Any group that can expose an encyclopedia created and maintained by users made up of the general public for an anti-Christian and anti-American agenda gets points in my book. Right off the bat, you know they are not the kind of folks into conspiracy theories and armageddon-style doomsday scenarios. Also, Conservapedia states it is a project started by home-schooled kids in New Jersey, so you know you're getting nothing but rock-solid research. Sure, they might believe in unicorns, but weren't you really hoping unicorns were real anyway? I know I was.
The point is, I am a fan of anyone who is going to stand up and tell it like it is. Like the following entry about Fox News:
Fox News was started in 1996 in response to the other cable news channels which all had obvious liberal biases. Because of this, Rupert Murdoch decided to start a real new channel which would tell the truth. The success of Fox news over every other news channel is because it is fair and balanced. [1] It has many people on it who work to spread truth such as Sean Hannity who is a great American. [2]. Fox News is best because instead of just telling you what to think, they only report the news unbiased and then allow the viewer to decide. [3].
In 2005 the White House selected Tony Snow from Fox News to be the new White House press secretary which was a great honor for Fox because it showed how well it was presenting the real truth instead of the fake liberal version. [4]
Now that is some journalistic integrity right there. Too many people unfairly pile on Fox News and its journalists for being biased hacks who are nothing but mouthpieces for the Christian right and/or the Bush Administration. Kudos to you, Conservapedia, for your brave characterization of the Fox News network.
But the objectivity doesn't stop there. The Hate Crimes Bill entry concludes with the following statement:
This bill is a blatant attempt to normalize the homosexual lifestyle.
Once again, the cowards in the liberal media would never print such a bold statement of fact. Apparently the truth just hurts a little too much for the delicate psyches of fragile liberals.
Conservapedia's mission appears to become the hardest-hitting, most in-depth reporter of historical fact the world has ever seen. A prime example of their attention to detail is this entry on the Taliban:
The Taliban was a Sunni Islamic fundamentalist movement which effectively ruled most of Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001, when United States forces invaded Afganistan and overthrew them.
The reason for invasion was that the Taliban had ties to al-Qaida (a militant Sunni Islamist organization), the group that is held responsible for the attacks on America, September 11th, 2001.
The Taliban's rule has been characterized by the fact that women could not be educated, and that the leaders were fanatically intolerant of other religions.
In addition, the Taliban had banned all forms of television, imagery, music and sports, which resulted in Afganistan being suspended from the year 2000 Olympics. [Empasis added]
I know I was relieved to find out that the Taliban was successfully overthrown and is not still in existence. I bet Dick Cheney will be happy to find out it must have been someone else who almost bombed him to death Tuesday in Afghanistan.
But not only is Conservapedia a great source of information, it also is a guide to life. Wondering what book to read, or not read, or tell your children they cannot read or they are grounded? Run it by Conservapedia. In its entry on The Da Vinci Code, Conservapedia refuses to participate in Dan Brown's and the liberal media's anti-Christian crusade:
Dan Brown is responsible for feeding millions of readers a pack of lies cleverly wrapped up as a historically accurate novel . . . millions have been presented with a tangled, inaccurate and dishonest representation of history, of Christianity and of Jesus Christ . . . If nothing else, The Da Vinci Code teaches a lesson on how susceptible people are to believing an attractively-packaged lie, and how vitally important it is that the truth is broadcasted earnestly by those who know it.
Amen. Thanks again, Conservapedia, for warning me that Dan Brown's book is completely fictitious. Maybe one day, if we fight hard enough, we can get that book out of the non-fiction section. . .
So from now on, NordSense pledges not to report anything until it's confirmed by the good people at Conservapedia, because I can't think of any better way to make sure something is true than asking a bunch of random people to find out if it's in the Bible.
