Talk:Main Page/Archive index/162

What does the end of net neutrality mean? It means that ISPs will be able to prioritize the traffic of Websites that pay an additional fee. It's really no different than what shippers do. The U.S. Postal Service offers customers the choice between regular and priority service -- and no one claims that's unfair. Hopefully, the additional fee will provide an incentive to create technology that speeds up the traffic. The Obama administration issued the net neutrality regulations in 2015, so the idea is only two years old. But it won't go away without a fight. That because media backs every Obama legacy, even his dumbest ideas. Here is a great comment from RedState: "For many, the Internet of 2015 was a terrifying place where only the richest and most powerful could share their cat videos while the rest of humanity had to entertain themselves by spelling naughty words with pocket calculators."[1] PeterKa (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2017 (EST)

I asked this on the Net Neutrality page, but I never got an answer, so I'll ask this again:

"Hi.

"Just want to know, is Net Neutrality Conservative or Liberal? The article here on Conservapedia indicates that Net Neutrality is inherently liberal/left-wing. But on the other hand, those asking for net neutrality indicate that removing it would be a liberal value in itself, hence the confusion. I'll quote the pop-up I'm getting on the forum Pokecommunity (short for Pokémon Community):

"This is the web without net neutrality.

Cable companies want to get rid of net neutrality. Without it, sites like ours could be censored, slowed down, or forced to charge extra fees. We can stop them and keep the Internet open, fast, and awesome if we all contact Congress and the FCC, but we only have a few days left. Learn more."

"And there's the full message:

"https://www.battleforthenet.com/#widget-learn-more"

Like I said, the whole thing seems confusing, since BOTH options seem to sound very liberal/left-wing."

It also doesn't help that this also makes similar arguments, and makes it sound as though, regardless of how it went, the liberals STILL win, and Conservatives STILL lose. Pokeria1 (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2017 (EST)

There are two main running arguments I'm hearing for/against this.

1. Support net neutrality because it will help ensure equality on the Internet and prevent censorship and ISP from charging extra for "fast lanes" that only big companies can afford.
2. Oppose net neutrality, because it puts the government in control of the Internet, rather than the free market. As a part of this, rather than companies paying for the service they need, this "equalizing of outcomes" means that they will in many cases be paying less than they should, while others therefore are subsidizing it by paying more than they should, either directly or in taxes.

When I first heard of this, I actually thought it would be a good idea--it was pitched as a means of preventing censorship. However, as I have done research on the issue, I have changed my mind. It seems that this is inherently a liberal policy of socialism/communism, where all pay equally, but not everyone participates equally. Why are Google, Facebook, and so many other Internet giants in support of net neutrality? I suspect it is at least in part because they are the ones who will need to pay for these "fast lanes" now that it has been overturned. Like socialized medicine, a lot of people would overpay and get almost nothing in return, while a minority would get a large amount back for a small contribution. Oh yes, and in communism, the government makes out like a bandit too.... --David B ^(TALK) 11:21, 15 December 2017 (EST)

PeterKa, shipping services are good to compare to this--the Internet is a delivery system, much like UPS. If you want your content delivered, you need to pay for it. If you only have a few padded envelopes, you pay a little. If you are mailing out fifty refrigerators every day, you need to pay a lot more. In this situation, I think the average site (such as CP) is mailing the envelopes. WikiMedia, Google, Facebook, etc. are the ones shipping kitchen appliances and wanting everyone else to help pay their bill. I may be over simplifying the policy, but from this viewpoint, net neutrality is classic socialism. --David B ^(TALK) 11:29, 15 December 2017 (EST)

"Hi, I'm Sid from Free Market Postal Services. I'm just calling to inform you that your envelopes are going to spend a few weeks in our sorting facility because the guy with the fridges paid us extra to have everything delivered on time, and we only have a fixed amount of mail we can process on any given day. Have a nice day!"

I'm mildly puzzled that Conservapedia cheers for the end of Net Neutrality. I suppose it helps that this is pitched as "All small sites will stay the same, but the big boys will have to pay up or be slowed down!" You don't seem to consider the extended argument: "The big boys can then pay a bit more and get preferred treatment." ISPs are now given free rule, yet you expect only one highly specific outcome, and that's risky.

I have a hunch that your enthusiasm will last exactly until Wikipedia, CNN, the NFL, Facebook or the DNC make quiet deals with ISPs to guarantee them fast lane access (or even have their data not counted against the users' monthly bandwidth cap) while competitors big and small get sorted into the slower lane (or even into a more expensive tier, like with cable packages). --Sid 3050 (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2017 (EST)

It's not perfect, for sure. The free market picks the best option though--those with high prices and poor service loose. However, there is one major problem still in existence--zone limitations. ISPs are legal required to limit their service to certain areas, which although in times gone by might have been helpful, really isn't anymore. If someone can do it cheaper and better than the existing ISP, they should be able to come in and compete. However, there is still some competition, such as fiber (in some places), satellite (typically slow), dial-up (incredibly slow by modern standards--does this one even count? And yes, dial-up is available from an outside vendor, not just the telephone company), and cellular network options such as mobile hotspot. None of them except for fiber are as good, but they can still put some pressure on ISPs to keep them in line.

The "fast lane" argument assumes there is a set, finite amount of bandwidth. This is true in the short term, but not in the long term. Lesser paying customers are still paying customers, and ISPs will want to keep them. Bandwidth can and will be increased to maintain reasonable service for these people as well.

I'm not saying this is all wonderful, or that everything will be perfect. We will see how this all goes. However, when the government (which moves slow and costs too much) gets involved in something, it typically follows suit and moves slow and costs too much. --David B ^(TALK) 15:31, 15 December 2017 (EST)

This actually reminds me a lot of health insurance--It worked fine in the free market until the government went and messed it up. I'm not talking about Obamacare (though that was tier-two mess-up)--I'm talking about inter-state service limitations. The government blocked insurance companies from competing in a free market, then when it all started looking like things weren't going quite right, decided that they needed to step in and break it even more. In comes Obamacare, and suddenly everything goes down the drain. The only way it could possibly work was by forcing people to buy into it--and even that isn't working. Turn it back into a real free market, and things will improve. Of course, that will probably never happen, since the government takes control, but rarely gives it up. --David B ^(TALK) 15:39, 15 December 2017 (EST)

• The censorship argument is bogus. Net neutral neutrality never stopped liberals from censoring sites. Here is the NYT: "The Terrifying Power of Internet Censors." Cloudflare is an Internet security company that we should all know more about. It was set up to protect sites from denial of service attacks. After Charlottesville, they decided that the Daily Stormer was a malicious site. The site has moved to the .red domain: https://dailystormer.red/. If the Dems take Congress in 2018, we may all have to move there. PeterKa (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2017 (EST)

I seriously have no idea what point you were trying to make there: You complain about companies using their unchecked power to block, restrict or sabotage access to certain websites. Now, Republicans repealed Net Neutrality and thus gave ISPs the power to block, restrict and sabotage access to certain websites. And yet, you're against Democrats and against Net Neutrality? --Sid 3050 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2017 (EST)

His point is that they have been doing this while under net neutrality. It has not stopped them, or even slowed them down. It has only given the government a hand in the already crowded pot. --David B ^(TALK) 23:31, 15 December 2017 (EST)

PeterKa, that is an interesting article. However, it's not quite that CloudFlare forced the Daily Stormer off their own domain. As I understand, CloudFlare is a server-side service. It can block people from accessing a protected website. However, the webmaster still holds the domain, and can just circumvent CloudFlare if they cause trouble. CloudFlare should not have any hold on the domain, unless it was actually registered by or through CloudFlare, which is a feature I am not aware of existing, if it does. Typically, you buy a domain, then point it to CloudFlare. In their system, you set up your site, so after users connect to the DNS, they get bounced to CloudFlare. CloudFlare does their "magic" then sends the user on to your actual website. It all hides under the domain name, but is still an external process.

Daily Stormer was not able to get DoS protection, but they didn't force them off the internet. An actual D/DoS could, but that depends on the attack and the hosting service. This is a concerning step by CloudFlare, but I don't think they actually have any sway over the TLD.

Am I mistaken? Does CloudFlare have more power than this with domain registries? --David B ^(TALK) 23:45, 15 December 2017 (EST)

What's in the NYT article is all I know about Cloudflare. The article says that Daily Stormer "lost its ability to stay online" because of Cloudflare. For a while, they were accessible only through Tor. It was GoDaddy and Google that revoked the domain name, according to the article.
Back in 1996, the FCC issued net neutrality regulations under Title I of the Communications Act. This approach is referred to as "light-touch" regulation. In 2014, the light-touch approach was declared unenforceable by a federal appeals court in Verizon vs. FCC. The FCC responded in 2015 by issuing net neutrality regulations under Title II. Title II treats the ISPs as public utilities.[2]
If ending net neutrality will give all the bandwidth to the big boys, I have to wonder why Facebook and Google/Youtube, Netflix, and Amazon all support net neutrality.[3] In the short term, it's possible these companies will suck up more bandwidth. But ending net neutrality also creates an incentive to build more bandwidth. That will make it easier for new companies to enter the field. Which of these two effects will dominate is impossible for outsiders to know. But the green eyeshade people at the established companies obviously assume they benefit from net neutrality. PeterKa (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2017 (EST)

Companies like Netflix and Amazon very much support net neutrality, and it makes sense they do,for two reasons. First, streaming video takes up a lot of bandwidth, so they don't want to worry about the ISPs throttling them for bandwidth issues or charging them. Further, one of the biggest ISPs is Comcast, which owns NBC. As NBC competeso with Netflix and Amazon Prime, they don't want to risk companies like Comcast giving preferential treatment to NBC at their expense.--Whizkid (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2017 (EST)

With California a sanctuary state and the U.S. economy hungry for cheap labor, illegal immigration has returned to Obama-era levels: "'Free-for-all' at U.S. border reveals disturbing trend." Hey, I hear they give you one free murder in San Francisco. What we need is mandatory E-Verify, as Ann Coulter explains. PeterKa (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2017 (EST)

Your WND article says, "Most of the families and UACs are coming from Guatemala and other parts of Central America."[4] Guatemala is a Latin American country with a high percentage of evangelicals/pentecostals.

The American sociologist Peter Berger said, "One can say with some confidence that modern Pentecostalism must be the fastest growing religion in human history."[5]

This is yet another nail in the coffin of American atheism.

Please read the article: Señor Gringo Militant Atheist, American atheism is doomed! Olé! Olé! Olé!.

I hope this further clarifies things for User: JohnZ. :)Conservative (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2017 (EST)

I suppose I should change the title. Before Obama, the Mexico never used to let Central Americans cross their country like this. This represents Obama's revenge on America.
When Obama compared Trump to Hitler, the MSM responded with a flood of "Obama is right" headlines. Did the Jews flee to Nazi Germany at any point? PeterKa (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2017 (EST)

In the around the mid 1000s to the mid 20th century, the descendents of European countries colonized countries. Now the descendants of non-European countries are colonizing the countries of the descendants of Europeans through immigration. This is due to the decline of the West - especially declining fertility rates.

And due to the rapid rise of Christianity in China and its attendant economic progress, the 20th century could easily be a Asian Century.

There is backlash against these developments as seen by the rise of European, nativistic nationalism; the rise of the alt-right and growing backlash Muslim terrorism against the West, but these political movements due not address the core issue which is falling fertility rates among much of the West.

Trumpism partially solves the issue as it is expanding religious freedom and taking a harder stance against abortion. Also, the USA has a higher fertility rate than much of Europe so the argument for Trump's wall is on firmer footing than anti-immigrant sentiment in European countries that have very low fertility rates that are currently at sub-replacement levels. Greater religious freedom is helpful as religious people have more children and falling fertility rates among the nonreligious is a significant problem in much of the West.

Will a wall be built on the Mexican border? Right now, there does not seem to be the political will among Americans to build it. In the USA, there are no massive anti-immigrant rallies like those in Europe. But that could change in the future. Usually, anti-immigrant sentiment rises with unemployment and Trump's stronger economy is causing unemployment to fall. It also making America a more enticing place to illegally immigrate to. My guess is that a compromise might be reached and Trump might build walls in various sections of the USA if the GOP does not lose a lot of Congressional seats in 2018. But who knows what is going to happen in 2020 and 2020. The Democrats are very weak and Trump could be reelected despite his current unpopularity among many liberals/moderates. A lot depends on what happens to the American economy as that could increase the popularity of Trump. If passed, tax reform might rev up the economy.

Here is a key statistic concerning the USA: "The birth rate for evangelical adults in 2014 was 2.3 children, the same rate as Catholics. Only two groups produce more children: those in the historically black tradition (2.5%) and Mormons (3.4%). The national average was 2.1 percent."[6] Conservative (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2017 (EST)

Today's news is full of speculation that Trump is getting ready to fire Mueller. So let's review the case against Mueller:

• The purpose of the special counsel regulation is to allow a qualified outsider without conflicts of interest to investigate a delicate matter. By this standard, Mueller cannot be considered the right man for the job. He is a long-time professional ally of Comey's. Comey's dismissal as FBI director is what prompted Mueller's appointment. Mueller's first move as special counsel was to appointed Peter Strzok, Comey's hachetman at the FBI, as a key investigator. Typically, a special prosecutor investigates accusations against the current administration, so it is logical to appoint a member of the opposite party. But Mueller is investigating something that happened on Obama's watch.
• Mueller's tenure as FBI director (2001-2013) is not one that inspires confidence. See "When Comey and Mueller Bungled the Anthrax Case." Left-wing conspiracy theorists insisted that the anthrax killer had to be a right wing nutjob. Mueller dutifully hounded Hatfill, an innocent ebola researcher, for several years until a judge ordered him to give it up.
• None of the cases Mueller has brought so far have any relationship to his original mandate of investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election. Manafort was prosecuted for not paying taxes years earlier and Flynn for his activities as a transition team member. As near as I can tell, what's really going on is score settling. Flynn's Muslim-bashing upset Obama back when he was DIA director.
• Mueller's mandate is itself irregular. The regulation says that a special counsel should be appointed to investigate a crime. "Links and/or coordination between the Russian government" and the Trump campaign isn't a crime.[7] Rosenstein is a good lawyer and I'm sure he knows how to write a mandate correctly. So why was it written this way? Because Sessions has recused himself from the question of Russian interference. So Russia is the one thing that Rosenstein can order an investigation of on his own authority. In other words, Obama-era holdovers are using a loophole to usurp the authority of the president and his cabinet. PeterKa (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2017 (EST)

When Reagan swept into office, he got the Heritage Foundation to screen applicants ideologically. This allowed him to bring in a generation of conservatives with him. It seems that Trump wants to hire each employee himself. He obviously doesn't have the time or energy to deal with more than a handful of offices personally. The Federalist Society finds judicial nominees, but many executive offices are being left vacant. So a lot of power resides with Obama holdovers like Rosenstein. In the Bush administration, Rosenstein's position was held by Comey, who appointed the Plame special prosecutor. PeterKa (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2017 (EST)as

Since I wrote the above, Trump has denied any intention to fire Mueller. It would make more sense to fire Rosenstein, since he's the legal authority and driving force behind the investigation, as this article explains. Mueller can't be replaced without creating a huge uproar. But replacing Rosenstein is a cinch. Rachel Brand is next in line in the DOJ organization chart. Under the Vacancies Act, Trump can replace Rosenstien with anyone who has been confirmed by the Senate for any position in the administration. I'm pulling for Andrew McCarthy as deputy attorney general. PeterKa (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2017 (EST)

