Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Rush Limbaugh

2014-12-01T01:03:57Z

Bobthecob2:

[[File:Binglogo.jpg|right|The Bing logo]]
'''Rush Limbaugh''' (born January 12, 1951) is an American radio talk show host popular with an older, largely male, audience. The typical listener to Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio is a 67-year-old white male. Married and divorced three times -- and now married for the fourth time -- Limbaugh participated in the [[media bullying]] of [[Todd Akin]] in August 2012, along with other [[RINO Backers]].<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80003.html#ixzz253Tv1IjT</ref><ref>http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/08/21/akin_s_remark_was_stupid_and_untrue_now_he_must_put_the_nation_s_future_first</ref>

Limbaugh has claimed that his radio show reaches 20 million listeners, but at least one analyst estimates that perhaps only about 1.4 million listeners are tuning into his show at any given time.<ref>http://www.businessinsider.com/rush-limbaughs-audience-may-be-so-much-smaller-than-you-think-2012-3</ref>

Limbaugh's gig has been described by a conservative publication as "lowbrow conservatism" and a "carny barker."<ref>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-radio-wrecks-the-right/</ref> Talk radio has likely interfered with growth in the conservative movement among young people, and it is difficult to identify a single conservative achievement attributable to Limbaugh. Since Limbaugh's radio show became associated nationally with the Republican Party about 25 years ago, Republicans have won the popular vote in only one presidential election.

Rush Limbaugh's show is advertiser supported, which creates a financial incentive for him not to say what needs to be said, and not to stand up for the [[Bible]] in a meaningful manner.

== Media bullying of Todd Akin ==
Congressman Todd Akin is the [[Republican Party]] nominee for one of the most-watched races for the [[U.S. Senate]] in 2012. He has represented a portion of the greater [[St. Louis]], [[Missouri]] area in the [[House of Representatives]] since 2000 (Missouri's 2nd congressional district).

On August 19, 2012, in a local television interview with KTVI, Akin rejected a suggestion that there should be a broad [[rape]] exception to limits on [[abortion]]. He distinguished between an actual rape and a false allegation of rape by referring to the former as a "legitimate rape," terminology that the [[liberal media]] then unfairly took out of context to engage in demagoguery against him.

Perhaps fearful of losing an advertiser, even though he's already made millions by pretending to be [[conservative]], Limbaugh piled on with the [[media bullying]] against Akin. He called Akin's comment "stupid" and then, illustrating his foolish self-centeredness, declared that "If I had demanded Akin drop out, he’d be gone."<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80003.html#ixzz253Tv1IjT</ref> Limbaugh added, "What I think Mr. Akin should try to realize here as he makes his decision is that all of these things that he truly cares about will be much easier to make happen if we win the Senate and the White House and hold the House this November. He must put the nation and its future ahead of everything else that he's considering. And I hope he comes to the right conclusion."<ref>http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/08/21/akin_s_remark_was_stupid_and_untrue_now_he_must_put_the_nation_s_future_first</ref>

True conservatives stood with principle and defended Akin's remarks, and his right to remain in the race.<ref>http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=004DDFAC-6907-452E-93F5-62D3793BBABE</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/21/tony-perkins-gop-treatment-of-akin-suspect/</ref><ref>http://www.rollcall.com/news/missouri_delegates_still_support_todd_akin_despite_controversy-217050-1.html</ref><ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57497428-503544/rep-steve-king-backs-up-todd-akin-weighs-in-on-rape-and-abortion/</ref><ref>[http://mycn2.com/politics/rand-paul-reticent-to-weigh-in-on-akin-s-future-but-says-akin-s-comment-was-incorrect Rand Paul reticent to weigh in on Akin's future but says Akin's comment was incorrect] by Ryan Alessi, mycn2.com, August 22, 2012, retrieved August 24, 2012</ref><ref>http://akin.org/huckabee-chip-in</ref><ref>http://hinterlandgazette.com/2012/08/social-conservatives-including-frc-head-tony-perkins-defending-rep-todd-akins-legitimate-rape-comment.html</ref><ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80049.html</ref><ref>http://buchanan.org/blog/a-grand-old-party-in-panic-2-5223</ref>

