President Trump showed courage by refusing to throw the Proud Boys under the bus. He should continue to reject the fake news media’s games and call out ANTIFA as the real terror threat.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!