One woman was offered $750,000 to make a sexual harassment claim against Trump, but turned it down. See "Exclusive: Prominent lawyer sought donor cash for two Trump accusers." The lawyer in this case is Lisa Bloom, daughter of Gloria Allred, the lawyer who helped gin up the smear campaign against Roy Moore. PeterKa (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2017 (EST)

This story finally made it the New York Times as well to Fox News. We now know the name of the donor who offered the money: Susie Tompkins Buell, the founder of Esprit Clothing. PeterKa (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2018 (EST)

Posted, thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2018 (EST)

Buell's $500,000 was supplemented by $200,000 from Brock: "David Brock secretly paid $200,000 to bring forward Trump accusers in 2016." PeterKa (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2018 (EST)

Now that the claims against Trump have been been exposed as a hoax, the Dems can stop pretending that they care about sexual harassment. So of course it's time for a Weinstein comeback. No, I'm not kidding: "Ridley Scott: I haven’t ruled out Harvey Weinstein making a comeback." This could be Kevin Spacey time as well: "While discussing Spacey’s possible return to acting, Mr Scott told Press Association: “Never say never, I’ve no idea. I’m sure Harvey (Weinstein) will already have a go within a year.”" And while we're at it, let's bring back Louis C.K.: "Dave Chappelle’s Defense of Louis C.K.." PeterKa (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2018 (EST)

You can't get better headlines than this Daily Mail story: "America's Christmas bonus! Big business passes on massive corporate tax rate cut as AT&T gives EVERY worker a $1,000 bonus and Boeing, Comcast and Wells Fargo hand out wage rises and bonuses too." The tax reform bill will also abolish the "individual mandate," the heart of Obamacare. On the downside, the tax cuts are likely to contribute to the deficit. But Republicans in Congress seem eager to tackle spending next. Trump's poll numbers have recovered nicely in the last week. The market stock has experienced a historic upswing in the last year, the GDP is growing at three percent,[8] ISIS has been defeated, and the federal regulation monster has been tamed.
Mueller's firing of Peter Strzok and his seizure of transition email gives the appearance of an investigation gone off the rails. An executive order to sideline Rosenstien and make someone else second-in-command at the Justice Department is said to be in the works. So we can expect the Mueller investigation to start winding down. The Trump-Russia "collusion" theory Mueller is supposed to be investigating looks pretty silly in light of stories like this: "President Trump Shows He’s A Russian Asset By Sending Lethal Aid To Ukraine."
All in all, 2017 was a year of historic accomplishment. It's quite a turnaround from a week ago, when Trump's poll numbers were at crisis levels, no major legislation had been passed, and the U.S. political scene grimmer. PeterKa (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2017 (EST)

I didn't even mention one of Trump's most important accomplishments: judicial appointments. By the end of the Obama regime, rule of law had taken a backseat to partisanship, if the travel ban fiasco is any indication. Here's a comprehensive list of Trump's accomplishments: "Year One List: 81 major Trump achievements, 11 Obama legacy items repealed." PeterKa (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2017 (EST)

Mattis is in Ft. Bragg to recommend that the troops to read Fehrenbach’s Korean war classic, This Kind of War.[9]. The man has excellent taste and This Kind of War is a real warrior's tome. This time around, guys, no more Task Force Smiths, as Fehrenback would say. Things are also escalating on the propaganda front: "North Korea flooded with illicit information carried by hydrogen balloons as tensions escalate." According to the story, "the appetite for information within the hermit kingdom had considerably shifted in recent months from popular films such as Titanic, South Korean soap operas and megastar Psy’s music videos more towards news, documentaries and educational material including Wikipedia entries." PeterKa (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2017 (EST)

Can we please not cite Oswald Spengler as some great oracle? (Main page right) The guy loved big government, thought his vision for socialism was the true socialism, and many of his ideas spawned Nazism. Conservapedia and Conservapedians has made it quite clear that we do not like big government nazism or big government socialism, so then can we be consistent here? Thank you. There have been plenty of people who have written about the decline of Western civilization without us having to compromise our beliefs and rely on someone such as this. Progressingamerica (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2017 (EST)

I don't see how the MPR post praises Spengler in any compromising way -- I don't see how it is an endorsement of his entire worldview. To me, Spengler seems to be one of the many people throughout history I've seen who is correct regarding certain views (in his case, the decline of the West) but far off on others (socialism). Maybe he was a man of his time? Either way, I don't have strong views on him, and I wouldn't mind him being removed from MPR.

Regardless, I think MPR should be trimmed. Some of the more recent entries take up way too much space and are blocking what I think are more relevant entries (Merry Christmas, Latin America, etc.). --1990'sguy (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2017 (EST)

This is a situation where the "purist" in me kicks in. When someone so clearly adores big government, they are "off the list" so to say for me. I can always, always find someone else who has espoused a similar idea, without pointing to someone or something this problematic. For example, James Burnham wrote Suicide of the West. By the time Burnham wrote Suicide, he had rebuked his former big government Marxist beliefs and given up on it.

Conversely, I am not aware of any place, any time, where Oswald Spengler rebuked his love of big government. He just didn't like Nazis - that alone doesn't make him reputable. Therefore, simply citing him in any way is compromising in and of itself. In Law there is what is called the "fruit of the poisonous tree". MPR has fruit in it right now from a poisonous tree. Progressingamerica (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2017 (EST)

User: TerryH doesn't read main page talk and he posted the Oswald Spenger main page right post.

If you feel very strongly about it, I would contact User: TerryH on his talk page.Conservative (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2017 (EST)

Progressingamerica, your points are fair, but I'm more of a pragmatist on matters like this. I disagree with Spengler's views on socialism, but his views on the decline of the West, particularly his prediction that mass migration would help cause the decline of the West, seem to be playing out before our eyes today. As a sidenote, knowing that the Nazi Party downplayed/avoided their socialist and anti-Semitic agenda when trying to attract conservative/Christian votes in the Weimar elections, I don't consider Spengler's disapproval of the Nazi Party to be the decicive factor in making him reputable.

Conservative, would you please either trim MPR or move further up the posts about conservative victories in Latin America and about Americans saying "Merry Christmas"? --1990'sguy (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2017 (EST)

Yeah, and besides, to be honest, Thomas Jefferson also came from the same poisonous tree as, say, Teddy Roosevelt, largely because when he became president, he actually DID become a massive big government follower, doing stuff that actually conflicted with what he said, and even voiced support for the Jacobins up to and including their 1793 reign of terror. Don't believe me? Just read "Liberty: The God that Failed" by Christopher A. Ferrara. Either way, I agree with ProgressingAmerica on one thing: I do think the recent news entries are getting out of hand and betraying Conservapedia. I may be against atheism to such a degree that I want to see them completely wiped out, especially after what they did to us since 18th century France, but I do think that claiming they're more likely to get cancer (I know someone who died from cancer from my childhood, and he most certainly wasn't atheistic, being Episcopalian if anything), or be autistic (and BTW, speaking as someone who actually WAS diagnosed as high-functioning autistic and know people on that spectrum, I can definitely confirm the existence of people who have autism who if anything are very religious, such as myself, a staunch Roman Catholic, or my think tank, which included a Methodist and two Jewish people who are at least religious enough to go to Synagogue) or undergo genetic mutations is things getting out of hand. And I wish people don't cite medical journals. As my dad said, medical journals could be published just by someone having a doctorate named on the cover. Medical journals also claimed support for global warming and homosexuality. Should we consider those things being scientific fact? Besides, several of these elements you're talking about is coming closer and closer to genetic predestination as well as the idea of eugenics to me, which last I checked is NOT a Conservative idea. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2017 (EST)

To be fair to Cons, he never said that religious/conservative/Christian people never get autism, cancer, or any other afflictions. He's saying that atheists are less healthy as a whole (I see from your comment that you recognize that he's not saying that only atheists have these diseases, but you don't seem to be treating it that way). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2017 (EST)

I just personally get irritated whenever he or anyone else claims that autism is composed of atheists, whether it's all or a majority. It's a sore issue for me, and I hate being told, implicitly or explicitly, that I should adhere to atheism just because I happen to be autistic. I may have my... issues regarding God, serving him out of sheer terror rather than love, with my overall view of Him being closer to a megalomaniac, but I definitely do not deny that he exists, and if anything am far too aware that he exists, unlike atheists. When people cite medical journals, it gets me even more irritated as well regarding that. Pokeria1 (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2017 (EST)

Fair points, and I understand your feelings with the "sore issue" part, but still, I don't think Cons is calling autism an atheist disease, and nor is he saying that people with it should become atheists. He's saying that atheists are more likely to have it compared to the population as a whole -- and this (if even true) does not mean that a majority of people with autism or cancer are atheists (atheists are a clear minority in the U.S. and world population, so even if every atheist hypothetically had autism/cancer/etc. -- which Cons is not saying -- the non-atheist population with such afflictions could still outnumber or be very close to the number of atheists).

However, I do think that either way, CP should not emphasize articles like that. When discussing atheism, we should emphasize the hopelessness of atheism. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2017 (EST)

• Here is what Spengler wrote in Hour of Decision (1934): "And these same everlasting "Youths" are with us again today, immature, destitute of the slightest experience or even real desire for experience, but writing and talking away about politics, fired by uniforms and badges, and clinging fantastically to some theory or other." At that time, Spengler was one of the few people who could write material even mildly critical of the Nazis and get it published in the German press. It wasn't long before this book was banned and Spengler was confined to writing about ancient history. So he did use his prestige as a historian to stand up to Hitler in his small way. In any case, Spengler's views of Nazism and big government are tangential to what he is notable for. PeterKa (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Fourteen percent of Americans named Donald Trump the man they most admired. Nine percent named Hillary the woman they most admired, down from 12 percent last year: "Gallup: Obama, Hillary Clinton remain most admired" PeterKa (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2017 (EST)

Does anyone think this crowd cares about Russian interference in the 2016 election: "Russia probe grand jury looks like ‘a Black Lives Matter rally,’ says witness." As near as I can tell, no one involved in the Mueller investigation knows or cares anything about Russia. Russia is just a pretext to allow the Rosenstein/Mueller cabal to get back at Trump for firing Comey. Comey had to be fired because he was confused regarding a fundamental aspect of his job: The president selects the FBI director; The FBI director doesn't get to select the president.
Mueller is a long-time professional ally of Comey, as you can see from this story in Politico about the Steller Wind bruhaha of March 11, 2004, the day the Deep State was born. This is a Mueller-worship piece written by someone who knows guy well. Yet there is no attempt to portray Mueller as motivated by anything more noble than a thirst for revenge. Mueller's history of going the extra mile for Comey suggests that he'd make a loyal friend. But he cannot be considered the most appropriate choice to be an investigator.
Aside from Mueller's relationship with Comey, other unanswered questions swill around Mueller's long and sleazy career. Has anyone asked him why took down New York Governor Elliot Spitzer in a politically motivated prostitution investigation back in 2008? Or why he targeted Stephen Hatfill, an innocent Ebola researcher, with a torrent of leaks that suggested he was involved in the anthrax mailings? PeterKa (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2018 (EST)

Trump's tweet about having a bigger nuclear button than Kim will no doubt go down as one of the all time great tweets.[10] Here's what Trump could say say about Mueller, if he wanted to continue in the same vein: "Bob Mueller, the former FBI boss best known for setting Governor Spitzer up with a hooker sting, is hot on the trail of my appointees. I've advised the entire staff not to cross state lines during trysts." PeterKa (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2018 (EST)

Senator Al Franken finally resigned on January 2, but sadly for the wrong reasons. Yes, he does have seven pervnado accusers. (That's only one less than Roy Moore had.) But Minnesota voters knew full well that Franken was a pervert when he first "elected" in 2008. In fact, his pervertness was a selling point. It would be a finger in the eye of those Republican prudes who impeached Bill Clinton. If Dem voters had no problem with Clinton's sexual misbehavior, why would Franken's give them pause? What Franken should be resigning for is promoting Jamie Leigh Jones and her fabricated claim of being gang raped by Halliburton employees. See Washington Monthly and Anne Coulter. PeterKa (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2018 (EST)

Al Gore told us back in January 2006 that due to “a true planetary emergency” we had only ten years to go: “unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” Eleven years later, Niagara Falls is frozen and Gore is at Sundance promoting his new flick, An Inconvenient Sequel. One attendee asked him: "My friends make fun of me about the 10-year tipping point, what do I tell them?" Gore's only response is, "Well, we gotta keep working." He then enters a Chevy Suburban and departs on the snowy street. Here is the video. To be a global warming alarmist these days is to be an unembarrassable buffoon. PeterKa (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2018 (EST)

Gore just gets dumber as he gets older: "Al Gore: ‘Bitter cold’ is ‘exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis’." The only problem is, Nostradamus-Gore did not predict cold snaps or snows in An Inconvenient Truth (2006). PeterKa (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2018 (EST)

I remember my father telling me that in the 1970s everyone wasn't talking about global warming but global cooling, and all these so called "climate scientists" were absolutely convinced that there would be an ice age by the year 2000. Needless to say, we weren't buried under 100 ft of snow in 2000. Then they went and started saying the exact opposite with global warming and now they talk about "climate change", saying any weather that is slightly unusual must be due to climate change.

Anyway, I thought you might find the global cooling thing funny. FredericBernard (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2018 (EST)

I forget the exact number, but I believe the earth's known temperature cycle is about 20 years long. There may be other cycles, but this one at least is playing into the nonsense. In the 1970s, it probably was colder that it had recently been. Then, as we entered a warm cycle of more solar activity, "global cooling" began to look more and more ridiculous, so then they needed to shift to "global warming." This worked for a little while, but now as the cycle has shifted in the other direction again, they again look like fools. To help deal with this exposure of the joke, Gore started saying that cooling was a result of warming. Somehow, ice supposedly melts (due to excess heat) to the point that it actually consumes more heat than it "should," and makes the air colder than average. Anyone who knows a little about physical science knows what a foolish claim that is. Besides, you know those dramatic pictures of ice breaking of of glaciers? Ice breaks off from the sides when there is so much weight behind it that the brittle ice fractures. This happens only as the main glacier grows, making it too heavy--ice breaking off of glaciers is a sign that there is plenty of new ice.

Now those who believe a bit of the Bible have theorized that there was once a "water canopy." If this existed, then ice caps are a new feature altogether anyway, made possible only by the earth's poor heat distribution after the flood, and the excess water this canopy deposited. I don't know if it is true, since I wasn't there. However, it does make some sense.