== Early Years ==
Rush Hudson Limbaugh III was born in 1951 in Cape Girardeau, [[Missouri]]. At age 16, he chose to explore his passion for broadcasting by working as a [[disc jockey]], hosting a radio show in his hometown. After four years, he left for [[Pittsburgh]] to work for the former [[ABC News|ABC]] owned and operated ''KQV''. Following his work as a disc jockey, Rush briefly left broadcasting for [[business]], joining the [[Kansas City Royals]] as Director of Group Sales, and then Director of Sales and Special Events. In 1983, he re-entered radio as a political commentator for ''KMBZ'' in [[Kansas City]]. A year later, in 1984, Rush dropped out of [[college]] after his freshman year to pursue work full-time as a disk jockey, when ''KFBK'' in [[Sacramento]], [[California]] hired him to host a talk show that reveled in controversy about conservative politics. Limbaugh tripled the program's ratings in four years. From there, in 1988 he went on to [[New York]] where the record-breaking national show, the ''EIB Network'', was born.

On August 1, 1988, Rush launched his phenomenally successful radio broadcast into national syndication, with 56 radio stations. More than 20 years later the show is heard on nearly 600 stations by up to 20 million people each week and is the highest-rated national radio talk show in America. Rush was awarded the "Syndicated Radio Personality" of the year by the [[National Association of Broadcasters]] in 1992, 1995, 2000, and 2005. He was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 1993 and National Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame in 1998. Rush Limbaugh has been labeled as the savior of AM radio by broadcast industry leaders, sometimes called the "Doctor of Democracy."<ref name=doctor>[http://www.twoifbytea.com/doctor.php Rush Limbaugh, the "Doctor of Democracy"], [[Two If By Tea|TwoIfByTea.com]].</ref>

== Radio ==
Limbaugh hosts a radio show famed for its incisive criticism of the follies of liberalism. He is often the target of liberal's ''[[ad hominem]]'' attacks, such as Democrat Sen. [[Al Franken]], who wrote a book entitled ''"Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot"''. Limbaugh generically refers to [[feminists]] who advocate [[abortion]] as ''feminazis'' and to his own self as having "talent on loan from God". Sensitive about his own schooling, he ridicules the college educated as the "Arts & Croissant Crowd."

Limbaugh's conservative talk show is nationally syndicated and averages over 16-20 million listeners weekly, making him the #1 radio talk show host in America
<ref>[http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34 The Top Talk Radio Audiences] Talkers magazine online</ref> for three decades. In July 2008, Rush announced "he has renewed his contract with Premiere Radio Networks and Clear Channel Radio, continuing syndication of his show 'many years into the future.'" <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27326 Rush Renews Contract], ''[[Human Events]]'', July, 2, 2008</ref>

=== Audience ===
Limbaugh's fans enjoy his bluster and bombast, but behind it there is a substantive defense of a coherent political philosophy. He makes politics engaging and entertaining, producing an audience more eager to seek out other sources of information. Limbaugh "dittoheads" consume more print news than do non-listeners. Like Fox News viewers, Limbaugh fans are more likely to tune in to presidential debates. Far from making people cynical or indifferent toward public affairs, Limbaugh reinforces his audience's disposition to participate in the political process.<ref>Jamieson and Cappella (2008) </ref>

Conservative Republicans are in his audience, but educational attainment, family income, and race do not predict who listens. Listening to Limbaugh is significantly correlated with public affairs information. He is not merely an entertainer and people who listen to him regularly are very well informed on public affairs. However, his radio audience is smaller than the TV audiences of conservative commentators [[Bill O'Reilly]] and [[Sean Hannity]].<ref> Stephen Earl Bennett, " Who Listens to Rush Limbaugh's Radio Program and the Relationship Between Listening to Limbaugh and Knowledge of Public Affairs, 1994-2006," ''Journal of Radio & Audio Media,'' May 2009, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p66-82, in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

=== Poking fun at Obama liberals ===
Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said on MSNBC's "Hardball" that Obama was "sort of God."

Asking rhetorically what [[God]] has in common with Obama, Limbaugh said, "Neither has a birth certificate." <ref>[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100717 Rush Limbaugh pummels Obama on birth certificate] WND, June 10, 2009</ref> He went on to say "God does not think he's Obama," and "Liberals love Obama." Limbaugh explained more differences, "Another difference is that God only demands to be worshiped once a week," and "God asks for only 10 percent of your money", and "God gives you freedom to live your life as you choose."

