« The Manchurian President | Main | Prince Chucklehead: 100 Months Until Doom »
March 9, 2009
Wikipedia's Obamunist Memory Hole
Wikipedia can be a useful tool for limited purposes, but when it comes to the unfolding catastrophe of the Obama Administration, it's no more reliable than the liberal media. True, non-moonbats are able to post information to Wikipedia — but if it doesn't reflect well on Chairman Zero, it will be promptly scrubbed:
A perusal through Obama's current Wikipedia entry finds a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the U.S. president. Some of Obama's most controversial past affiliations, including with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, are not once mentioned, even though those associations received much news media attention and served as dominant themes during the presidential elections last year.
Also completely lacking is any mention of the well-publicized concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief. … Indeed, multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from re-posting any material on the website for three days.
Here's what happens if you try to post information on Obama's close and long-standing ties with communist terrorist Bill Ayers:
[World Net Daily] monitored as a Wikipedia user attempted to add Ayers' name to an appropriate paragraph. One of those additions, backed up with news articles, read as follows:
"He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge."
Within two minutes that Wikipedia entry was deleted and the user banned from posting on the website for three days, purportedly for adding "Point of View junk edits," even though the addition was well-established fact.
Needless to say, the Wikipedia entry on GWB is anything but flattering. It even rehashes the National Guard canard that cost moonbat propagandist Dan Rather his career.
Fortunately, we have access to much more reliable sources of information than Wikipedia (for now). But this offers a disturbing glimpse of the liberal mindset. Any facts that do not comply with their malignant ideology will be suppressed.
On tips from J, Burning Hot, nancz, and David S.
Posted by Van Helsing at March 9, 2009 9:45 AM
Comments
Talk about memory hole!
According to this website, 39.6% top taxation rate is socialism.
Under previous Republicans:
Taft: (1909-1913)--income tax began in 1913 at 7% for top rate
Harding: (1921-1923): 56%-73%
Coolidge (1923-1929): 24%-56%
Hoover (1929-1933): 24%-63% (63% after Roosevelt took power)
Eisenhower (1953-1961): 91-92%
Nixon (1969-1974): 70-77%
Ford: (1974-1977): 70%
Reagan (1981-1989): 28%-69.13%
Bush I: (1989-1993): 28%-39.6% (39.6% after Clinton took power)
Low taxes for the TOP RATES are the exception even under Republican presidents, not the norm.
Posted by: Sandra at March 9, 2009 10:08 AM
Ahhhh But this is the “Blessed One” We should all be bowing down to the messiah. We should ignore the truth that the blessed one is a corrupt communist, that he was spawned from the bowels of the Chicago Sleaze Political machine.
Remember all a “Lie” is just a statement that has not been said enough, So keep up the lies, cover up the truth about the Messiah, and we will all be living in a Perfect world… Sigh……
Posted by: Unicorn Fart at March 9, 2009 10:16 AM
I only use Wiki to look up old actors when watching an old movie, i.e. "is that dude still alive?" It should not be used for any serious research.
Of course, it's yet another example of the liberal scrub. Much like their websites promptly banning any dissenting or questioning voice. Who wants to participate in such boring forums?
Posted by: Karin at March 9, 2009 10:25 AM
They not only censure what they can, they come to websites such as this and post strawman arguments such as the first post by Sandra.
Posted by: Kevin R at March 9, 2009 10:41 AM
Sandra...the original meathead.
Posted by: Conan at March 9, 2009 11:15 AM
Sandra,
Please see open thread above. The boys at MIT sure must be proud.
Posted by: Farmer Ted at March 9, 2009 12:06 PM
It's not that conservatives have no memory, it's that they get all their information from revisionist historians online or on talk shows. They simply are ignorant of actual history. If any of the founding fathers were alive today, they would have been denounced by everyone on this page for the following. If Obama had said ANY of the following things, you'd be playing it on loop for days, and you know it.
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator Go by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)." -Thomas Paine
"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for
enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a
contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy in fact,
constitute the real Anti-Christ." -Thomas Jefferson
"Christianity has become the most perverted system that ever shone on man." -Thomas Jefferson
"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." - Thomas Jefferson
As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
- John Adams
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."