In any case, until they start growing grapes productively in Greenland like the Vikings used to do, you can't tell me that things are warming up. Cooling at least makes more sense, because we know that the earth's molten core is slowly solidifying. It's not due to human activity, but just natural cool-down after the planet's creation. It seems it was accidentally designed very well to hold its heat for a long time and maintain the EM field, dispute this process. Good thing, since when it becomes solid, every living thing on earth will roasted by solar wind. It's a comfort to know that in the end, people will still be living here on earth--if not, the book of Revelation would be pretty short. --David B ^(TALK) 10:58, 5 January 2018 (EST)

I didn't know anything about cycles, just remember my father talking about it when I was younger. Interesting though. Also your point about glaciers is good, never thought about it like that before! :) FredericBernard (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2018 (EST)

• As far as cycles go, perhaps you are referring to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Here is a handy chart and discussion. PDO/AMO determines the frequency of El Nino events. The 2014–16 El Nino was unusually large and we are now in the downswing. The interior of the Earth will take hundreds of millions of years to cool significantly. But the Milikovich cycles suggest that we are headed for another ice age in 50,000 years or so.[11]
  In the 1970s, the media was in the grip of apocalyptic environmental scenarios of every kind: overpopulation, global cooling, global warming, resource depletion, energy crisis, approaching famine, etc. In the late 1970s, a group of activists led by Stephen Schneider realized that pumping out so many conflicting scenarios at once confused the public. The Union of Concerned Scientists resolved that the activist community would focus on global warming. This was in 1978, which was a notoriously cold year. The environmentalist movement had adopted a "conservation and renewables" agenda a few years earlier in response to the energy crisis. A warming scare is more compatible with this type of agenda than a cooling scare is. In short, this issue has always been driven by politics as opposed to weather or climate trends.
  As far as what the climate is really doing, take a look at this chart by Ljungqvist. It shows that we are in a Contemporary Warm Period that can be compared to earlier periods such as the Roman Warm Period (250 BC to AD 400) and the Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250). CWP began with a dramatic warming spurt that continued from 1900 and 1930. That upswing is too early to be explained by industrial emissions. From 1940 to 1970, there was a cooling trend. Since 1970, global temperature has been increasing steadily. Temperatures are now back up to where they were in the 1930s. They are also back up to where they were in the year 1000, if you want to take a longer view. I suspect we are now at the top of a solar cycle of some kind. PeterKa (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2018 (EST)

I guess you can see from the above why the ecofreaks banned me from Wikipedia. It's their first response to rational argument. PeterKa (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2018 (EST)

That is a very well-reasoned and researched argument! I believe what I was thinking of was not quite what you linked too, but that is a good resource as well. I did a little quick research and couldn't find a 20-year cycle, but there is an 11-year one. [12] I thought there was another cycle in the 20-30 year range of time, but perhaps I was mistaken. Also, here is a good ICR article on the issue:[13] --David B ^(TALK) 22:32, 7 January 2018 (EST)

And yes, I can see why Wikipedia wouldn't like that! --David B ^(TALK) 23:19, 7 January 2018 (EST)

William Connolley has decided that he is Wikipedia's expert on the 1970s climate debate. I take it that I dissed him. He is a big deal over there. He has a nickname for me, so there is reason to think that he cares about my case. I didn't actually write all that much about climate when I was on Wikipedia. They asked me some odd questions on the subject at one point, like I was being vetted. Perhaps the answers I gave were used to ban me. PeterKa (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2018 (EST)

The media went on about Trump and Russia for a year. When Flynn pleaded guilty to lying, he issued a statement saying that he knew nothing about any Russia collusion. If there was Russia collusion, who would know more about it than Flynn? In short, this line of argument seems to have reached a dead end. What is Russia collusion anyway? "Collusion" sounds like a legal term of some kind, but it's just so much hand waving. At least, it's not something you can actually be charged with.
Next it was pervnado. After protecting Weinstein for many years, The New York Times suddenly decided that he would be sacrificed to create a pretext to renew attention on old claims against Trump. But then it turned out that the accusations against Trump had been ginned up by Lisa Bloom, who had offered money to the accusers. So that dog didn't hunt either.
With Wolff's book, the media is back to questioning Trump's mental state. If Trump is unbalanced, what about Joe Biden or Keith Ellison? The media will never use this "psychoanalysis from afar" technique on any Dem regardless of how unbalanced they appear to be. This is a tactic with its own sleazy history. During the election campaign, WaPo published a series of articles claiming that Trump's supporters were racist or crazy. Politicized mental health assessments were notoriously used by the Dems against Goldwater in 1964.
I predict that the next phase of the anti-Trump campaign is "obstruction of justice." Mueller and the media will be treating those who question the validity of the probe as criminals themselves. This tactic means that the justification of the probe is the probe itself. This is the unethical policeman's strategy applied to politics: If you don't confess, you must be lying or obstructing. It's way past time for Sessions to wake up and clip Mueller's wings. PeterKa (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2018 (EST)

As noted at Conservative News and Views, Goldwater sued Fact Magazine for its publication of an article that amounted to both a smear job and a politically-motivated attempt to discredit him based on dubious "mental health" claims against him and he won, leading to the creation of the Goldwater Rule in the APA's Principles of Medical Ethics.[14] What Bandy Lee is doing now on the Democrats' behalf is very similar to the hit piece against Goldwater back then, and Trump would be well within his rights to likewise sue Lee (or if not, simply discredit her publicly) for her politically-motivated actions while the APA could, at least, censure her or take out sanctions against her for unethical professional behavior.

As for an attempted "obstruction of justice" accusation by the Democrats and their liberal media puppets, it'll end up backfiring on them and boomeranging back to them if they try it because the Democrats have themselves been known to obstruct justice to protect those of their own who've been engaged in criminal or otherwise unethical activity (most notably in recent years under Obama, and especially regarding the Clintons) while the liberal media acted on their behalf to cover for them, even though they are in no position to make accusations themselves based on their own lack of credibility and the recent accusations of sexual misconduct against several prominent media figures. Northwest (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2018 (EST)

Obstruction usually implies threatening witnesses, prosecutors, or judges, paying them off, or something of that kind. Trump is in the law enforcement chain of command. It's perfectly legitimate for him to decide that one case will be pursued but not another. Did Comey commit of obstruction when he exonerated Hillary? In 2014, Obama told us there was "not even a smidgen of corruption at the IRS," thus heading off a criminal investigation.[15] When Nixon fired Cox, the Watergate committee called it an "abuse of power," not obstruction or any other criminal act. PeterKa (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2018 (EST)

At a moment when Hollywood is looking sleazier than ever, CNN tells us that Oprah is "'actively thinking' about running for president." Uh, actively think again Oprah: "Actress: Weinstein used Oprah and Naomi to seduce me." You can bet that more stories like this would come out if she actually did run. Oprah and Weinstein. Weinstein and Oprah. It was a long very public friendship documented in plenty of now embarrassing photos. The CNN story I linked to above features an enthusiastic Oprah endorsement by noted Weinstein worshiper Meryl Streep. I don't think that helps. The MSM has marketed pervnado as a moment for female empowerment. But does it not suggest that a lot of women in Hollywood got to where they are by whoring? PeterKa (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2018 (EST)

If Bernie Sanders runs for president and wins the nomination for the Democratic Party, that would be a plus for the atheist movement, but maybe not. Trump and/or his surrogates would surely point out he is an atheist, which could cause him to lose the election (see: Distrust of atheists).

If Oprah rans for president and won the Democratic Party that might not be good for atheist activists given her opinion that atheism is odd (see: Atheism and wonder). Conservative (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2018 (EST)

Oprah is so well liked that attempts to link her to Weinstein would fail. She is probably the biggest potential threat to Trump in 2020.

She would probably blow away professional politicians in a crowded primary just like Trump did. The Democrats have a weak bench so she would probably win a primary easier than Trump did. Nut perhaps Bernie Sanders would give her a run for her money.

Hopefully, she will not choose to run and/or a strong economy would give Trump the presidency. Maybe all the attacks on Trump/Obama will give her pause as far as running as she would lead a very divided country. However, Trump's victory in 2016 may have emboldened her to run in 2020.

Lastly, evangelicals/Christians are a big voting block and her past as far as ties to New Age religion would hurt her in this voting block.[16][17]Conservative (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2018 (EST)

Oprah: Generations of older people have to die before racism issue gets significantly better.[18]

Older people vote at high percentages. This isn't going to help her win the elderly vote.Conservative (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2018 (EST)

There was an anonymous post to Reddit today which implied, through a set of initials, that it wasn't just Hillary who employed a private e-mail account, but Loretta Lynch, James Comey, James Clapper, Chuck Schumer, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Susan Rice, John Brennan, Huma Abedin, Valerie Jarrett and even President Obama.

It almost reads like a novel. Someone, I don't know who, commented on the post that communications among these actors took place on the North Korean intranet, set up by Eric Schmidt of Google in 2013, but that the NSA swept the e-mails up as part of its data collection. Then there is a missing step between cause and effect, but the same commentator further said that somehow Trump obtained the emails. VargasMilan (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2018 (EST)

I'm not surprised at all, but it is interesting to have some degree of confirmation. It is a great way for them to somewhat conceal their treason and "collusion." Thanks for sharing this! --David B ^(TALK) 21:52, 21 January 2018 (EST)

You're welcome. Judging from the hundreds of hits on Talk:Main Page, a lot of others found it interesting too.

I accidentally found out one of the anon's commentators (that is, interpreters); it's Jerome Corsi, a book writer already known to Conservapedia through his entry page as well as elsewhere in his work during the 2004 Presidential campaign.

On the other hand, as for truthfulness, I am already doubting it. The anon, known as Q-anon, apparently sends out coded messages, while people on the internet, like Corsi, break the code, which tell stories that link together actors in the Democratic party together with the intelligence community which relate to the on-going scandals in their departments. I don't understand what a person has to gain by revealing secrets in a fairly easily broken code (at least to those keenly following the scandals) versus just revealing the information. I mean, it eventually gets out through these interpreters, right? Wouldn't they get the full brunt of the blame either way? As it is, it only adds a dramatic element to the dry transactions, and I don't see where Q-anon profits from it, except as a teller of amazing stories of which he can deny their going off the deep end, if it comes to that, by blaming his interpreters.

Jerome Corsi works for Alex Jones' Infowars website (Jones claims he is not a conservative), seems to be a conservative, and has an undeniable presence on Twitter (he does other things and has 78,300 followers). Like I said, it's hard to deny they're interesting stories in what's a crowded race on Twitter, so don't be surprised if he ends up on a Top Conservatives on Twitter list. VargasMilan (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2018 (EST)

There will be more bogus conspiracy theories and fake news items in coming days, weeks, and months to compete with and obscure the facts in the Big Ugly - the FISA memo abuses. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 19:48, 22 January 2018 (EST)

Well, that's one of the reasons why I double-checked the story. And the results of having done so shows how being confirmed as truthful deserves to be a necessary hurdle to clear before the story, however compelling, should be vouched for and passed along. VargasMilan (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2018 (EST)

Of some interest in the little-reported news, the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act" (H.R. 4712) has passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, much to the disgust of all but six house democrats. In short, it basically says that if an abortion fails, the delivered baby actually needs to be treated like a human being. (What an outrageous idea, right?) [19] Now, will it get through the senate? --David B ^(TALK) 21:57, 21 January 2018 (EST)

And....it died in the senate--that's a real shame. --David B ^(TALK) 10:42, 5 February 2018 (EST)

As news of the FISA memo breaks in coming days, a few technical points need to be clarified: (1) the Steele dossier basically was a ruse to make it appear the information came from outside the US government; (2) the intelligence community sometimes uses contractors who are granted FISA access. FusionGPS was one such contractor going back years. However in late 2015 and early 2016 FusionGPS began using FISA data queries to conduct illegal searches on Hillary's opponents. NSA Dir. Mike Rogers detected the abuse, ordered a performance review, and cutoff FusionGPS from the system. (3) the illegal FISA queries continued through Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, who worked for FusionGPS and had a CIA security clearance. The information was fed to Christopher Steele & FusionGPS to write the Steele dossier. (4) IOW, the information in the Steele dossier came from DOJ/FBI illegal FISA queries, was transferred to Steele, and fed back as outside information . RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 19:29, 22 January 2018 (EST)

Even the people promoting the Russia-Trump collusion theory knew perfectly well it was nonsense. Here is what FBI counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok wrote about the Mueller investigation to paramour Lisa Page on May 17, 2017: You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern that there’s no big there there.[20] PeterKa (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2018 (EST)

Well, to the surprise of the board, Cecile Richards has resigned as CEO of Planned Parenthood. I don't know whether to be glad of this ("good riddance!") or disappointed that the rats and abandoning the ship before it sinks. He might still be liable, though. In any case, I wonder if this is a sign that even he knows things are about to get very ugly. [21] [22]
In any case, things are actually getting stirred up a bit. --David B ^(TALK) 23:10, 25 January 2018 (EST)

The insolence of the FBI has reached insufferable proportions. Director Wray has refused an order from Trump and Sessions to fire Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.[23] On Wednesday, Trump agreed to an interview with Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Nobody who watched Trump collapse under Lester Holt's questioning can think that this will end well. Liberals are already celebrating the imminent triumph of the Deep State: "Donald Trump Wants to Fight the FBI? It’s a Suicide Mission."
So who is liberal America's latest darling? Mueller is an FBI tool who spent years harassing the wrong suspect in the anthrax case. He later set New York Governor Eliot Spitzer up with a hooker sting. Hey, it couldn't have happened to a nicer governor. (See "Second abusive Eliot Spitzer recording emerges.") In other words, if you had something sleazy that needed to be done, you called Mueller.
By the way, the bureau doesn't buy any of that loopy Russia nonsense that cable news has wasted so much of America's time on. That's just boob bait for yahoos. For Mueller and the FBI, it's all about "obstruction of justice." In the law, "obstruction" refers to interference in a judicial proceeding. So firing an FBI director is clearly not obstruction. Shouldn't a special counsel know something about the law?
If the FBI is making a bid for control, it's worth asking what an FBI-led government might look like. Take a look at Howie Carr's description of how FBI agents shake down Boston. PeterKa (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2018 (EST)

The Politico story linked to above recounts how a dozen FBI agents raided the Nixon White House in 1973. Trump needs a special forces team ready to call up, since that's clearly the direction this crisis is going. In fact, I'd take the team down to Wray's office and ask him again about McCabe.
The long term solution to this problem is for Trump to appoint a chief of staff for the Justice Department. This is a position for a sharp lawyer like Joe diGenova, Andrew McCarthy, or Mark Levin (the chief of staff for Reagan's Justice Department). This person would be empowered to purge the FBI, DOJ, special counsel's office, etc of elements that are disloyal or refuse to cooperate. Then the entire personnel issue would be delegated and hopefully the president could stop tweeting about it. PeterKa (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2018 (EST)

Here is Trump's latest bright idea: "Stymied with Mueller, Trump reportedly mulls firing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein." This is deja vu from early December. The problem with this idea is that if Trump simply fired Rosenstien, that would leave Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand supervising the special counsel investigation. She is known mainly as a FISA specialist. Who knows if she'd be any better than Rosenstien? Under the Vacancy Act, Trump can fill any vacancy in the administration with any candidate who has already gone through the Senate confirmation process. But he doesn't need to fire anybody to create a vacancy. He can create a new position that supervises the special counsels and then fill it. It wouldn't even have to be a position above Rosenstein as Rosenstein has already expressed a willingness to recuse himself.[24] (He was a player in the Comey firing so it is irregular for him to supervise an investigation of it.) How hard can it be to find a conservative lawyer? I am sure the Federalist Society can recommend someone who can refocus the Mueller investigation on Russia election interference. PeterKa (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2018 (EST)

From the start, this whole affair has been about job security and pride/narcissism. They had doubts about Trump winning, feared Hillary if she won and then later Comey hedged his bet.