=== Obama to Fail ===
Limbaugh made national headlines when he was asked to write 400 words for a newspaper column about Obama's plans. He said he didn't need 400 words, he needed just four: "I hope he fails." He was immediately attacked by the Obama White House and liberal pundits as an unpatriotic obstructionist. Limbaugh expounded his view in the show's [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html transcript]; if Obama is for socialist policies and against capitalist policies, of course Limbaugh could not support those policies, and hoped he would fail. <ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html Limbaugh radio show transcript.]</ref>

Limbaugh addressed [[CPAC]] and further discussed his stance that generated so much attention. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/01/limbaugh-leader-obama-chief-staff-calls-talk-host-barrier-progress/ Limbaugh the Leader? Obama Chief of Staff] Fox News, March 01, 2009</ref> {{cquote| ''"Did the Democrats want the war in Iraq to fail? Well, they certainly did. And they not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure. ... The last thing they wanted was to win. They hoped George Bush failed. So where is it -- what is so strange about being honest and saying, I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that [[capitalism]] and individual [[liberty]] are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?"'' }}

Former Republican National Chairman Michael Steele called Limbaugh an "entertainer" whose comments were "incendiary" and "ugly," and Limbaugh counterattacked Steele's fitness to run the party. A Gallup poll in May 2009 on who was the main voice of the GOP found Limbaugh leading the pack at 13%, with Steele trailing at 1%.

== Other Media Work ==
During the early years of his radio show, Limbaugh also had a syndicated, self-titled half-hour television show patterned along the lines of his radio show. ''Rush Limbaugh'' ran from 1992 to 1996. <ref>[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103531/ ''Rush Limbaugh'' (TV series)] at the Internet Movie Database</ref>

''The Limbaugh Letter'' is a monthly publication that contains conservative articles and humor in Rush's style.

Limbaugh is involved in the conservative satire show ''The 1/2 Hour News Hour'' show on the [[Fox News Channel]]. <ref>
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602098.html Fox News Channel's '1/2 Hour News Hour': Right Funny, in Spots] washingtonpost.com</ref>

Rush occasionally writes op-ed pieces for the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]''.

== Politics ==
Limbaugh endorsed [[Mitt Romney]] for the [[2008 Presidential Election]]. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/ThisHour.asp#Limbaugh%20Endorses%20Romney Limbaugh Endorses Romney], [[Melanie Hunter]], ''[[CNSNews]]'', February 05, 2008</ref> He was often critical of [[John McCain]] during the Republican primaries, but supported him in the general election.

Limbaugh has warned against false prophets, telling his audience in 1996 that, "You are being manipulated in a way that I find very bothersome." "Pat Buchanan is not a conservative. He's a populist."<ref>See [http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/23/us/politics-on-the-air-radio-talk-show-host-fears-for-true-conservatism-s-fate.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fL%2fLimbaugh%2c%20Rush Robin Toner, "Radio Talk Show Host Fears For True Conservatism's Fate," ''New York Times'' Feb. 23, 1996]</ref>.

=== The Harry Reid Letter ===
On October 2, 2007, Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] wrote a letter to Mark P. Mays, President and CEO of Clear Channel Communications, who is Limbaugh's chief patron. In it Senator Reid essentially demanded that Mays order Limbaugh to apologize for remarks he made concerning "phony soldiers."<ref name=ReidText>Reid, Harry, ''et al.'' "[http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=284699 Letter to Mark P. Mays of Clear Channel Communications]." [http://reid.senate.gov/ Electronic Office of US Senator Harry Reid], October 2, 2007. Retrieved October 19, 2007.</ref> A ''phony soldier'' is someone who is not a soldier at all but is pretending to be one, especially in a public forum. Such activity is unlawful, and the faker whose activity prompted Limbaugh's attacks has since been convicted and punished.<ref name=PhonySoldier>Limbaugh, Rush. "[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html The Anatomy of a Smear: 'Phony Soldiers' Is a Phony Story]." ''[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Rush Limbaugh Official Site]'', accessed December 25, 2007.</ref> This letter was co-signed by nearly all Democratic senators. In a speech in Philadelphia on October 11th, Limbaugh announced plans to sell the original letter on eBay in a charity auction. The proceeds went to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation. The letter sold for $2.1 million and Limbaugh matched the winning amount with a total of $4.2 million being donated. <ref>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/420889/harry_reidrush_limbaugh_letter_nets.html</ref>

