Conservapedia: Caught in blatant lies AGAIN

Wow, you'd think that Conservapedia, "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," would try to be either one or the other. Somehow they've decided that lying is a far better way of getting their viewpoints across than just informing people of their own points.



Let's go through it one step at a time.

allegedly born in Honolulu, August 4, 1961

Is there rumor he was hatched? One of the pod people? That maybe he was born on the fifth or maybe in 1960 instead, thereby making him older and less desirable?

Oh, yes, on Obama's page on CP, it links this to an Israeli Insider page that tries to "debunk" the birth certificate. Strangely, after all the "this looks suspect" and "we think" arguments, one thing was never done.

Not one of them contacted the State of Hawaii and asked them to confirm the authenticity of the scan of the birth certificate.

I wonder what the State of Hawaii is hiding . . .

In 2007, Obama was the most liberal Senator.

Wasn't this said of Kerry in 2004? Funny how two people who don't vote similarly enough are both rewarded with "most liberal" titles. Or, it's something just made up to reflect someone's ideology about a candidate.

After all, there's no "liberal" playbook. So how can one measure whether a vote is liberal? Are there only two positions, liberal and not-liberal?

If elected, Obama would be the first Affirmative Action President.

This is just plain disgusting. Affirmative action is a method to ensure that minorities are represented in the workforce by placing quotas based on population on large companies and government organizations. Without debating whether affirmative action is successful in what it set out to do or whether it should be continued, using it to describe Obama's win if he gets the 270 votes of the electoral college is insane.

Obama has been in public office based on popular vote for years. If he wins in November, was it because the White House or the government HAD to hire him? Or was it because he won enough electoral college votes?

This is more stupidity than a lie.

Obama during the Pledge (credit: Time)

The image caption shows Obama without his hand to his heart, while Governor Richardson, Senator Clinton and another lady have their hands over their hearts. The caption says this was during "the Pledge," most likely referring to "the Pledge of Allegiance."

Now, first, how many times has any American gone to any event and had the Pledge of Allegiance done? I've been to sporting events, concerts, public rallies, school functions, Fourth of July events from the cities here . . . Never once has there been a Pledge of Allegiance done.

In fact, the photo from Time Magazine is during the National Anthem. And, guess what? The anthem of this nation does not require one to put a hand over the heart. There is no pledging, no swearing an oath, just participating in singing or, if one chooses, just listening.

Other conservative blog pages use this very same picture, and at least the dozen I checked searching "Time Magazine Obama" that had this photo listed it happening during the National Anthem. So does Time Magazine itself.

But "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" decided that making it "the Pledge" made Obama seem more unpatriotic than CP keeps saying he is. I guess when people lie about Obama, it must be true!