After Comey was fired, his pride/narcissism caused him to be angry that Trump "actually had the audicity" to fire him (prideful people often fail to see their shortcomings).Conservative (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2018 (EST)

When the Russia collusion issue came up a few weeks before the election, WaPo and the rest of the smart set dismissed it as nonsense. On election night, Mook and Podesta got together and decided that they weren't taking the fall for Hillary's defeat. They would blame Russia. That's according to the book Shattered. Fusion GPS told the media to play up the Russia angle and then spread their $12 million around. I take it that's the going rate for a year's worth of hysterical media coverage. PeterKa (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2018 (EST)

The FISA memo will show a massive conspiracy of lawbreaking by the Obama administration to aide Hillary and thwart Trump from the day Trump declared for office in 2015. For right now, the focus is on the FBI & DOJ, although elements in the CIA, ODNI & White House were involved, too. The FISA memo changes all the underlying facts, and exposes more than a full year of mainstream fake news reporting. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 00:17, 29 January 2018 (EST)

Unless it's the work of Michelangelo, there's no way the dossier actually cost $12 million, not even in Hillaryworld. The real business of Fusion GPS was money laundering. PeterKa (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2018 (EST)

FusionGPS had a clearance to access FISA data as a contractor going back to 2012. In April 2016, they lost access because of illegal FISA searches. That's when they hired Nellie Ohr & Christopher Steele to write the Steel dossier. Strzok & Bruce Ohr funneled illegal FBI FISA data to them, and they returned it as the Steele dossier:. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 03:34, 29 January 2018 (EST)

The contents of the memo were secret as long as it circulated only among congressional Republicans. The minute it was shown to FBI Director Wray, we get headlines like this: "Secret Memo Hints at a New Republican Target: Rod Rosenstein." So the FBI is selectively leaking while continuing to oppose the release of the memo itself. If Rosenstein approved surveillance of Carter Page, I suppose that's an additional reason he should recuse himself. But the fact he wrote the memo used in the Comey firing creates a more direct conflict, and one that we've known about all along. I don't think anyone questions that leaving Rosenstein in charge is an unsatisfactory situation, and that includes Rosenstein himself. Yet he stays on. As the guy who supervises special counsels, he holds the position in government that most directly effects Trump personally. Yet Trump's views and motives in this matter remain murky. PeterKa (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2018 (EST)

DOJ objections, that release violated "sources and methods", were removed with firing McCabe, although others who are named in the memo are still employed. Hence, the raising of "grave concerns" today by the FBI because Rosenstein & Priestap may be named by name in the memo. Rosenstein & Priestap cannot be fired under Civil Service regulations without just cause (as Wray used the Inspector General's findings to justify firing McCabe, rather than White House pressure). Wray needs cover - he can't fire them because Trump asked, and he can't violate their rights as civil servants. Their names being mentioned publicly in the memo raises "national security concerns". Wray & Sessions must cross every T and dot every I to fire them for cause, giving Wray, Trump, and Sessions cover. If Wray can't get rid of them before the memo is released, and the FISA memo alleges wrongdoing on the part of Rosenstein, Priestap, Strzok, Lisa Page, et al, it will prompt new calls from Congress, the White House, and the public to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the FBI. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 22:28, 31 January 2018 (EST)

Wray was a member of the Stellar Wind clique along with Comey and Mueller. So he's a founding father of the Deep State. The Dems have cranked the blowhard factor up to eleven, if this Schiff op-ed is anything to go by: "Rep. Nunes’s memo crosses a dangerous line." Schiff has conjured up a tradition of "nonpartisan" intelligence. It's a clever word that suggests that the Dems should be treated as equal partners in intelligence matters, although they currently control neither the White House nor Congress. The only valid reason to oppose declassification is if the memo included intelligence valuable to the enemy. That's not what Schiff is claiming. Whether the memo is unfair to the FBI is something we can judge for ourselves after it is released. PeterKa (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2018 (EST)

Iran Contra was known the Senate Intelligence Cmte., as the law requires. Sen. Patrick Leahy leaked it to the press, in violation of Senate rules. So it's not unprecedented. Of course then committee members pretend to be shocked. The only time there's a "national security concern" is when someone is still employed in the US Civil Service. The priority is to rebuild the FBI & DOJ and maintain public respect for the institution over prosecution of former employees. It's similar to the purge of government workers who cooperated with the Russians during after WW2 - J. Robert Oppenheimer bring the best example. The FBI agent who investigated the case insisted there was enough evidence to prosecute him as a KGB agent (like the Rosenbergs & Hiss were), but Ike thought it sufficient to bar Oppy permenantly from classified information, rather than a partisan & divisive public trial. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 06:51, 1 February 2018 (EST)

The hot movie of the moment is I, Tonya, which whitewashes the tale of figure skater Tonya Harding. There are few less deserving subjects for rehabilitation. It was known almost immediately that Tonya's ex paid a thug to attack rival skater Kerrigan in 1994. A few weeks later, the FBI was able to establish that Harding herself was in on the planning. She pleaded guilty to a felony and was banned from competitive skating. Nobody at the time thought that the thug acted on his own, which is this movie's preposterous thesis. See this article for a refresher. I remember HBO had a series called Rome rehabilitating Caesar. When does Hitler finally get a fair shake? PeterKa (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2018 (EST)

This Showtime satire has both jokes and a heart: "Our Cartoon President | Series Premiere | Full Episode (TV14)." Cartoon Ivanka appears only briefly, but she steals the show: "None of us wanted to be here, but then Hillary didn't go to Wisconsin." Cartoon Trump is a simple man. He loves fast food. He loves driving a big rig. He loves Fox and Friends. He is homesick for New York. He wants to make his wife happy -- and we love him. PeterKa (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2018 (EST)

The newest entry starts "Why did the Dems boo and his at Donald Trump...", but "his" should be "hiss". --David B ^(TALK) 13:38, 31 January 2018 (EST)

Astonishing FBI/DOJ revelations just keep piling up. It turns out that ubiquitous FBI agent Peter Strzok was the driving force behind the letter that the FBI sent to Congress in the final days of the 2016 campaign concerning email on Anthony Weiner's laptop: "Exclusive: Controversial FBI agent co-wrote initial draft of explosive Comey letter reopening Clinton email probe." CNN's spin is that this news exonerates Strzok of bias against Trump. How dumb do they think we are?
At the time, we were told that a cabal of New York based agents affiliated with Rudolph Giuliani forced Comey's hand in this matter. But if it was Strzok, that would certainly make sense in light of his "insurance policy" remark: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office -- that there’s no way he gets elected -- but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40."[25] If it wasn't for the Weiner letter, Comey would presumably have been treated as just another Obama flunky and dismissed when Trump first came to office. PeterKa (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2018 (EST)

The insurance policy, as I understand it, were the illegal wiretaps, building false allegations of Russia collusion, which there were minor leaks during the election but would continue and be used to impugn Trump should he win. Additionally, false testimony was given to Congress regarding the origin of the Russia investigation before the election, the Gang of Eight was not notified about illegal wiretaps on a presidential candidate til March of 2017, and the FISA Court was not notified of FBI abuses of spying on American citizens, unmasking their identities, and sharing that raw intelligence information with outside contractors (FusionGPS) and others in government til early October 2016.

Strzok's involvement in the October 26 letter to Congress is overplayed, and not that meaningful. He was helping Comey CYA, alleging there was nothing new on the Weiner laptop, according to a leak Lisa Page made to Devlin Barrett of the WSJ. Barrett tweeted two minutes after he got off the phone with Lisa Page, while Strzok & Page were texting, essentially that the Weiner laptop emails had already been reviewed. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 20:37, 31 January 2018 (EST)

Page: 5:19pm “Still on the phone with Devlin [Barrett of WSJ]. Mike’s phone is ON FIRE.”

Strzok: 5:29pm “You might wanna tell Devlin he should turn on CNN, there’s news on.”

Page: 5:30pm “He knows. He just got handed a note.”

Strzok: 5:33pm “Ha. He asking about it now?”

Page: 5:34pm “Yeah. It was pretty funny. Coming now.”

• At 5:36pm Devlin Barrett tweets:

Devlin Barrett, who works for WaPo now, was on PBS News Hour tonite peddling fake news about Wray & Rosenstein's objections to release of the FISA memo. Rosenstein is said to have participated in the conspiracy according to some leaks. FBI Counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap (Strzok's boss) has managed to keep a low profile so far, but is the next high-level FBI target to get fired. Barrett discussed the Weiner laptap in October 2016, but tried to avoid discussing Lynch, Comey, McCabe, Priestap, Baker, and Rybiki (all who have been removed, except for Priestap) obstruction of justice in clearing the Hillary Clinton email scandal in the May-July period 2016.

The GOP need to get Bernie Sanders people on board to this narrative: that the Obama FBI rigged the nominstion for Hillary by not bringing charges against her, which is a big revelation in the memo. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 22:04, 31 January 2018 (EST)

Yet another wonder of the internet and phone messaging: the ability to report the exchange of snark by participants toward the historical events in which they're playing a role, narrowed down to the nearest minute. VargasMilan (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2018 (EST)

Yesterday, the liberal media told us the release of the Nunes memo would be the end of nonpartisan intelligence and the world as we know it. Today, it's more of a big meh: "Rising White House fear: Nunes memo is a dud." This is the five stages of grief, journalism style. What's in the memo matters only if Trump uses it as cover for a major action, for example sidelining Rosenstien or appointing someone to look into FBI malfeasance. PeterKa (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2018 (EST)

On the upside, the memo could help get rid of Wray, who is being petulant: "White House worried FBI director could quit over Nunes memo release." Mueller and Comey were also DOJ lawyers before becoming FBI directors. Shouldn't the FBI director be a cop? Somewhere in America there must be a city, county, or state with an outstanding chief who deserves a promotion. PeterKa (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2018 (EST)

For whatever reason, FBI directors are almost always lawyers. The only ones who weren't were Acting Directors John Otto (who was a sheriff and a teacher), and Thomas Picard (who was a CPA). It sort of makes sense for the Director of the FBI to be an attorney. Most of the FBI directors were former prosecutors, which means they know how to put together a case and what sort of things need to be done to get somebody convicted. So, I don't think it's outrageous for the FBI director to be a lawyer.--Whizkid (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2018 (EST)

The FISA memo opens the door to further hearings and declassifications. Grassley will soon declassify the criminal referral to the DOJ for prosecution of Chris Steele. McCabe is under internal DOJ ethics investigation based on the IG report which could deny his pension in 5 weeks. McCabe will be called to testify, and 'turn' on his bosses soon if he ever wants to see a dime of his pension. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 23:19, 2 February 2018 (EST)

Not only was the Steele dossier used to obtain the Carter Page warrant, but the FBI knew that the dossier was Clinton campaign oppo research and misrepresented it to the FISA court. The FBI also told the court that the dossier was "confirmed" by various news stories. These were stories that had been planted by Steele, not independent sources.[26]
The most disturbing part of the affair is Comey's blasé reaction: "That's it?" is his lastest tweet.[27] Is this type of corruption so normal at the FBI that the director doesn't feel the need to dignify it with a detailed reply? In his previous tweet, Comey compares his critics to Joe McCarthy. It would be easier to assume good faith if wasn't for an earlier tweet that says, "Russia threat should unite us, not divide us." McCarthy thought that too. PeterKa (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2018 (EST)

So far, the liberal response to the memo has been along the lines of: "So what if the dossier was used to get a warrant? Lots of warrants have been issued based on less." The dossier was compiled by the Clinton campaign to create a pretext for an FBI investigation. Whether the warrant was sound legally and whether the FBI was acting to benefit the Clinton camp are separate questions. Does anyone really think that either the FBI or the Clinton campaign cared if some low level Trump volunteer met with Russians? It was a different era, if you can remember, a time when liberals still thought that McCarthyism was a bad thing. PeterKa (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2018 (EST)

There is concerted effort to mischaracterize the memo's contents, as if it is aimed at Mueller. It's not. It's aimed at cleaning up Obama FBI corruption. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 23:23, 2 February 2018 (EST)

The CrowdStrike report that supposedly proved that the Russians hacked Podesta email has a pedigree similar to that of the Steele dossier. Why stop after one fake intelligence report when you can cook up two? Perhaps the Dems were hoping that the FBI would adopt the dossier as its own in the same way the intelligence community has adopted the CrowdStrike report. PeterKa (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2018 (EST)

Releasing the memo has, rather predictably, settled nothing. The next step is to release the FISA application that memo summarizes, as Alan Dershowitz argues. PeterKa (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2018 (EST)

IMO, this whole Stormy Daniels matter is a continuation of media manipulation by the same anti-Trump forces outside government, now that the Russia hoax is exposed, although some kernel of information could have originated in the illegal FISA wiretaps. I have to disagree on the effect of the release tho -- if the FISA memo hadn't flipped the narrative completely, it's neutralized the "Trump is a KGB stooge" narrative. While some people will go to their graves believing 9/11 was an inside job, Gore won the Florida recount, Obama was born in Kenya, and Trump colluded with Russia, when someone like former DNI James Clapper says it, he's making himself a target of a new Special Prosecutor should one be appointed. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:38, 4 February 2018 (EST)

What the memo says and doesn't say

What the memo says: The unredacted names of persons in the memo are the national security concerns expressed by those opposed to its release. Comey, Bruce Ohr, Priestap, McCabe, Strzok Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein, and Dana Boente. All these persons should be investigated by a new Special Prosecutor, although Rosenstein & Boente should be extended a presumption of innocence. Boente was recently appointed the new FBI General Counsel after James Baker was removed in the same scandal. The evidence of conspiracy against others is damning (which includes Sally Yates and John Carlin of the DOJ, & James Rybiki of the FBI, all who have been removed).