=== Victim of a Democratic prosecutor's witchhunt ===
On October 6, 2003 Limbaugh told his audience he was addicted to OxyContin and other painkillers citing a failed back surgery as the cause of his pain and subsequent dependence. <ref>The Rush Limbaugh Show, October 6, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/ "Limbaugh admits addiction to pain medication"</ref> Limbaugh underwent treatment for his addiction, and charges against him for alleged "doctor shopping" to procure prescription medications were dropped<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/28/national/main1561324.shtml</ref> after Democratic prosecutors illegally seized private medical records<ref>http://archive.newsmax.com/hottopics/Rush_Limbaugh.shtml </ref> in a blatant misuse of the criminal justice system to discredit Limbaugh.

===Fluke Incident===
In March of 2012, Sandra Fluke, a 30-year-old former [[Georgetown]] law student, gave testimony in support of an Obama directive to have private healthcare cover contraception. Fluke chose Georgetown's law school despite knowing that its healthcare plan does not cover contraception,<ref>Holt, Mytheos. "Sandra Fluke: A Fake Victim of Georgetown's Policy on Contraceptives?" March 3, 2012. The Blaze. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sandra-fluke-a-fake-victim-of-georgetowns-policy-on-contraceptives/</ref> but she then complained that contraception was expensive and that Georgetown's student health insurance should cover the cost. Limbaugh responded to her comments on his show where he said that her insurance paying for her to have sex made her a "slut" and a "prostitute."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-limbaugh-apology-20120303,0,6854957.story Rush Limbaugh apologizes for 'slut' remarks aimed at Sandra Fluke</ref> He later went on to say that he would agree to the payment if she would film herself having sex and put the video online. After several days of backlash, which included condemnations from both parties and advertisers backing out, Limbaugh apologized, saying he "did not mean a personal attack" on Fluke and had used poor word choice but reiterated his opposition to her comments.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109876/Rush-Limbaugh-apologises-calling-student-Sandra-Fluke-slut.html 'I sincerely apologise': Rush Limbaugh says sorry for calling student a 'slut' in row over birth control which led advertisers to boycott show</ref><ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2012/0303/What-Rush-Limbaugh-actually-apologized What?? Rush Limbaugh actually apologized!!</ref>

== Sports ==
Limbaugh is an avid sports fan, particularly football. He briefly held a position as a commentator on ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown pre-game show. He resigned from the show on October 2, 2006 after comments made regarding Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb received widespread criticism.

{{cquote|''' ''"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."'' '''}}

After McNabb's response, "It's sad that you've got to go to skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal," significant pressure was put upon Limbaugh to resign. <ref>http://espn.go.com/gen/news/2003/1001/1628537.html</ref>

== Other Facts ==
The following is a list of other facts about Rush Limbaugh:<ref name=doctor/>
* Honorary Member of the [[Republican]] Freshman Class 1995 [[House of Representatives]].
* [[Time Magazine]]’s 100 Most Influential People in the world (2009).
* [[Forbes|Forbes Magazine]] 50 Most Powerful Celebrities in the United States, numerous years (#19 in 2010).
* [[Barbara Walters]]’ 10 Most Fascinating People (2008).
* The Giving Back Fund’s 10 Most Generous Celebrities for contributions to charities and individuals, such as the [[Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation]].
* Raised 20 Million Dollars for the [[Leukemia]] and [[Lymphoma Society]] since 1989. Each year Rush hosts a Radiothon (one three-hour broadcast per year) during his program to raise funds for Leukemia and Lymphoma research.
* Author of ''The Limbaugh Letter'', the most widely read political newsletter in the country and two best-selling books, ''The Way Things Ought to Be'' (ISBN 067175145x) and ''See, I Told You So'' (ISBN 067187120X), which have sold over 8.9 million copies, including an American publishing record for ''See, I Told You So''.
* Guest Television appearances include ''[[Nightline]]'' with [[Ted Koppel]], ''Cross Fire'', ''[[Good Morning America]]'', ''[[CBS|CBS This Morning]]'', ''[[The Today Show]]'', ''The Phil Donahue Show'', ''[[The Late Show]]'' with [[David Letterman]], ''[[The Tonight Show]]'', ''[[This Week]]'' with [[David Brinkley]], ''[[Meet the Press]]'' with [[Tim Russert]], and [[The Drew Carey Show]]. Rush also starred as himself in the popular network sitcoms ''[[Family Guy]]'' and ''[[Hearts Afire]]''.
* Profiled on CBS's ''60 Minutes'', [[ABC]]'s ''20/20'' and in numerous publications including ''[[U.S. News and World Report]]'', ''[[Newsweek]]'', ''[[National Review]]'', ''[[Time Magazine]]'', ''[[New York Times|The New York Times Magazine]]'' and ''[[USA Weekend]]''.
* ''Miss America Pageant'' judge (2010).