--Thomas Jefferson
"Those who embrace the diety of Christ rather than the morals of Christ are not religious...they are pseudo-religious and dangerous to our national interests."- Thomas Jefferson
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." -John Adams
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on
civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of
political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of
the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty
have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government,
instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." -James Madison
"My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the dissenting [puritan]way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. [Robert Boyle (1627-1691) was a British physicist who endowed the Boyle Lectures for defense of Christianity.]It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist"
-Benjamin Franklin, "Autobiography,"
Posted by: Darwin at March 9, 2009 12:25 PM
Darwin, what does any of that have to do with Wikipedia censoring any information about Obama that hasn't been pre-approved by the bolsheviks who apparently monitor it 24/7?
Posted by: Right0fReagan at March 9, 2009 1:29 PM
I'm with Karin, though I use IMBD with actors and movies, but wikipedia is a great tool for pop culture lookups like who were the members of the Turtles. Important things like that. It is also a good indicator for the mental stability of the left as this post refers to. Right now they are still seeing spots in front of theirs eyes from the glowing adulation of their savior... after all his has yet to prove to be a mortal man coming into this world like the rest of us.
Posted by: IOpian at March 9, 2009 1:32 PM
Darwin:
As I struggle to understand what connection the content of your post has to the question of balance in regards to the Wikipedia article on Obama, I must point out that I find it equally puzzling as what it is you think you have proved by your collection of quotes. Do you wish to discredit Christianity, the claim that many of the founding fathers were either Christians or Deists, or that religious belief played an important role in the founding of America? You do not do a very good job of any these.
1. 9 of the 13 quotes are from a single source, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." He claimed no formal religious affiliation, refering to his himself as belonging to "a sect of one"; however, he was certainly no atheist, and believed in the free exercise of religion.
2. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine (one quote apiece) were also deists with a profound distaste for atheism. They would laugh at claims that science and reason "disprove" the existence of God.
3. John Adams (one quote) was a Unitarian. He was raised a Congregationalist, but ultimately rejected many fundamental doctrines of conventional Christianity, such as the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, becoming a Unitarian. Adams' view of religion overall was rather ambivalent: he recognized the abuses, large and small, that religious belief lends itself to, but he also believed that religion could be a force for good in individual lives and in society at large. His extensive reading (especially in the classics), led him to believe that this view applied not only to Christianity, but to all religions.
In true disingenuous fashion, the quote you reproduced is taken out of context in order to give the appearance that Adams had a contemptuous view toward the view of Christianity's role in public life. The full quote is:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (Charles I. Bevans, ed. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949. Vol. 11: Philippines-United Arab Republic. Washington D.C.: Department of State Publications, 1974, p. 1072).
In other words, the US is not a religious state (as stated in the Establishment clause of the Constitution) that will go to war with an Islamic country for religious reasons.
While the balance of his writings support the thesis that Adams was aware of (and wary of) the risks, such as persecution of minorities and the temptation to wage holy wars, that an established religion poses, he nonetheless believed that religion, by uniting and morally guiding the people, had a role in public life.
4. Lastly, James Madison. Though it is not certain whether he was an Episcopalian or a Deist (he attended an Episcopalian church while President), he was certainly no atheist. And while he was against the establishment of a state religion, he certainly did not harbor the animus towards the free exercise of religion, nor of religious belief, nor of a belief in God. He wrote "Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe...".
Finally, your choice of handle would indicate that you think that the evolution of species by natural selection somehow invalidates Christianity, if not all religious belief. This would be surprising news to the entire Pontifical Academy of Sciences (many of whom are clergy), who have no trouble reconciling Christian faith with the evolution of species by natural selection. To quote Fr. Ted Hesburgh, president emeritus of Notre Dame, "Anyone who believes that there is a conflict between faith and science is either a lousy scientist or a lousy theologian."
Which are you?
Posted by: GeronimoRumplestiltskin at March 9, 2009 2:12 PM
"This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved."
Posted by: code3 at March 9, 2009 3:44 PM
Wikipedia is teh ghey.
Posted by: Corona at March 9, 2009 4:01 PM
Yes, Karin, that's my position on Wikipedia, too. Due to its unreliable nature, I only use it for looking up things which are relatively inconsequential (i.e. movie details, comic book storylines, etc.).
Posted by: Adam at March 9, 2009 7:38 PM

