Conservapedia: More news not fit to print!

A three-for this morning appeared on "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia." So trustworthy, in fact, that "news" has become "opinions that reflect our ideology."

Case in point, these three items:

Moral Relativism Is Killing the U.S.
We yearn for the day when we’ll return to the foundational value that makes the U.S. great. Right and wrong are not relative terms. There are fundamental truths. Evil flourishes, but good men continue to battle it – and win. Good can and will triumph over evil.

Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win
49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

The left supports campaign finance reform, the Fairness Doctrine and other policies allegedly aimed at ensuring that both sides of the political argument be aired. But it's a colossal fraud. The Times' rejection of McCain's piece is a case study in how liberals apply these principles. They don't believe in both sides presenting their viewpoints, but in controlling the nature and scope of the discussion.

The last one links to Human Events.

So let's take them in order.

#1: Mike Gallagher, who penned the piece, was on FOXNews last week and debated Ibrahim Hooper of the CAIR. Plenty of words filling the page about Hooper's evilness. It then jumps into this weird leap of logic:

It’s simply astounding that such a debate could even occur in the United States today. Picture what this country felt like in the weeks and months after 9/11. Can you imagine anyone even beginning to allow an advertising campaign promoting Islam, being endorsed and supported by a man the feds believe to be a terrorist, on New York City subways?

And yet we are suffering through the stench of moral relativism. Every position must be countered. Right doesn’t necessarily mean right, wrong might not be wrong.

A brutal, cowardly Arab terrorist who was convicted of bashing a little 4-year old Jewish girl’s head in with a rifle butt is released to Lebanon in exchange for a pair of dead Israeli soldiers. He’s met by adoring, cheering crowds and given a red-carpet welcome.

The Democrat presidential candidate continues to insist that the American military surge in Iraq isn’t really the reason for the overwhelming reduction of violence there.

Our country gives a couple of million minimum wage workers a big hourly pay hike and the mainstream media immediately complains by saying that high gas and food prices make the pay increase irrelevant. And when former Sen. Phil Gramm accurately points out that we’re a nation of whiners and misery sells newspapers, he’s forced to resign from his leadership post in the John McCain campaign.

The last paragraph especially made my brain hurt that someone could even begin to argue the "goodness" in it. Minimum wage increases aren't "pay hikes". They're set because the world around these workers are getting expensive, through inflation and other economic factors. Yet without the law forcing employers to meet the costs of living, many would continue to leave workers in poverty for being full-time employees.

He then puts a rich guy on a pedestal who said people are whining about the economy that an overwhelming majority of economists agree is in a serious downturn. When the federal government has to seize banks to protect those who have money in them from losing their shirts, when the stock market falls nearly to the same level it had in 2001, when home sales are hitting rock bottom, when the dollar is no longer competitive, when people have to take on two or three jobs to pay for food and shelter, it's not whining.

Unless that whining is about the government we have had since 2001.

#2: This is similar to another point I made about Conservapedia: They feel that public polls give weight to fact. If enough people believe something, it must be true.

Could the disparity of "good news" with Senator Obama versus Senator McCain have anything to do with the actions of the two men? When Senator Obama speaks in public to thousands regularly, and Senator McCain gets only a few dozen people to show up, should the press be forced to make them seem equal? When Senator McCain has a daily screw up, when he attacks Senator Obama by saying he ignores troops using footage of Senator Obama meeting with hundreds of troops, what is the press supposed to do?

Wanting the press to make someone look a hell of a lot better than he really is, just isn't their job.

#3: This piece is laughably awful. There should be a rule with conservatives: If you have to name-call three times in the first paragraph, you have no argument.

Wait a second. That's true no matter who does the name-calling!

The link goes to an opinion piece by David Limbaugh. He writes books such as one about how the Democrats are morally bankrupt. So his opinion should be considered unbiased, I guess?

His opening paragraph:

I don't know which troubles me more: the liberal media's fawning over Barack Obama or the great number of people who are buying into his mystique so uncritically. But what bothers me more than either of these is the arrogance of the liberal press, which sadly is typical of so many liberals.

Liberal, liberal, liberal. How arrogant they are!

He pens gems such as:

How anyone can fall for the media's Obama rock star charade, given his repeated demonstrations of unfitness for the presidency, is a subject better suited for psychoanalysts.

How is he unfit? Not explained. But there are repeated demonstrations of this "fact!" But those liberals should have their head examined for not looking at those undocumented repeated demonstrations of unfitnessitude.

And this:

But we can chalk up the media's irrational exuberance to their eagerness to have someone of like mind -- someone sufficiently socialistic and appeasement-oriented -- back in the Oval Office. With their insane aversion for President Bush and their craving for undefined change, it's hardly surprising they're blind to Obama's increasingly obvious flaws.

Insane aversion? You mean when the President mocks the G8 by saying "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter?" Or when he cries foul when any of his staff have to answer questions before the representatives of the people? Or, well, any number of other Constitution-breaking, arrogance-wielding, cowboy-wannabe actions he does?

The press is insane for not kissing the man's feet. People like David Limbaugh do, after all, so everyone else must have something wrong with their heads.

Contrary to liberal-spawned conventional wisdom, it is not conservatives who are selective enemies of free expression, agents of intolerance or threatened by opposing views, which they are confident can be slain in the marketplace of ideas. It is not conservatives who dominate academia or who see it as their mission not just to instruct in their disciplines but also to engage in worldview indoctrination. It is not conservatives who, behind the mask of protecting "victims," censor political and religious speech on campus and in the public square.

Uh, David? Do you not remember the "Free-Speech Zones"? Or declaring reporters who ask tough questions of the President must want the terrorists to win? That's your definition of free expression and agents of tolerance?

Neverminding the weird tangents he goes on about political and religious speeches on campus, his article just has a long lead in to his point:

This brings me to the major source of my angst: The New York Times' rejection of Sen. McCain's op-ed in response to the one it published the previous week by Sen. Obama on his plan for Iraq.

He's mad because the New York Times refused to publish Senator McCain's op-ed as it was. Ignoring for the moment that the op-ed was flawed and had accusations against Senator Obama without giving any substance to Senator McCain's own ideas--you know, the POINT to having both men write op-eds?

The Times didn't want to waste space printing attacks on a candidate that have been rehashed time and time again, when the op-ed didn't give the readers of the Times any information on what Senator McCain would do. Hence why the editor sent it back with a suggestion that, I don't know, Senator McCain should explain himself rather than try to talk about Senator Obama for the entire article?

And instead of re-writing it to be a grand op-ed, one that showcases the path Senator McCain would take if he were Number 44, the loons of the extreme right-wing in this country cry foul. Liberal media. Liberal press. Liberal arrogance.

I'm beginning to wonder, if David Limbaugh got back a paper in college with an imperfect grade and teacher recommendations for how to improve, he would have filed a complaint with the school board about how arrogant the teacher was.

But back to the point at hand. These three articles are "news" according to Conservapedia. These are further examples of how "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," a wiki established to "counter" the bias of Wikipedia and that would suit kids to use as a study guide, has become nothing but a site of ideology and innuendo that reflects the opinions of the staff and is not grounded in reality.

And you can poll people on that.