Where Never is Heard a Discouraging Word...Especially from Wiki

Suddenly it's everywhere--scrubbing bubbles of activity, hurtling through cyberspace, busily and frantically on the lookout for anything that might possibly smack of a Discouraging Word. The Google Twins & Sparkle Plenty led the charge last year during the *sudden* emergence of a usurper with NO traceable history between the ages of 10 and 47. Main scream media colluded and collided with Those Who Would Dare To Seek and Report Truth, and, since then, nary a word can be found containing any but the most mellifluous of fairy tales regarding the current Resident of the White House. And, the model continues, with the exception of a few brave and true folks that work to seek and share the truth, most notably, Logistics Monster, who appeared with us live on last night's "Constitutional Radio" with drkate and me. As always, a great kudos and many thanks to her for all the brilliant work she does to help us supplant Those Who Would Attempt to Suppress All Truth, which leads us to today's topic.

With the help of countless, witless official pronouncements from, among others, a judge, a congressperson and other sundry souls, we are told that Twitter has decided the eligibility issue [Judge Robertson, brainfree zone extraordinaire], Snopes dot com, a left leaning husband and wife team working from a basement office has decided the eligibility issue according to Arizona's Sen. Jon Kyle-R; and, last but sadly not least, Senator Mel Martinez assures us that the voters have decided the eligibility issue, contrary to any mandates of our silly old, outdated Constitution. Is it any wonder that the movement to fire the entire Congress enjoys huge gains daily??

Between the fact that few, if any Americans [including, worst of all, apparently, most of Congress, judging by the mountain of inane, insane, erroneous replies to concerned constituents] these days have even the remotest idea as to what the Constitution says OR what it means, and the fact that there is clearly an all out attempt to eradicate any relevant facts about the Usurper or anyone else deemed to have messy, inexplicable gaps or otherwise nefarious acts in their history, it is a miracle that anyone has any information at all. And THAT is precisely the objective of Those Who Would Presume to Rule. If an informed electorate is requisite for a Democratic Republic to function effectively, what better way to thwart it than remove all information? The latest of these Thousand little Coups, as I call them, finds us at the site of Wikipedia, the latest of the "information arbiters" to fall under the auspices of the Obama Cleansing Machine. [Factcheck, Snopes and others have long since been exposed as Obama apologists].

As is required on that online encyclopedia, entries are to be substantiated by third-party media articles. One piece about the question of Obama's eligibility cited the Chicago Tribune and WorldNetDaily.com. The entry was posted on Feb. 24, at 6:16 p.m. EST. Just three minutes later, it was removed by a Wikipedia administrator, claiming the posting violated the websites rules against "fringe" material. When the user tried to repost the entry a second time, another administrator removed it within minutes, banning the them from posting for three days.

Angela Beesley Starling, a Wikipedia spokesperson, explained to WND that all the website's encyclopedia content is monitored by users. She said the administrators who deleted the entries are volunteers.

"Administrators," Starling said, "are simply people who are trusted by the other community members to have access to some extra tools that allow them to delete pages and perform other tasks that help the encyclopedia. Wikipedia, the seventh most trafficked website on the Internet, maintains content monitored by users.

According to Worldnet Daily, a Google search for the words "Barack Obama" brings up the president's Wikipedia page in the top four choices, following two links to Obama's official websites. The entire Wikipedia entry on Obama seems to be heavily promotional toward the U.S. president. It contains nearly no criticism or controversy, including appropriate mention of important issues where relevant. The Wikipedia entry about former President George W. Bush, by contrast, is highly critical, mentioning his history of alcohol abuse, and questions of possible insider trading involving Harken.

And so it goes...but the Internet moves on, oblivious to these blatant, foolish attempts to violate our First Amendment Rights. *They* may have thought that Goebels's, Alinsky's and other models of fact suppression would work as they once did. They were wrong, however, for now we have the Internet--a wild, wild West of a thing, sprawling far beyond anyone's capacity to shut it down, suppress facts or control its usage. We can read, write and hear as many Discouraging Words as we please, thank you very much, and through those words, begin to decipher the facts about what is being perpetrated upon the American people and by whom...all the better to rectify! The tumbrils roll...

bwssnino