What the memo doesn't say: The memo doesn't go into, How Sally Yates denied Inspector General oversight of the DOJ National Security Division shortly after Trump declared his intention to run for office; How illegal FISA surveillence was ongoing at the time by FBI contractors (FusionGPS); How Obama was briefed on the operation shortly after Trump announced his intention to run; How the head of the DOJ National Security Division, John Carlin, was removed in October 2016 when the FISA court ruled both the FBI & FusionGPS violated the FISA Act and a previous FISA court ruling; nor any mention of the NSA FISA Compliance Audit which exposed the illegal actions of the FBI, DOJ, and FusionGPS. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 13:06, 4 February 2018 (EST)

Are you sure? A simple Google search says otherwise. JohnSelway (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2018 (EST)

Back in 2016, the media had a quite a crush on cop-killer enthusiasts like Black Lives Matter and Common. And don't get me started on the rioters who burned down Ferguson. Spying on Republicans? That's law enforcement being a pillar of society, according to the New York Times: "Trump’s Unparalleled War on a Pillar of Society: Law Enforcement."
The left is writhing in agony after the release of the Nunes memo. We have our knee on the chest of the enemy, as Trotsky would say. Now it's time to move in for the kill. Rip out the FBI files on Steven Hatfill and Eliot Spitzer. Everyone needs to see who Robert Mueller really is. PeterKa (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2018 (EST)

The Dems already have a campaign ad against Nunes: "Devin Nunes' Re-Election Opponent Has Already Released An Ad." This is red scare stuff, McCarthyism straight up: "Is it possible that Congressman Nunes...has been compromised by the Russians?" Have you no shame, Andrew Janz, have you no shame? PeterKa (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2018 (EST)

"No, [they're] the Walter Duranty or the I.F. Stone (paid Russian agent). Nunes is McCarthy, exposing deep state corruption." "J. Edgar Hoover [from information provided by the FBI] gave Sen. McCarthy [like the information provided Nunes] secret info about Russian agents in Dem admins. When caught, Dems screamed bloody murder. — One thinker's opinion. VargasMilan (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2018 (EST)

"Much of the “salacious and unverified” material in the dossier came from the Russians. In other words, those disgusting dossier lies about Trump’s personal behavior came from Russian operatives. So there is no question that it was the Clinton campaign, Democrats, Steele, the FBI, and DOJ who colluded with the Russians to rig a presidential election." (John Nolte) VargasMilan (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2018 (EST)

The FISA memo isn't an end in itself. It's one step in the process of removing Priestap, Strzok, Lisa Page, et al, and possibly getting a special prosecutor. The focus is on regaining control of the DOJ & FBI from the lawless Democrat hoodlums. This could take all year. But the CIA was also involved, as were other agencies and Depsrtments. One step at a time. Fighting Mueller is playing defense, and the idea is to take the fight to the Democrat subversives. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 03:10, 4 February 2018 (EST)

There's a debate about whether the FBI's Russia investigation was triggered by the Papadapolous drinking incident or by the dossier. Neither idea strikes me as reasonable. A politically-motivated investigation is triggered by a political event, in this case Trump winning the New York primary. Papadapolous, Page, and the dossier represent hand waving designed to put the investigation on a legal footing after the fact. The FISA warrant's main purpose was to legitimize the investigation. Hey, a judge told us to do it. How do you go from Papadapolous in a bar to Alpha bank pinging and insurance policies? The sequence makes sense only if the idea was to get dirt on Trump to help Hillary.
Why is there a bipartisan consensus to release memos, but not the actual FISA application? Washington's dirty secret: It's pathetically easy to get a FISA warrant, and neither political party wants the public to know. Out of 35,000 warrant applications since 1978, only 12 have been denied.[28] PeterKa (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2018 (EST)

Because of the nature of the whole FISA process, a warrant application and anything related to the FISA process is highly classified. People with knowledge of it don't like talking about FISA in public. They've been clear, the warrant application will never be public. In fact, the two redacted FISA court rulings this year is the first time FISA court proceedings have ever being made public, AFAIK. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 12:23, 4 February 2018 (EST)

• FISA was enacted in response to the Church Committee's revelations concerning political spying. That is to say, it was supposed to restrict political spying. In this case, that idea is turned on its head. A warrant was taken out on Page, not because anyone cared what Page had to say, but to create a legal pretext to spy on Trump. The warrant was issued on four occasions by three different judges. So it must be perfectly regular under FISA rules. In short, FISA is a justification for political spying, at least as long as it's Democrats doing the spying. Is there any way this dangerous law can be repealed?
• If there is something this episode shows, it's that Democrats can't be trusted to tell us the truth about anything. Before it was released, they told us that releasing the memo would be cataclysmic. The minute it was released, the spin turned around on a dime. The current spin is, "Why did you Republicans make such a big deal about this nothing memo?" Based on Democratic bluster about the FISA application being "50-60 pages" long, I'd be surprised if it's even as long as the memo.[29] PeterKa (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2018 (EST)

Like other "post-Watergate reforms" the War Powers Act for example, there are problems. There are serious Fourth Amendment concerns about the FISA, the right to an open hearing, for example. Counterintelligence, by it's nature, is not really aimed at pursuing indictments and convictions. In this sense, the judiciary sits as an oversight board rather than a trial court. The only other solution is to have a Congressional Committee provide oversight of surveillence warrants, with a rotating membership every two year election cycle, staffed with partisans, leakers, and non-lawyers. Like the War Powers Act, nobody wants to put it in front of SCOTUS for fear it would be struck down. So the Executive & Legislative have been happy to leave things as they are, and compromising the Judicial Branch into an extra-constitutional function in national security affairs that it's really not designed for. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 23:15, 4 February 2018 (EST)

"It should be noted that the FISA court was set up to stop foreign terrorists. The fact that the FBI and DOJ would use this court to not only wiretap an American but to monitor a presidential campaign belies belief. Why Obama’s FBI and DOJ used this court as opposed to a normal court is obvious—a normal court probably would have denied the application...

"Worse still, in the summer of 2016, Obama’s DOJ had already opened a counter-intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign [I didn't know this (VM)]. The fact that nothing from that months-old partisan investigation was used to obtain the Page wiretap is revealing. [John Nolte (Feb. 3, 2018). "16 bombshells in the Nunes Memo the media do not want you to know about". Breitbart.] VargasMilan (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2018 (EST)

Looks like we all need to be hip on our FISA warrant categories. The Carter Page warrant was a Title I warrant. Anybody who contracted Page could be surveilled. Anybody who contacted somebody who had contacted Page could also be surveilled. In this way, the Page warrant effectively authorized surveillance of the entire Trump campaign.[30] Rosenstein actually signed off on all this after Trump appointed him DAG. Somebody should ask him what he thought he was signing. PeterKa (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2018 (EST)

Upstream and downstream data. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 11:12, 6 February 2018 (EST)

The Carter Page warrant was A-OK because it had a footnote explaining the origin of the dossier, according to the latest liberal spin. What problem can't be solved with a footnote? I recommend National Review`s Andrew McCarthy for straight talk on this issue. Under the hearsay rule, a document based on anonymous sources must include an explanation of who each source is, how they know whatever it is they are claiming to know, and why the bureau finds them credible. Like this: “Confidential Informant No. 1 (CI-1) works at the bank, is intimately familiar with activity in the suspect’s account, and has described the following transactions . . . ” The dossier uses numerous anonymous sources, but it has no explanations of who any of them are. There even claims based on multiple layers of hearsay.
Finally, it's significant that no charges were brought against Page or anyone else as a result of the warrant, as least as far as we know. If it wasn't to support a criminal case, what was the warrant for? DiGenova is calling for a grand jury to investigate. PeterKa (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2018 (EST)

The Nunes memo was Trump's big chance to fight back against the Russia hoaxers, but I guess that's not happening. Fourteen more Republicans than Dems have announced that they are retiring from Congress. Since the party has been doing reasonably well in the polls lately, it suggests that congressional leaders expect Mueller to blow Trump away. Curiously, Mueller is not investigating Vice President Pence.[31] In short, the Deep State is anticipating a Pence presidency. PeterKa (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2018 (EST)

Trey Gowdy, who wrote the so-called 'Nunes memo', says it has nothing to do with Mueller. The 'Nunes memo' is a DNC talking point translated into a fake news mainstream headline. Nunes never claimed to have authored the so-called Nunes memo.RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 10:10, 6 February 2018 (EST)

The FISA memo is one step in a process to bring about a Special Prosecutor to drive out the remaining conspirators in the US government, and possible prosecutions. Congressional retirements are likely related to illegal electronic surveillence and blackmail by Obama administration conspirators. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 10:16, 6 February 2018 (EST)

• Page spent three years as an undercover FBI employee contracting Russian spies. This work is the basis for asking the FISA court to treat Page as a Russian spymaster.[32] If we accept this story, the dossier itself is a pretext to distract our attention from the actual reasoning behind the warrant. Page is colluder zero, the Richard Armitage of the Trump Russia hoax. PeterKa (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2018 (EST)
• I watched a clip of Rosenstein. It's obvious the guy is a mouse with no backbone. Trump should call him into the Oval Office, use a few choice words, flash some angry looks, and get this constitutional crisis over with. PeterKa (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2018 (EST)

• Can we get "Maximum John" Sirica to come back, try some of these guys and squeeze out testimonies using the threat of maximum sentences? VargasMilan (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2018 (EST)

• Ten of the eleven FISA judges are Obama appointees. A Trump appointee began serving in May 2017. At the time the Page warrant was issued, it may have been all Obama appointees.PeterKa (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2018 (EST)

Since no FISA judge protested after the Nunes memo was released, the memo's argument that the FBI tricked the judges into granting the warrant has to be wrong. We should assume they were all in the scam, as Rush points out. What is Trump waiting for? Declassify the full application. Even the NYT has called for this. PeterKa (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2018 (EST)

Its pretty much the nature of the FISA court that Obama would have appointed all the FISA judges, just so you know. FISA judges serve for staggered 7 year terms, so a president in his 8th year would have appointed every judge to FISA. However, FISA judges are appointed from the existing federal bench, and of the 11 FISA judges, Obama had only appointed one of them to the federal bench. Clinton had appointed two, Reagan had appointed one, and the rest were appointed by one or the other Bush.--Whizkid (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2018 (EST)

So who can we blame? The only way a warrant like this could be justified is if Carter Page was an actual Russian spymaster, which I don't think anyone is claiming. Far from being prosecuted for anything, Page is still on cable news mocking the Steele dossier. PeterKa (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2018 (EST)

if the question is, who approved the warrants and extensions, then that was, I think, 4 different judges. But, if the question is, who to blame, really, the best answer is to blame Carter Page. Even if we assume the Steele dossier is entirely, 100% false, we know Page met with an SVR agent in 2013. Between that and his ties to people in Gazprom, and that he admitted talking to Dvorkovich and Baranov in 2016, it makes sense that the FBI would want to keep an eye on him.--Whizkid (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2018 (EST)

• You know that Page was doing undercover work for the FBI at that time? The only reason we know about this warrant is because the FBI leaked its existence to press. The reason they leaked it was to justify the Russia probe. A Title I warrant can be use to justify the surveillance of everyone the subject came in contact with. Restricting political surveillance was the primary reason FISA was enacted in the first place, so this is clearly an abuse. The dossier is full of ridiculous claims, the most notorious being that oligarch Igor Sechin offered Page $11 billion in stock. If the full application supports the summaries that have been given by Nunes and others, all the judges who approved it should be impeached. The dossier was written in seventeen parts and not compiled until December 13, after the election. So the application may have been even thinner than what we are being led to believe.
• There are only three FISA judges for DC, Rosemary Collyer (Bush appointee), James Broasberg (Obama appointee), and Rudolf Contreras (Obama appointee). Every other district has only one FISA judge. If there were multiple judges, it has to be a DC case. The judge math is somehow not adding up. PeterKa (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2018 (EST)

We don't know that Page was doing undercover work for the FBI at the time, and the FBI hasn't said he was. The FBI said an undercover agent posing as an analyst with an energy company met with Sporyshev, gave him fake documents and bugged him. The FBI hasn't identified that undercover agent, of course, but some people are saying it's Page. The problem is, as Susan Wright from Redstate points out, there are some problems with that. First, Page denies it, but of course, if Page were an undercover agent, he very well might deny it. The bigger problems were, first, he wasn't posing with an energy analyst, he was an energy analyst, and second, and more importantly, the FBI agent met with Sporyshev in 2012. Page's meetings with the Russians started in 2013. There's not much in the way of evidence that he ever worked undercover for the FBI, other than some people wishing it were true.

My take on the whole thing is this. In every political campaign, especially in a presidential campaign, you have marginal figures...hangers on. These are people who don't really do much, but like to feel important, and like to be in the presence of power. I think that's Carter Page. He attached himself to the Trump campaign as an "oil industry rep" and "Russia policy" guy, but he was never really important to the campaign. He didn't really meet with or advise Trump, and he didn't have much role in setting policy. He was just somebody the Trump campaign could put on lists saying "Hey, these are the experts the campaign has advising it." Other than that, though, he was thoroughly unimportant, and I doubt that, during the campaign, Trump would even have recognized the guy if he saw him. And when the first allegations against Carter Page came out, that's what the President's spokesmen did...explain that PAge was never a senior adviser, and never important in the campaign. I understand it's in Trump's nature, for better or for worse, to go on the attack, and that he likes to hit back. Those are his instincts, and that's one of the reasons that the people who love him love him. The problem, though, in cases like this, that it elevates Page to a level of importance he doesn't deserve. Page is a loser, and that's really what it comes down to.--Whizkid (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2018 (EST)

(A) Page has admitted as much to being the informant in both his May 7, 2017 letter to the Senate Intel Cmte & his November testimony; (B) the fact he's referred to as "employee" means he was paid by the FBI; (C) it was likely a one time event where he saw Russian subjects a few times over a short space of time in 2013; (D) Page likely signed a non-disclosure agreement in receipt of payment with the FBI, and accused the FBI of violating the non-disclosure agreement by leaking his name to the press as the paid undercover operative. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 02:28, 11 February 2018 (EST)

Page's importance is that the FBI used him to justify surveillance, presumably of the entire Trump campaign. His actual role in the campaign is beside the point. PeterKa (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2018 (EST)

That's not what happened though. You have two different individuals identified in the documents in the Buryakov case. There's "UCE-1", an undercover FBI agent who met with Sporyshev in 2012 as part of the FBI's sting operation against him. There's also "Male-1", who was referred to in a tapped conversation between Podobnyy and Sporyshev. Male-1 was somebody that Podobnyy met in 2013 at an energy conference and tried to recruit, by promising him he could get him in contact with a Gazprom, but it didn't work because, as Podobnyy put it, Male-1 was "an idiot". Buzzfeed identified Male-1 as Page, and in both his letter to the FBI and his testimony before the house, Page complained that somebody at the FBI leaked his identity as "Male-1". But that's a distinct individual from "UCE-1", and there's no evidence that Page is UCE-1. Also, the FBI didn't get the FISA warrant against Page until after Page was no longer associated with the campaign.--Whizkid (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2018 (EST)

Illegal FISA wiretaps had been occuring since the Fall of 2015 - after Sally Yates cut out Inspector General oversight. Both FusionGPS as a contractor and the FBI directly abused the FISA process. The October 2016 FISA application was an attempt to get retroactive approval for spying on the entire Trump through Carter Page, which had been going on since the Spring of 2016. Carter Page basically was named an advisor by Manafort. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 20:59, 11 February 2018 (EST)

Comey and Obama both repeatedly emphasized they never talked to each other about cases or anything substantive. The text messages destroyed by the FBI, but later recovered by the Inspector General exposes them as lying scum. "Page wrote to Strzok on Sept. 2, 2016 about prepping Comey because “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.”"[33] There wasn't anything happening in the Clinton email investigation at that time, so this is probably about the Russia probe. Hail Inspector General Michael Horowitz! This guy deserves a medal. It seems that Comey was happy to brief Obama, but too high and mighty to brief Trump. PeterKa (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2018 (EST)

Astonishingly, Horowitz is an Obama appointee, according to this profile. He could be the only honest guy in the most corrupt administration in U.S. history. I recommend the profile. Horowitz is definitely a player that we all need to know more about. PeterKa (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2018 (EST)

This item dropped out of the news very quickly. The liberal media and the FBI went to great lengths to minimize it. I don't think that's because Obama was using this meeting to police the ramparts against Russian interference in the election. He was obviously up to no good. When Obama was president, he was more interested in sports and gossiping with celebrities than governing. But I get the sense from this message that the Russia probe was a top priority for him, right up there with basketball and golf. PeterKa (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2018 (EST)

Mark Levin is declaring vindication. Based on a Levin show, Trump twittered in March 2017 that, "Obama had my "wires tapped"."[34] The media's response was beyond hysterical. Of course, wiretapping is the wrong word here -- it refers to 1970s technology. In Trump's defense, he picked up this usage from a New York Times headline. Aside from the word usage issue, what we have here is confirmation of the Levin/Trump version of events. The most straightforward interpretation of Page's message is that Obama personally supervised surveillance of the Trump campaign. But the media has moved on. It's just like when Saddam's nerve gas canisters were finally found in 2014.[35] The media decided years earlier that they didn't exist, and they are not reopening the case. PeterKa (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2018 (EST)

Read: Essay: 2018 will be a terrible year for atheists.