== Quotes ==
* "You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one." - Rush Limbaugh, 17 Aug 1993
* "Militant feminists are pro-choice because it's their ultimate avenue of power over men. And believe me, to them it is a question of power. It is their attempt to impose their will on the rest of society, particularly on men." - Rush Limbaugh, Oct 1992

== The Rush Limbaugh Lexicon ==
Like Mark Levin and others, Rush Limbaugh holds a lexicon for many liberals and Democrats, although Rush's lexicon is less expansive as Mark Levin's

*[[Mainstream Media]] = Drive-by Media
*[[CNN]] = Communist News Network (was originally called the "Clinton News Network" during the [[Clinton administration]].)
*[[Barack Obama]] = Barack "Mmm mmm mmm" Obama (This is in reference to the propagandist school song about Obama)
*[[Joe Biden]] = Joe Bite-Me
*[[Harry Reid]] = Dingy Harry
*[[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]] = Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz
*[[John Edwards]] = Breck girl
*[[Nancy Pelosi]] = Bela Pelosi
*Barbra Walters = Baba Wawa
*Chuck Todd = F Chuck Todd
*[[Ben Affleck]] = Ben Affliction
*Paul Begala = The Forehead
*[[Chuck Schumer]] = Chuck You Schumer

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Rush Limbaugh|Articles about '''Rush Limbaugh''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Rush Derangement Syndrome]]

==External Links==
* [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Rush Limbaugh] - Official website
* [http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/LimbaughMuseum/Iphone2/PRELOAD_Outside.html The Limbaugh Museum of Broadcasting]
* [http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15919 Rush's 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Speech] - ''C-SPAN'', February 28, 2009
* [http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/rush-limbaugh/id406055530?mt=8#ls=1 The Rush Limbaugh Show] - [[iPhone]] app, by Premiere Radio Networks, Inc.

==Further reading==
* Gordon, Scott. ''Rush Limbaugh: An Oral & Media Biography'' (2009). 258pp quotes and comments by his friends and enemies.
* Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Joseph N. Cappella. ''Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment'' (2008) balanced analysis by scholars; compares Limbaugh with Fox and ''Wall Street Journal'' [http://www.amazon.com/Echo-Chamber-Limbaugh-Conservative-Establishment/dp/0195398602/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261865854&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Limbaugh, Rush}}

[[Category:Broadcasters]]
[[Category:Republicans]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Rino backers]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

Gun

2014-12-01T01:03:12Z

Bobthecob2:

[[File:Binglogo.jpg|right|The Bing logo]]

The '''gun''' is a mechanical [[weapon]] which uses expanding gas or some other propulsion method to fire a [[bullet]], [[dart]] or other projectile through a hollow tube called a barrel.

The four main types of modern [[firearm]]s today are bolt-operated, pump action, semi-automatic, and [[automatic weapons]]. In a bolt-action weapon, each new round must be loaded manually, by moving the breech to eject the empty casing. In pump action guns (usually shotguns) a new round must be manually loaded by pulling back on pump of the gun, located underneath the barrel.

In semi-automatic weapons, each pull of the trigger fires a bullet, each shot ejecting spent brass and loading new ammunition until the magazine is depleted. In fully automatic weapons, bullets will be fired as long as the trigger is depressed. Fully automatic fire will cause the gun to heat up very quickly, which can become dangerous as it can burn exposed flesh and because rounds may "cook off" or fire unexpectedly due to the chamber becoming hot enough to ignite the propellant.