And its only the beginning of February 2018!

What other calamities will befall atheists in 2018? When a group of individuals kindle divine wrath, the possibilities are endless!

In January of 2018, the first major atheist conference to be held in New York City was cancelled. The Atheism and the City website wrote about the cancellation of the event: "The reasons why are complicated, but it started out difficult enough. The atheist community has splintered into a million shards in recent years." See: Decline of the atheist movement and Atheist factions

"As soon as they began singing, the Lord confused the enemy camp, so that the Ammonite and Moabite troops attacked and completely destroyed those from Edom. Then they turned against each other and fought until the entire camp was wiped out!" - 2 Chronicles 20: 22-23

"There is nothing new under the sun." - Solomon.

"A nation divided against itself cannot stand." - Jesus
Conservative (talk)

According to the Peter Strzok-Lisa Page texts, Virginians are "ignorant hillbillliys." When Strzok wrote that Guccifer was a "sleazy Romanian," Page responded that "All Romanians are sleazy. They combine the crockedness of Russians with the entitledness of Italians."[36] What does it take to get fired at the FBI? Wake up, Director Wray! PeterKa (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2018 (EST)

Strzok's and Page's views concerning domestic personalities are equally illuminating: Paul Ryan is a "jerk," McConnell is a "turtle," Comey is "too blindly boyscoutish," Congress is "contemptible," Chris Wallace is a "turd," and Trey Gowdy is a “dick.” The problem with Gowdy is that his questions as chairman of the House Oversight Committee are overly "investigative." Those darned investigative questions created so much trouble for the FBI that witnesses were provided a "script" to help them avoid answering. Oh, and Trump is a "f---ing idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer." Hey, at least he can answer a question without using a script. Trump should appoint Gowdy to DOJ chief of staff or to some other position in the department. Then we can get some real answers. PeterKa (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2018 (EST)

To do his official portrait, Obama picked artist Kehinde Wiley. Wiley's previous works include various depictions of a black person severing the head of a white women. He helpfully explains that this is a "‘kill whitey’ thing." So it's not a kill woman thing? For eight long years, Obama had to pretend that Hillary was "likable enough," albeit as the candidate of the bitter clingers. Now he can stop pretending that he was ever a friend of white women.[37] PeterKa (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2018 (EST)

The artist and racial matters aside, these were the weirdest official portraits I've ever seen. Barack Obama sitting on a levitating chair surrounded by vegetation? Michelle not even looking like herself in front of a white background, with the painting focused on her massive dress? Look at every other presidential portrait in U.S. history (with the possible exception of Kennedy, and his is still significantly better than Obama's) and compare it to those of both Obamas. Both portraits belong in a modern art museum. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2018 (EST)

I just started laughing when this "loot crate" regulation post was added. As the article says, it's nothing new whatsoever. It seems like this is as only as first-person gaming itself. People are duped into buying the product, then find that they must pay much more to actually have fun in it. Some games are "free to play" and use a system like this, which has led to the term "fee to pay" for this kind of game, since you much pay a fee (for the game) to pay for game content to actually makes it a reasonably "fun" game. It's a good racket for the game producers, but can't the market deal with this problem? --David B ^(TALK) 15:08, 15 February 2018 (EST)

I'd like to learn more about it. The linked article says, "more than half of US states are considering legislation to regulate loot boxes in games." Sounds like something is going on that is significant. It seems inevitable that video games will try to tap into gambling proclivities in youngsters ... just as fantasy football does already. The market isn't dealing well with that exploitation.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2018 (EST)

Honestly, I have no plans whatsoever to play games with loot boxes (Metal Gear Survive I'm only going to do the single player game, not Co-Op, and if I'm going to be trying to hunt down any rare equipment, I'd just look up a guide or go to YouTube. I've had enough via a similar concept in the form of microtransactions with Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, thank you very much. Don't even plan to play Xtreme Venus Vacation, and I prefer THAT to MGSV, that's how serious I am about it.). Quite frankly, I'm irritated by the whole loot box thing and churning out money just to get something in a rare chance, so I have zero plans to play such a game (I barely have much money, anyways, and I really need to find a job as it is).

BTW, while we're on the subject of video games, that mass shooter's fellow students indicated he was a psychopath and his social media messages point to that view with his constantly expressing love for weapons and killing various animals in a very gruesome and inhumane manner, even posting videos of his tawdry acts. Even if video games played some role in his shootout, it was an extremely minor role. More likely than not, even if he never touched a gaming console, he'd kill people anyway. So, please, don't try to claim video games drove him to murder. I mean, what, should we claim books drove him to murder next? Pokeria1 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2018 (EST)

Video games are not like books. Video games are used by the military to desensitize soldiers to killing, and to train them to kill more efficiently. The most killings at a school were done by an addict of violent video games. Even if you were right that a violent video game addict would kill even if he never played a game, he would not certainly kill as mercilessly and efficiently.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2018 (EST)

I have seen some incredibly violent games, which are graphic even far beyond reality (though admittedly, I've never shot anyone, so I can't say first-hand). That is entirely unnecessary, and can serve to jade people. I don't really play video games, but I do think it is fair to state a counter-point, though. I know a lot of liberals who think that if you play with cap guns or dart guns as a kid, you will grow up a murderer. To me, that is simply ludicrous. The moral line need not be drawn at pretending to fight someone with darts, but rather at actually hurting someone. Likewise, paint ball is simulating shooting people, but that doesn't mean you will become a murderer. Games therefore, which simulate the same, will not make you a murderer. Getting completely hooked on and immersed in violent, graphic games can't be healthy, however. If they were a bit more like the old westerns where someone would just fall over if "shot," it wouldn't be as much of an issue. However, when you become immersed in the graphic nature of a game, especially to the point were you actually find it funny when XYZ graphic denigration of a "body" occurs, that is not good (and yes, I've heard people laughing about the way the simulated blood is flowing/flying, etc.).

This actually makes me think about the book The Ten Commandments by Thomas Watson. In it, he goes through in great detail how sin is often more about the thought than the deed. Murdering someone is wrong, but we know from John that hate (intense, burning hatred) is the same basic offence, because you wish that the person were dead. Watson broke down the many ways it is (and in some cases, is not) sin based on the different related factors. Regardless of your faith, I think that basic principal can be applied here. Shooting paint balls at each other, or using a video game to do the same thing is not innately evil or sinful. If done all in good fun without malice towards the person, nor joy in the minimal carnage, I'm included to think that there is no harm, other than some wasted time. However, playing at least in part for the carnage is not at all good. At least for a time, many games actually have a minimal carnage setting. In other words, you "shoot" them, and they fall down or vanish. I think that is going away, though, since many people like the carnage. --David B ^(TALK) 21:16, 15 February 2018 (EST)

"Video games are not like books. Video games are used by the military to desensitize soldiers to killing, and to train them to kill more efficiently." Yeah, tell that to the guys who committed the French Revolution as well as various Communist Revolutions from Russia to Cambodia and Nicaragua. Last I checked, the guys in charge of those disasters specifically used books to desensitize the masses into killing not only the king, but also the aristocracy and even various religious figures, least of all their own neighbors for a sheer laugh (specifically, books like Voltaire's books [heck, according to Timothy Dwight, Voltaire and Diderot came up with such a plan], or Sade's philosophical tracts, or, heck, Rousseau's works especially, namely The Social Contract.). I can tell you one thing: The Jacobins and various Communist insurgents up to the seventies certainly didn't use video games to desensitize people (they weren't even invented yet, and even if they were, they weren't nearly as advanced to allow for desensitization.). Heck, Timothy McVeigh's murderous rampage wasn't even inspired by video games or even movies: it was inspired by a book, specifically the Turner Diaries. And don't get me started on the Frankfurt School who largely used books and the university system to orchestrate the calamity that was sixties revolts in America. Besides, by that logic, we should cite Hollywood movies as a way to inspire people to commit murder in Third World Countries and even cite how African warlords often do "image training" on child soldiers via Hollywood action movies to be essentially brainwashed into committing murder as well.

"Even if you were right that a violent video game addict would kill even if he never played a game, he would not certainly kill as mercilessly and efficiently." Don't be so sure. The guys who did the French Revolution and various Communist revolutions definitely killed about as mercilessly and efficiently (heck, I'd even argue those guys were even less merciful considering some of the crap that, say, the Vietcong did to the people they killed, enough that just being shot is probably the closest they have to granting mercy), and video games played absolutely no role in how they killed in that manner since that medium didn't even exist back then, certainly not to the degree of today (heck, TV didn't even exist either in the case of the French Revolution, with the only thing possibly inspiring them being written books by the Enlightenment).

@DavidB4, thanks for the counterpoint. Though I still stand by my statement that even books have driven people to murder (the French Revolution and various Communist revolutions are perfect examples of books' roles in people committing murder, and especially mass murder.). And besides, the most violent games I've EVER played was the Metroid Prime series and Metal Gear Solid V, and even there, the former had clearly alien creatures so I wasn't even going to be desensitized to the fact that I'm killing things (I was fully aware they weren't actually people), and with MGSV, I usually go out of my way to tranquilize/knock out my enemies and clear them out of the battlefield via Fulton systems, and I even get irritated when I accidentally kill them, and if I am to kill them, it's usually due to their being puppet soldiers and even then only if the mission objective for event points specifically require it. I never even touched Grand Theft Auto or Hatred, and while I have watched Resident Evil on YouTube, I never played the games at all (and even if I did, the fact that they're mutants is enough for me to realize I'm not going to be hurting actual humans). Pokeria1 (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2018 (EST)

I really want to know, as a foreigner (though I am moving to the US in May or June so this is of interest to me), what is wrong with the society over there that leads to this sort of thing. It can't be video games because the rates of video game use in the US isn't any more or less than any other country. It isn't Christianity/religion (or lack thereof) in schools because it isn't different to any other Western country. The only difference is that the US is awash with guns and has little to no regulation on who can buy one. In my living memory (40 years) we have had 1 single mass shooting here in NZ and we are one of the most liberal and godless countries in the world (Christianity is no longer the majority here). So what is happening? I really want to know given I might be starting a new life on the West Coast of the US later this year. JohnSelway (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2018 (EST)

First off, all the hype of mass shootings in the U.S. is exaggerated -- probably because the MSM knows that if it overemphasizes the issue politicians will be pressured to "do the right thing" by caving to the anti-gun lobby. Also, in case you've seen the "18 U.S. school shootings in 2018" statistic, it is false, as even liberal organizations (surprisingly) admit: [38][39]

Also, just take a look at the shooters -- all of them (with very few, if any, exceptions) have had serious mental/social problems. In fact, they're among the furthest type of people you could get from an average gun owner.

Also, for many of these cases, they could have been avoided if people took the time to report the future shooters. For many of them, it was obvious that they were unstable. People warned long in advance about the latest shooter in Florida, and even the FBI took notice of him (but no action): [40][41] If I remember correctly, Stephen Paddock (the Las Vegas shooter last year) also was reported to have had serious mental issues that people who knew him knew about. Also, I remember the San Bernardino, California, terrorist attack -- neighbors knew that the to-be terrorists were acting oddly, but they refused to act because they didn't want to be seen as "Islamophobic". People need to remember the phrase "if you see something, say something."

Interesting that the MSM isn't reporting on the story that also broke today that a potential school shooting in Washington State was averted because the potential shooter's grandmother reported him to authorities: [42][43]

Also, schools and other institutions need to abolish their "gun free zones," and they need to stop boldly advertising the fact no guns are allowed. For crying out loud, if there's a shooting, it's assured that every victim will be defenseless. Besides, if a shooter were to choose between committing a massacre at a location where the victims are assured to be defenseless, or a location where they're armed and ready to shoot back, the choice is easy.

Last but not least, most shootings in general happen in cities, run by leftist Democrats for decades -- for example, Chicago has had Democrat mayors since 1931. Large portions of these cities resemble third world countries, and there is little respect for the law. You don't see this in New Zealand.

If we enacted gun control measures, not only would it fail to stop the problem, but it would violate the Constitution (something so many people overlook) and take away the ability of the millions of law-abiding citizens to arm and defend themselves. We're not like Europe or New Zealand -- we dare defend our unalienable rights. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2018 (EST)

Of the mass shootings which have occurred, think back to their locations. Schools, Shopping malls, restaurants, and movie theaters mostly. What did these have in common? They were "gun-free zones." Now note here that not all malls, restaurants, and theaters are this way, but almost all of the ones targeted, were. Attackers know that they won't face resistance in these places. In fact, I believe it was the Sandy Hook murderer (I'm not certain of which one now) who was later found to have been planning to attack a shopping mall. He had maps, plans, and other evidence of preparation for either two or three malls in the area. However, before his attack, another would-be mass murderer attempted to do the same thing in a mall down south. To that thug's surprise, someone else was armed in the mall, because they didn't know it was a gun-free zone. Seeing the armed citizen (who didn't dare fire through the crowd), the thug took his own life immediately. Upon learning this, the Sandy Hook (I think) attacker changed his plans abruptly, and shifted his research to the school, where he ultimately attacked.

These places are soft targets, so that is where attacks take place. I do respect those who, in such situations, give their own like to slow down the attacker. However, rather than being lauded as a heroes for giving their lives, wouldn't it be better if they could be lauded as heroes for shooting the attacker and saving dozens of lives? The great part is that once schools started arming their teachers, the teachers would probably never have such a problem, due to the deterrence factor. If you were a mass murderer, would you rather attached this armed school, that police station, those fools the next town over with "gun-free" theaters? --David B ^(TALK) 20:54, 15 February 2018 (EST)

The problem with letting everyone carry gun at any time any where i.e. not having gun free zones is how are you supposed to know who is a mass shooter and who is a "good guy with a gun"? Secondly - to the mental health argument perhaps you shouldn't let people with mental health issues have guns? Just an thought. JohnSelway (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2018 (EST)

There any many checks and roadblocks to buying guns. The thing is, these people almost always steal their weapons from others, or in a few rare cases, buy illegal knock-offs from Mexico. --David B ^(TALK) 21:30, 15 February 2018 (EST)

I'll be the first to state that gun free zones are a terrible idea. If people are going to break the law, do you REALLY think they'd hesitate to bring a gun into a gun-free zone and kill those who can't defend themselves? Same goes for gun control, as they'll just buy the guns on the black market. You'd have more of a chance at reducing gun violence by reinstating psychiatric wards enmasse than you do by enacting gun control.

That being said, while I will advocate for the second amendment, I will acknowledge that I myself am cynical about that amendment, especially considering that, technically, the French Revolutionaries never imposed gun control and if anything gave everyone a gun specifically to get everyone to kill each other for giggles. In fact, shotguns were frequently used to execute people during that time, with the crowds laughing at them bleeding out. Doesn't help that the Cordeliers, one of the more radical groups in the Revolution (yes, even more radical than the Jacobins, the posterchildren of radicalism), were according to even here, basing their ideology directly on our own founding documents. I don't think I ever got a direct response to the Ocelot/French Revolution thing I posted earlier when I asked about it on the Second Amendment, BTW (particularly the whole "America descending into chaos and become the wild west again with no law or order" thing that Ocelot stated, not to mention the Cordeliers Club, which I specifically asked for). Pokeria1 (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2018 (EST)

Here in NZ I can buy some assault rifles, pistols and the like but there are three stages of certification. Stage 1 - background check to a rifle or shotgun as well as reference checking (I have struggled with mental illness (specifically depression) in the past so I choose not to own a gun even though I could get one). Stage 2 - to own a pistol or single hand-held shooter. Secondary reference checks and gun safety courses. Lastly Stage 3 - to own a semi-automatic or military style assault rifle. More rigorous checking etc. None of this really inhibits anyone from owning a gun but at least puts some mandatory standards in place. Just like we do with every other item in our lives - from cars (we license drivers and impose regulations on car standards) to mundane objects (like playground equipment). No regulation is too 'take your guns away' but to make sure the guns are regulated to a certain extant. Who would you rather the 'good guy with a gun' be? A bunch of panicked people waving their guns around in a crisis or a a few trained and responsible gun owners? JohnSelway (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2018 (EST)

@JohnSelway: (BTW, I'm replying to this comment, as well as your latest one) In the U.S., unlike NZ, we have the Second Amendment -- the Constitution explicitly protects the right to keep and bear arms. We can't (and really, shouldn't) just enact whatever restrictions we please. We Americans recognize that armed citizens are the most effective weapon against a tyrannical government. If a government enacts regulations, the citizens are at the mercy of the government as it can choose who is armed, who isn't, and what weapons specifically citizens can have.

Regarding banning mentally ill people from having guns, that's easier said than done. What is the definition of mental illness? There's a lot of gray area there. Anything that affects people's thinking in any way whatsoever could be construed as "mental illness," including homosexuality and transgenderism, by the way. In extreme cases, even holding certain ideological points of view could be considered "mental illness." Just a few days ago, liberal commentators on The View said that VP Mike Pence was mentally ill because he is a Christian to talks (prays) to God and vice-versa. Does being a Christian and having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ make you mentally ill? A government could define it that way. It's a slippery slope.

Regarding your claim that nobody would know who's the good guy if everyone has a gun -- that's something that anti-gun people exaggerate hysterically. In the U.S., we've seen this kind of talk whenever proposals to restore (notice the emphasis on "restore") gun rights are being discussed. For example, recently, the State of Texas has passed several pro-gun laws, including restoring open-carry, campus carry, among other rights. Many liberals (and even many Republicans, including Attorney General Greg Abbott, who later became governor and changed his views, signing many of these bills into law) went hysterical, claiming that chaos would ensue and that everybody would be shooting everybody. These bills were signed into law, and none of the liberal's/establishment's predictions came true. In fact, the latest mass shooting in Texas (at a church) was stopped by a good guy with a gun. For another example, look at what liberals said when Kansas expanded gun rights, including campus carry, recently. It's business as usual with the restored gun rights. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2018 (EST)

@Pokeria1: About your comment regarding the Second Amendment and the French Revolution, I'm sure you've heard people compare and contrast the French and American Revolutions. They were very different -- I think there's a reason why the Second Amendment is a product of the American and not the French Revolution. Americans (or, at least, traditional American values) support the rule of law in addition to gun rights. In Europe, the concepts of unalienable rights and the rule of law are not at strong -- government, not God or natural law, is #1. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2018 (EST)

Yeah, I get that the American and French Revolutions are largely different (probably the only common thread between the two revolutions in general is that Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were heavily involved in both, and arguably that the Enlightenment played at least some role in both), and I also get that the French Revolution didn't adhere to God (I don't know if they valued government, though: Considering they killed the king and just had everyone kill each other for amusement, I'd argue they were for all-on anarchy until Napoleon took over). That's not my main concern. My main concern is that the Cordeliers Club, which was cited as being one of the more radical sects of the French Revolution, rivaling even the Jacobin Club, was specifically stated to have been inspired by America's own founding documents. In fact, how about I just quote the Conservapedia article on the Cordeliers for you so you can get EXACTLY what I'm trying to get at, with emphasis being mine? "The Cordeliers Club was a political movement in revolutionary France that was formed in April 1790. Even more radical than the Jacobins it garnered considerable support from the Parisien sans-culottes. They supported direct democracy and the right of insurrection if a government acted against popular wish. Many of these rights that they supported 'came directly from the United States Constitution, as did many ideas that were paraded during the early stages of the French Revolution. Notable members include Georges Danton, Camille Desmoulins, Jacques-Rene Hebert and Jean-Paul Marat." Sorry if this sounds rude what I'm about to say, but does this make it more clear to you now what I'm trying to ask? Pokeria1 (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2018 (EST)

Hollywood sells many movie tickets based on gun violence, and violent video games are an even bigger industry than Hollywood now in the US. The NFL features enormous violence also to large audiences. Is violence such a big part of New Zealand culture? I doubt it. Public schools, the focus of yesterday's massacre perpetrated by a former student, are probably far more atheistic in the US than in New Zealand.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2018 (EST)

NZ has all the same movies and games. But you said -

Is violence such a big part of New Zealand culture? Absolutely:

NZ has the worst Domestic Violence rates in the OECD - http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5332717/NZ-worst-for-domestic-violence-UN-report

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/nz-violence-among-worst-oecd

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/91728517/kiwi-students-report-secondhighest-rate-of-bullying-in-international-study

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/93705446/unicef-releases-damning-child-welfare-report

The reason we don't have mass murders is due to a regularity gun industry. No one says You can't have a gun - the industry is regulated like any other.

Also you said:

[Public schools]...are probably far more atheistic in the US than in New Zealand.

Again not true. NZ is one of the most liberal and progressive countries on earth. There is minor to no prayer in school. I went to a public school and there was a prayer once a week in assembly (only for those who choose too). Christianity here is no longer a majority, we have national bills coming on abortion law, euthanasia and marijuana use - all which are expected to pass and are supported by a vast majority of the public and the NZ Government just removed references to God from any parliamentary business. No, NZ is far far more atheistic than the US by a wide margin. Yet we don't have gun massacres. Why? Regulated (not banned, just regulated) gun measures. JohnSelway (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2018 (EST)

@JohnSelway: I notice that you're emphasizing the distinction between banning and regulating guns -- that distinction is worthless because American pro-gun rights conservatives know that the Left doesn't want to ban guns outright (at least yet).

But there are problems even with "regulating" guns (and "regulating" can mean many different things). First, most regulations are unconstitutional -- unalienable Constitutional protections of gun rights is a foreign concept to non-Americans. Also, the Left isn't proposing an outright ban on guns partially because they know their proposal will be strongly rejected. Instead, they propose so-called "reasonable" gun regulations, which act as a stepping stone for further regulations. Look at Europe -- their "reasonable" regulations have become so strict over the years that countries such as the Czech Republic are actually considering creating their own version of the Second Amendment to protect gun rights (and CZ has fewer gun rights than the U.S.).

Also, let's keep in mind that much of the Left has been influenced by Fabian Socialism -- support for slow and gradual changes rather than the revolutionary change advocated by Marx. The Fabian method (including with gun control) is much more effective in the long run.

By the way, Tucker Carlson did a great segment on gun control last night. I strongly encourage you to watch it. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2018 (EST)

I doubt it. Public schools, the focus of yesterday's massacre perpetrated by a former student, are probably far more atheistic in the US than in New Zealand"

Reply to JohnSelway above: I doubt that New Zealand public schools are as hostile to Christianity as American public schools are. Prayer once a week in assembly in NZ? Even the suggestion of such a thing would result in a massive retaliation by the militant atheists in the US. Likewise, I doubt there is a subculture of many addicts of extremely violent video games in NZ, as there is in the US.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2018 (EST)

That was one school - for children between 13 - 17 yrs of age. Christianity has almost no impact on NZ life and we about 50% of the population registering 'no religion' on the last census. As well as three of our last PM's being agnostic or atheist and overwhelmingly liberal and the parliamentary pray being stripped from the house when they. Also - video game use in NZ is 10% higher than the USA. NZ has higher Game usage, is far more secular yet we have tighter gun control regulations. JohnSelway (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2018 (EST)

New Zealand has nearly a 20% higher suicide rate than the United States:[44]. That translates to a far higher number of deaths than school shootings are. Gun control in New Zealand doesn't seem to be helping.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2018 (EST)

Good point -- every country has its problems, since sin affects everybody (Romans 3:23). However, the U.S. (and I say this as a dual citizen) is in many ways better than every other country on Earth. No other country has been more stable historically (we've had the same Constitution since 1789 and we've been very prosperous), we have a stronger respect for the Constitution and natural law than virtually every other country, and America (right now) probably has the strongest Christian influence in the culture (particularly in the South, Midwest, and rural areas). --1990'sguy (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2018 (EST)

Maybe, but I still stand by my statement that books also are very much a factor in violence. Don't forget, even ignoring how the French Revolution and various Communist revolution were literally started by various books, Timothy McVeigh specifically did his terror spree in direct inspiration of the Turner Diaries, which last I checked was a book, not a video game, not a Hollywood movie. Heck, even that guy who shot that congresswoman was inspired by Nietzsche if his words before shooting her is of any indication, and last I checked, he wrote books.Pokeria1 (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2018 (EST)

• Stop and frisk is the only form of the gun control that's been proven effective. But of course that's racist, as any liberal will tell you. Effective gun control has to target criminals. Black Lives Matter would protest. So legal gun owners take the fall, although they are following the law. Donations to the gun control lobby shoot up whenever the media hypes one of these incidents. That's what drives the coverage. PeterKa (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2018 (EST)

Okay, there's a newsbit on the main page that says the following:

"Liberals are furious that conservative Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin blamed violent video games for yesterday's massacre, while the liberal media censors any inquiry into the possibility. 4"

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't disagree that video games, especially the shoot-em-ups and graphic ones at that, do have at least some influence in regards to the bad things happening. However, I do think it is grossly irresponsible to assume the guy played video games or even used that as a motive for doing that killing spree. I'm conservative, I support the second amendment, at least to the extent of the right to defend oneself from an enemy, I also advocate for bringing prayer back into school, ending Roe v. Wade, and all of that, but I also think we need to look at all the angles. Even DailyMail made clear that the students thought the guy was psycho even before the shooting spree, and his social media accounts had him attacking and gruesomely killing various animals. Heck, for all we know, he could have just as easily been inspired to kill people by reading Nietzsche and had never even touched a video game. Or he could have just been inspired by comic book villains, like the guy who shot up the Aurora Theater in that showing of The Dark Knight Rises did so in emulation of the Joker. Heck, his video on YouTube even had him claiming he'll just imitate the guy who did the clock tower shootings in Texas back during the 1960s. All I ask is that we not blame video games until we have direct proof that they caused him to kill or at the very least can confirm that he has played those kinds of games. Saying games caused him to kill, to be blunt, is just as irresponsible as claiming that his having a Make America Great Again hat on his Instagram account meant he was a Donald Trump supporter (and yes, leftwing media are actually claiming that). Pokeria1 (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2018 (EST)

With the indictment of 13 Russians and three Russian entities, the Mueller investigation has officially become a bad joke. I hope he indicts Putin next. In all the coverage of the investigation I've read, I don't recall any of its fans salivating at the prospect of Russians getting indicted. Did anyone, anywhere argue that this was, or should be, a major focus of the investigation? It's is a desperation ploy, something to give Mueller a little cover so he can end this with a shred of dignity. If Mueller was proud of this work, no way would he have let someone else announce it on a Friday afternoon when it had to compete with a school shooting and other major stories. Everyone is laughing at you, Mueller. Trump, close this clown show down. PeterKa (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2018 (EST)

Even though I definitely think Putin is a massive jerk who most likely isn't truly repentant of Communism based on some of his comments, I agree, there's definitely no way Mueller could seriously indict Putin, let alone various Russians in Russia. At this point, Trump really needs to fire Mueller because it's gone far enough. Pokeria1 (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2018 (EST)

Something to keep in mind, and I know we have Democratic trolls reading this: while the Dem/lib opposition was salivating over foreign interference in our election - namely Trump "colluding" with Russia - they have absolutely no problem with another foreign influence in our elections - namely the average illegal alien at our voting machines. Go figure. Karajou (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2018 (EST)

Yeah, no kidding. Not to mention there's evidence pointing towards Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump, colluding with the Russians in regards to the election if I read things correctly. Pokeria1 (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2018 (EST)

Remember, Mueller's mandate originally is to investigate Russian interference, and then if and only if he finds coordination or collusion with the Trump campaign. These indictments, along with an interview of Trump, signal Mueller's investigation is winding down. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 14:48, 18 February 2018 (EST)

Mueller's indictment is based on a Ukrainian-language RFE article from 2015, according to Gateway Pundit. Robert Mueller, Facebook's most highly paid troll tracker. PeterKa (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2018 (EST)

As the details roll in, this indictment just looks sillier. This is about the same Russian ads Facebook provided to Congress earlier. That is to say, we are talking mainly about ads that ran immediately after the election and promoted the anti-Trump protests held at that time. The idea was to discredit U.S. democracy in the eyes of the Russian public, not to sway the election. The dopes who took part in these protests should be ashamed of themselves. PeterKa (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2018 (EST)

Mueller must be letting a lot of people down these days, including his old buddy Comey, who may have sacrificed his job to get him appointed special counsel. When Comey wrote his memos documenting his interactions as FBI director with Trump, he was already thinking about how he could use them the get a special counsel appointed. See "The Russian investigation started with Comey’s still-secret memos." I think it was a scam from the beginning. How's this for a unified theory: Comey used campaign surveillance get insight on Trump's psychology. Comey and Strzok cooked up the Weiner letter to trick Trump into letting Comey stay on as director. Then Comey and Rosenstein provoked Trump into firing Comey. Comey still secret memos are then used to get Mueller appointed special counsel. PeterKa (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2018 (EST)

Comey & Strzok have scored some minor brownie points in the past few days - neither believed Flynn lied. It appears McCabe faked some Strzok reports and Mueller decided to prosecute with bogus evidence. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 07:17, 20 February 2018 (EST)

Flynn could use a pardon about now. What's he guilty of? Calling up a Russian ambassador, as near as I can tell. He is the martyr of our modern red scare. Sally Yates got him kicked off the transition team, presumably at Obama's behest. Obama famously made fun of Romney for highlighting the Russian threat in the 2012 presidential debates. I doubt he thinks Flynn is too pro-Russian. It's more likely that his beef relates to Flynn's persistent use of phrases like "radical Islam." PeterKa (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2018 (EST)

Judge Sullivan, who tossed Ted Stevens conviction and ordered an investigation into the DOJ's corruption unit, is just the man for the job now. If he doesn't do the same with Flynn, then a pardon certainly is necessary. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 03:21, 21 February 2018 (EST)

We've seen many court cases on gerrymandering in the past year or two, and the Supreme Court will rule on the issue this year. In Pennsylvania, the state's heavily gerrymandered map that benefited Republicans was rejected by federal courts, and the state was required to create a new map. The state's Supreme Court thus created a new map ... that is biased to benefit Democrats: [45][46][47][48] Democrats are now set to win slightly more seats than if the seat allocation were based solely by popular vote. Gerrymandering should remain an issue that voters -- not the courts -- decide. The Left may think that they can weaponize the courts to bring about social change through judicial overreach, but they are not helping the country. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2018 (EST)

The media sees gerrrymandering as a Republican plot against Dems, but this is rarely the case. Several of the districts commonly cited as examples of outrageous gerrymandering were actually designed to create black or Hispanic districts to comply with the Voting Rights Act. What gerrymandering is usually about is protecting incumbents. Most incumbents are currently Republicans, so it protects Republicans in that sense. For the 2018 cycle, 78 percent of House seats are classified as "solid" and noncompetitive.[49] That's not democracy! The solution is multimember districts, which are far more difficult to gerrymander. Japan has used proportional representation and three-to-five member districts since 1993. The U.S. media lavishes attention on "campaign reform" and the issue of money in politics. It's a lobbyist's view of how politics works. Reform of the election system itself is far more likely to get results. PeterKa (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2018 (EST)

What would be way more effective than gun control? Cutting immigration from Third World hellholes! As usual, Ann Coulter breaks it down. PeterKa (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2018 (EST)

Hi, the latest news entry reads as follows, with an extra "the" which I've emphasized:
"NBC continues to pander to liberals in its coverage of the Winter Olympics: it aired liberal claptrap by commentators rather than the exciting the overtime shootout of the USA men's hockey team's final game"
I suggest that someone fix that, when they get a chance. Thanks! --David B ^(TALK) 14:19, 22 February 2018 (EST)

First off, the picture in this article illustrates how American society is degenerating. If this protest were happening in the 1960s, these kids would be fully dressed in suits and ties (and everyone would still think they were communists). Now, some of these kids look like they wanted to go to school in their underwear -- and this is mainstream among American youth.