==History==

[[Gunpowder]] was invented around the 800s AD. Firearms appeared after 1200, and became military weapons around 1600. The musket could not hit a small target, so armies fired them in volleys, giving a shotgun effect. Rifles were indeed accurate but were very slow to reload until the 1850s, when an expanding-base bullet was invented. Rifles were the main weapon on both sides of the [[American Civil War]].

In the United States, widespread gun ownership allowed settlers to quickly tame the entire continent and paved the way for entrepreneurs who drove the economic engine behind America's superpower status. Today, gun ownership is not only a tool for self protection, but for sport and for environmental protection. Hunters have been the most effective voice behind the movement to preserve America's natural abundance of fish, game and majestic forest. By helping to manage animal populations, funding conservation efforts through permit fees and taxes, and advocating for the responsible use of America's resources, hunters have been able to preserve a tradition of uniquely American self-reliance and ruggedness that stands as an ideal for others to follow.

==Gun control==
[[Gun control]] consists of limitations on the ownership of firearms, and by extension restricts the fundamental right of self-defense.

[[Conservative]]s usually emphasize the individual [[the right to self-defense]] through the use of guns. [[Liberal]]s more often stress the dangers of unrestricted ownership. They are, however, much more likely than conservatives to oppose measures to educate the public about proper gun use and safety. Conservative gun safety measures in several states are currently languishing in liberal-dominated legistlative committees due to obstructionist political maneuvering by Democrats.

Guns are said to be effective at deterring crime and protecting the gun owner. Scientific studies point to dramatic drops in crime as non-criminal gun ownership rises as proof that universal gun ownership is a deterrent to violence. Police officers often use guns to enforce the law, except in some countries where the police are not armed. The mere presence of a gun often discourages criminals from attempting to resist arrest or harm an officer. The lack of armed police can actually increase violence towards officers, who must rely on less-effective means of controlling criminals. England, where police are famous for not being armed, recently suffered a breakdown in police effectiveness when a liberal riot mob managed to shut down parts of London for several days and cause massive amounts of damage to local businesses and homes.

===Ireland===
In the Republic of Ireland, the Garda Síochána has since its foundation held that uniformed officers do not carry guns - "The Garda Síochána will succeed not by force of arms or numbers, but on their moral authority as servants of the people", as the first Commissioner said<ref>http://www.garda.ie/faq.html#G4</ref>. The current Commissioner of the Gardaí has stated that "we do not live in a 'gun culture'", despite a recent rash of armed crime. In Iceland, there are no armed forces, including the Police, and all Police only carry a baton on duty.<ref>http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Iceland/Default.htm</ref> In addition, the regular Police forces of the UK<ref>http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=535071&in_page_id=1770</ref> and the Police Force of New Zealand do not carry firearms while on normal patrol, or in the latter case describe themselves as "generally unarmed"<ref>http://www.police.govt.nz/about/history.html</ref>. However, each of these Police forces also has highly trained specialist teams of armed Police, who are brought into play at time of need.

Studies have repeatedly shown that law-abiding citizens carrying guns are an effective deterrent against crime<ref>http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/467988</ref><ref>http://saf.org/kleck1998.pdf</ref><ref>http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/8926.html</ref>. Further comparison between different states by [[John Lott]] indicates that states that have more conservative gun laws have lower crime rates, violent crime rates, and firearms [[homicide]]s than states with more liberal gun laws.

== Science Fiction ==

[[Science fiction]], such as [[Star Trek]], has postulated many different types of directed energy weapons. These are guns that fire beams, waves, or packets of energy. Some energy guns can be set to stun, not to wound or kill. Most firearms legislation would not classify these as firearms, so their ownership would be unrestricted.

== Miniguns ==

One unusual type of gun is a minigun. Despite what you would think from the name, a minigun is the biggest of all small-arms. A minigun has multiple barrels which are driven by a loud electric motor. This allows it to have a very high rate of fire, and is a major difference from the systems of operation described at the top of the article.

Miniguns are commonly seen in the movies, notable examples being [[Terminator 2]] and [[Predator]], where miniguns can be seen exploding multiple police cars or cutting down whole areas of forest. In reality miniguns probably cannot actually cut down trees, and standard 7.62mm ball ammunition would not cause a car to explode, although a [[tracer]] round might if it hit the gas tank.

==See also==
*[[Gun control]]
*[[Sarah Palin]]
*[[Gun facts]]

==Further reading==
* Hess, Earl J. ''The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat: Reality and Myth.'' (2008) 288 pages, ISBN 978-0-7006-1607-7

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.nra.org The National Rifle Association] Everything firearm related. Includes information on Second Amendment rights, NRA Training and Education, Politics and Legislation pertaining to gun rights.
*[http://www.a-human-right.com/ A Human Right] Discussion of the human right to self defense with a firearm.
*[http://www.learnaboutguns.com/ Learn About Guns] Firearm information and politics from a pro-firearms perspective.
*[http://www.gunowners.org/ Gun Owners of America] A no-compromise pro-gun lobby in Washington, D.C.

[[Category:Guns]]

ObamaCare

2014-12-01T00:59:19Z

Bobthecob2:

[[File:Binglogo.jpg|right|The Bing logo]]
'''ObamaCare''', formally known as "'''The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'''," (ACA) will impose massive penalties on young workers, small businesses and others who choose not to buy expensive health insurance, beginning in 2014. ObamaCare is the biggest handout by [[liberals]] to a single interest group — the health insurance industry — in [[America]]n history. Even [[Democrat]]ic Senator [[Jim Webb]] admitted in 2012: Obamacare "cost [[Obama]] a lot of credibility as a leader."<ref>http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/222259-sen-webb-says-president-obamas-health-law-cost-him-a-lot-of-credibility-as-a-leader</ref> On June 28, 2012, the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare — by only one vote, 5-4 — as being within the taxing power of the federal government. Since then, leading Democrats have described ObamaCare as a "train wreck," and [[union]]s increasingly agree with [[conservatives]] that Obamacare should be repealed.<ref>http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/300881-labor-unions-break-ranks-on-health-law</ref>

The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS) pointed out that there are no redeeming provisions of Obama's health care plan.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00377</ref> AAPS observes that Obama's health care plan will significantly increase the overall cost of health care for a majority of United States citizens, plus reduce the quality of care that a [[free market]] system would otherwise provide.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00377</ref>

Obamacare will soon cause havoc and harm to tens of millions of Americans: 28 million Americans will be caught in a "massive game of health coverage pingpong" due to Obamacare.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-medi-cal-churn-20130520,0,5572821.story</ref>

As of April 2014, the House of Representatives has voted 55 times to scale back or repeal the law, but none of those proposals has received consideration in the Senate.<ref name=fulltime/>

__TOC__
[[File:Jane orient.jpg|right|200px|thumbnail|Dr. Jane Orient, Director of the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS). The [[conservative]] doctors' association the AAPS has always been against Obamacare while the liberal [[American Medical Association]] endorsed it.<ref>[http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/article/the_right_not_to_work_for_obamacare/ The right not to work for Obamacare]</ref><ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/why-the-ama-endorses-obamacare-but-your-doctor-does-not/ Why the AMA endorses Obamacare]</ref> ]]
Obamacare is opposed by many state governors, including [[Florida]] Governor [[Rick Scott]]. He declared after the Supreme Court ruling, "I will not implement this law. Florida will not implement Obamacare." Scott encouraged other states to reject Obamacare in three ways:

*opt out of the expensive Medicaid provision in ObamaCare, which would incur massive costs in extending free care to those over the poverty line
*refuse to set up a [[health-insurance exchange]] - "If there were any value added by these exchanges, the private sector would be doing it already," Governor Scott observed
*repeal Obamacare in Congress, which requires electing a [[Republican]] majority in the [[U.S. Senate]]

Obamacare was passed by [[Congress]] on March 21, 2010, and signed into federal law by President [[Barack Obama]] on March 23. This law furthers the process of [[Socialism|socializing]] the [[United States]] [[health care]] system begun with [[Medicare]].<ref>Epic [[Direct_spending#New_spending|new spending]] and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html Nancy Pelosi's New Health-Care Bill], ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', November 01, 2009.</ref><ref>[[President Obama]], Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] and House Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, much more is known about the bill than when it was passed into law. [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html Examiner Editorial: Obamacare is even worse than critics thought], ''Washington Examiner'', September 22, 2010.</ref> The centerpiece of Obamacare is the individual mandate, a provision that makes it mandatory for every citizen to purchase private health insurance, which is unprecedented in American history. Through legislative mandates, Obamacare requires private citizens to purchase health insurance, involuntarily fund [[abortion]]s, and pay for sex offenders to use Viagra under the threat of legal sanctions if they do not. The new law imposes penalties that will increase to 2.5% of one's income if he fails to purchase government-approved health insurance.