What's more ridiculous are their goals. The article says "Their priorities: make it difficult to buy semi-automatic weapons and make background checks for gun buyers 'very extensive.'" The problem: what does "difficult" or "very extensive" mean? More difficult or extensive than it already is under federal and state laws? Are they referring to making it difficult to open the door to the gun store? Or should the forms to buy a rifle be even more difficult to fill out, like making them in Chinese? Regardless, you can only go so far before you nullify the Second Amendment -- but these kids have no clue why the U.S. has the Second Amendment, so they would be happy to give it up along with several other essential freedoms.

By the way, these student protestors are getting help from the outside, unlike what the media wants us to believe -- people like Michael Bloomberg and one of the "Women's March" leaders are playing an important role in their efforts: [50]

Lastly, here's a great article on why it's fair game to criticize these students: [51] (BTW, if I were a high school student, I would hate to act like a helpless baby like these high-schoolers are -- this is what the Nanny State looks like) Also, if you haven't listened to Wayne LaPierre's speech, I highly encourage it -- it's a great speech and demolishes the media's narratives: [52] --1990'sguy (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2018 (EST)

Now we're learning that it wasn't just the FBI that was incompetent when dealing with this shooter -- four sheriff's deputies waited outside the school during the shooting: [53] These are the deputies of the same sheriff who claimed the NRA was somehow responsible for the deaths. If the sheriff actually ordered his deputies inside the building, he would have saved many lives. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2018 (EST)

They say dress for the job you want, not the job you have. Let's hope that picture doesn't represent how the kids plan to dress in their future jobs. Are they off to spring break after the protest? Hey, kids! If you want to participate in democracy, first show some respect for it. "Some say that a man who takes no interest in politics minds his own business. We say that such a man has no business here," as Pericles told the Ecclesia. PeterKa (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2018 (EST)

Broward County, FL

I haven't heard anyone discuss where the shooting took place -- it happened in Broward County, FL. This is important because in our polarized country, it can make a big difference is how the victims respond. In the 2016 election, 66% of the county's residents voted for Hillary Clinton. As of January 31, 2018, only 21% of the county's active registered voters are registered Republicans.

With this considered, is it any surprise that these school children are instantly pushing for gun control and the nullification of the Second Amendment? You've got to be kidding me if you believe the shooting is the reason why these kids are now advocating for anti-gun legislation -- they probably have grown up immersed in left-wing thought (mainly in the public schools). And young people are more liberal than the population overall. Think about the Texas church shooting or the Bernie guy who tried to Massacre the Republican House caucus -- the reaction was so much different.

The county I live in voted seven points for Trump, and when I was in high school a few years back it still was very left-wing -- for example, one of my teachers openly advocated in class for overruling the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and genuinely believed that Republicans were obstructing Obama because of his skin color (something he told us in class), and after I graduated, another teacher was fired for promoting Hillary Clinton in class, and yet another teacher used Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States book as his class's main textbook with no punishment. If this was the case in a conservative county, I can only imagine how left-wing their schools are. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2018 (EST)

Jimmy Dore is one of the few leftists debunking the Russia hoax: "Here Are The Russian Memes That “Swung The Election”. Watch the Facebook ads that WaPo, CNN, and Jerry Nadler all recently claimed are an attack on the U.S. at the same level as Pearl Harbor or 9/11. From Dore's overview, it's clear that the ad campaign was not designed to influence the election. They were gathering names so they could spam out ads for sore loser rallies after the election. It was all about discrediting democracy in the eyes of the Russian public. "It's 90 people with a shaky grasp of English and a rudimentary understanding of U.S. politics," as The New York Times explained back in 2015. PeterKa (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2018 (EST)

If the Russian hackers were behind hacking the DNC computer system (and it appears they were), then Russia played an important role in Trump winning because it was a close election.

The Democrats are ultimately to blame though because given their hypocrisy/corruption, they should have hardened their computer system defenses. And more importantly, they should have run a stronger candidate than Hillary Clinton and should have offered Americans solutions and a coherent message. Anti-Trump negative campaigning wasn't enough to put Democrats over the top in the 2016 presidential election. Conservative (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2018 (EST)

Dore has another video addressing the hacking claim: "NSA Genius Debunks Russiagate Once & For All." The download times that Guccifer 2.0 gives are implausibly short, at least if we are thinking in terms someone in Russia hacking the DNC over the Internet. The DNC did not allow the FBI to examine its servers, so they are hiding something. If we discount Guccifer 2.0, the only remaining basis to claim Russian hacking is the Crowdstrike report. Crowdstrike worked for the DNC and is hardly a neutral source. If Seth Rich or another outraged Bernie bro downloaded Podesta's email to a thumb drive, the download times Guccifer 2.0 gives might actually be real.

Another point William Binney makes on Dore's show it that the NSA has blanket coverage of the Internet. It is thus in a position to confirm or refute any hacking claims. Considering that this issue has been at the center of American politics for well over year now, a Congressional committee might consider taking a look at it. It would be a shame if World War III was to break out over something that never actually happened.

This Dore video explains how and why the Hillary campaign created the Russia hoax: "Jimmy Dore Explains Russia origins." Back in June 2015, the Clinton campaign commissioned some polling and found that Hillary's biggest vulnerability was the Uranium One issue. If being presented a tool of Putin was such a powerful accusation, the obvious response was make this accusation against whoever Hillary was running against. When Trump announced in December 2015, Podesta emailed this: "the best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin." So the origin of this story is projection based on the Uranium One episode, not Facebook ads or hacking. PeterKa (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2018 (EST)

PeterKa, thanks for sharing that information. The DNC will never let investigators examine their server(s) so it appears we will never know who hacked them.Conservative (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2018 (EST)

Norway, a liberal pro homosexual country that loves bestiality and hates god with a similar population to Houston, Texas wins the most medals at the Winter Olympics. Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism[54] anyone?--AdamAn (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2018 (EST)

And God makes it rain on the just as well, so what's your point? Karajou (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2018 (EST)

For the record, the right-wing populist Progress Party is part of Norway's government, and it has a very conservative immigration minister who is cracking down on mass migration: [55][56] --1990'sguy (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2018 (EST)

First, please read the article Protestant cultural legacies. The effects of cultural legacies are often very longstanding (Malcolm Gladwell points this out this matter in his book Outliers). Norway has a Lutheran cultural legacy.

Second, I suspect there is a positive correlation between wealth and Olympics sports medals attainment and not only does Norway have a Protestant cultural legacy, but it has a large amount of oil wealth as well. In addition, it has been cheating in terms of its NATO obligations (which helps its economy, but hopefully President Donald J. Trump cracks down on Norway leeching off the USA in terms of its defense budget).[57]

Third, Norway is a cold country which certainly helps it in the Winter Olympics. Let's see the Norweigans compete against the more religious Kenyans in the Summer Olympics in the event of marathon running.

Fourth, let's compare apples with apples. Are religious Norweigans more athletic than nonreligious Norweigans? Given the data in the article Sports performance: Religious faith vs. atheism, I suspect that this is so.

Sweden is more liberal than Norway[58] and liberals have a greater propensity to having problems when it comes to bestiality in terms of advocating it and engaging in it (see: Liberalism and bestiality). And although Norwegians have received some bad press regarding bestiality[59], it is the more liberal Sweden that has received considerably more bad press regarding its recent past problems with bestiality (see: Bestiality and Sweden). By the way, unlike atheists, not a single prominent, Bible believing, Protestant has ever indicated that bestiality is ever morally acceptable (See: Atheism and bestiality )! I feel so sorry for Swedish poodles, horses and sheep ! If only the prominent atheists PZ Myers and Peter Singer would step up to the morality plate and indicate that bestiality is always wrong! If sled dog racing were an Olympic sport, given the way the Swedish have treated animals, no doubt they would continually underperform in this event despite their Protestant cultural legacy.

Checkmate atheists! You've lost yet another battle! Conservative (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2018 (EST)

There are so many joke sports at the Olympics now that overall medal count is almost meaningless. In the most competitive sports, like ice hockey and figure skating, Norway failed to win a single medal. In contrast, Christian athletes of Russia swept the top medals despite not even having a country to compete for.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2018 (EST)

Actually, my position on NATO/US/Norway/defense budgets as a percentage of GDP is more nuanced. It seems that having big military budgets when it comes to spending on big military hardware is rather useless. Fourth-generation warfare is enabling various groups to very often beat countries with a large amount of military hardware. See: Fourth-generation warfare and the end of the Westphalian Order-William S. Lind.

The state is becoming weaker and weaker[60] and this is very bad news for atheists which have been very dependent on the state to promote their ideology (see: Atheism and politics and Atheist indoctrination and Decline of the secular left). Conservative (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2018 (EST)

What motives the British atheist User:AdamAn to post to Conservapedia's main page talk page? No doubt is due to Conservapedia repeatedly pointing out on its main page that Britain has been on the decline post Charles Darwin/evolutionism.

In addition, Conservapedia helped cause British new atheist Richard Dawkins' public support to be crushed in the court of public opinion (see: Richard Dawkins' loss of influence). Not only did Ms. Magazine quote Conservapedia in its article on New Atheism/Dawkins and feminism, but Conservapedia was the impetus for a SJW/pro-feminism/atheist website to be launched. Monica Shores wrote at Ms. Magazine about Dawkins' website, "The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that Dawkins’ website overwhelmingly attracts male visitors."[61] And feminism/SJWism was instrumental in killing the atheist movement and Dawkins' public support (see: Decline of the atheist movement and Elevatorgate). An ancillary effect of pro-feminism atheism is no doubt a lower fertility rate among atheists which has a suppressing effect on the size of the atheist population (see: Atheism and fertility rates).

So what is the state of British atheism post Dawkins' loss of influence? The Guardian recently reported that Britain may have hit "peak secular" (see: UK and secularism).[62]

Of course, Britain continuing to open to the floodgates of immigration is also causing Britain to have likely hit peak secular (Both Islam and evangelical/pentecostal Christianity are growing in Britain). Conservative (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2018 (EST)

By the way, given the Censorious Left’s Latest Mania: ‘Decolonizing’ Everything and obsession with race/racism, I do find it ironic that a left leaning British atheist points out that a largely white/European nation wins the most Winter Olympic gold (Last time I checked my history books, Britain did contribute to colonialism and evolutionary racism).Conservative (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2018 (EST)

What motives the British atheist User:AdamAn to post to Conservapedia's main page talk page? Why to pluck your strings and watch you sing of course. It works every time without fail .--AdamAn (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2018 (EST)

AdamAn, on more than one occasion you expressed your displeasure concerning Conservapedia's Atheism and bestiality article. The article really seems to get under your skin. Because there is so much bestiality going on in the atheist population, the article is about 37 pages long (according to Firefox's print preview function).Conservative (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2018 (EST)

After reading this, I had a look at the Atheism and Bestiality page. My kids will not now be using Conservapedia without adult supervision because I don't want to have any kind of conversation about the subject. I wonder what the many homeschooling families who use this site think of this kind of filth? Rafael (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2018 (EST)

You apparently haven't seen Wikipedia's article on bestiality -- especially compared to those pages, CP's articles on these topics are very clean. Most kids in the West are already seeing (and are even used to) R-rated sexual content at a young age, like what's present on many of Wikipedia's articles, and in a time where our culture is (unfortunately) so sex-saturated and R-rated, I don't see how it's practical to completely hide stuff like this to kids. The better option is for parents to talk about these R-rated topics in a clean/appropriate way and educate their kids on this before the West's degrading culture reaches them. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2018 (EST)

The Bible mentions bestiality more than once. The Bible is considered family friendly.Conservative (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2018 (EST)

I don't know about you, 1990s Guy, but I don't use Wikipedia as a moral yardstick. Rafael (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2018 (EST)

I never said I did either -- my point is that I hope you're being consistent and blocking your kids from using Wikipedia. If a Wiki (CP) merely talks about bestiality in a clean way, surely you're even more disgusted at Wikipedia, which discusses the topic (and many other sex-related topics) in a very graphic manner (including the use of multiple pictures of people in the act). Also, Wikipedia has a bad porn problem,[63][64] which was so bad that the site decided a few years back that it would stop trying to rid itself of it.[65] --1990'sguy (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2018 (EST)

I stongly agree with Rafael here. I have been through this subject with Cons many times, including the incredibly childish "But Dad! That word is in the Bible!" nonsense that people with single-digit ages often go through. We're adults now, and we should act that way. The bestiality material at Conservapedia is really disgraceful. I think that most users, like Rafael and myself, are ashamed of it. The admins ought to intervene. SamHB (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2018 (EST)

It is not so much that bestiality articles exist, it is a real problem that deserves to be addressed. It is the fact that bestiality which is no way funny is treated as a subject of comedy. Show a picture of a cute poodle and imply that atheists make love to it, ha ha ha, is not funny. Rape, incest and child abuse are other subjects treated this way--RSturmer (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2018 (EST)

No comment on the article specifics (though I do want to know where on CP it "is treated as a subject of comedy", as "RSturmer", whoever he is, claims?), but if these topics are discussed in a mature and clean way, there's no reason we can't discuss them -- in fact, it's better that we discuss them than other places like Wikipedia.

And it's true that under Rafael's standards (and maybe also SamHB's), the Bible would be labeled an "R-rated" book -- there's sex, rape, incest, nudity, and possibly homosexuality (Genesis 9) in it -- not just bestiality (though I'm not aware of passages that discuss that). It shows that the people in the Bible were real people who were just as affected by sin as people today. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2018 (EST)

Liberals/evolutionists/atheists have had notable problems when it comes to issue of bestiality. I documented this matter using many mainstream/reliable courses. Conservative, Bible believing, young earth creationists haven't had notable problems with bestiality. I know this is upsetting to some people, nevertheless this is the case. See: Liberalism and bestiality and Evolutionary belief and bestiality and Atheism and bestiality.

Instead of criticizing the documenting of the misdeeds of liberals/evolutionists/atheists, the critics should do more to curb the beastly behavior going on in these groups of individuals.Conservative (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2018 (EST)