On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court voted 5–4 that, while ObamaCare exceeded Congress’s authority under the commerce clause, the law was a permissible tax under the Constitution. <ref>[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf]</ref>. The constitutionality of Obamacare was originally challenged under the theory that it exceeded the limitations of the commerce clause; more than 20 federal lawsuits have been filed against Obamacare since President Barack Obama signed it into law.<ref>By Janet Adamy and Evan Perez. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704058704576015631138296112.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth Federal Judge to Rule on Health Law's Constitutionality], WSJ.com, December 13, 2010.</ref><ref>By Rep. [[Lamar Smith]]. [http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/19/rep-lamar-smith-voting-repeal-new-health-care-law/ REP. LAMAR SMITH: Why I Am Voting to Repeal the New Health Care Law], ''[[Fox News]]'' (FoxNews.com), Published January 19, 2011.</ref> In total, 27 states have started or joined in a lawsuit against Obamacare.<ref>Brandon Stewart. [http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/17/list-of-states-suing-over-obamacare/ List of 27 States Suing Over Obamacare], heritage.org, January 17, 2011.</ref> A federal judge ruled on 13 December 2010 that a central component of ObamaCare, the requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty, violates the Constitution. U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is quoted as saying the law "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."<ref name=unconstitutional>Judge Rules Mandatory Insurance Unconstitutional; First Round of Long Battle. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703727804576017552229615230.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEADNewsCollection Court Strikes at Health Law], By Janet Adamy (WSJ.com), December 14, 2010.</ref> Then on 31 January 2011 federal judge Roger Vinson ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/31/judges-ruling-health-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debate/ Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional], [[Fox News|FoxNews.com]], Published January 31, 2011.</ref><ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/content/home/daily/site_020111/content/01125106.guest.html Obamacare Ruled Unconstitutional, But Fight for Repeal Must Continue], RushLimbaugh.com, February 1, 2011.</ref> The U.S. district judge declared Obamacare unconstitutional because it violates the [[Commerce Clause]]. In a footnote attached to the ruling, federal judge Roger Vinson cited Barack Obama's position in 2008 from an interview with [[CNN]], when Obama stated that, "If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house."<ref>Stephen Dinan. [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/ Judge uses Obama’s words against him], ''[[The Washington Times]]'', January 31, 2011.</ref>

The [[Congressional Budget Office]] (CBO) estimates the invasive revenue generating device could produce as much as $36 billion over ten years.<ref>[http://allnurses-central.com/world-news-current/proposed-senate-plan-405168.html Proposed Senate Plan Would Involve IRS in Collecting Fines from Non-participants], ALLNURSES CENTRAL, Jul 03, 2009.</ref> The fines are euphemistically dubbed "shared responsibility payments."<ref>http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/cbo-reports-entitlements-and-shared-responsibility</ref> Employers would be required to deduct the penalties from employees' paychecks.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00421</ref> The State of [[Massachusetts]] has had a similar program in place for several years, and many have elected to pay the penalties rather than purchase insurance, and many remain uninsured.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/00421</ref>

ObamaCare will do more than detrimentally impact healthcare accessibility. According to the [[Heritage Foundation]], Obama is intentionally sacrificing millions of jobs, at a time when unemployment is around 10%, with the Medicare surtax without any objective exception of increases in revenues.<ref>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/03/Obamas-Capital-Gains-Tax-Hike-Unlikely-to-Increase-Revenues</ref> ObamaCare will cost 650,000 U.S. jobs if it is not repealed. The Congressional Budget Office says the figure would be more than 800,000 people would lose their jobs. <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-director-says-obamacare-would-reduce-employment-800000-workers_547288.html CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers, Weekly Standard, February 10, 2011]</ref>

==Bill History==
===Background===
In the 1940's in the wake of World War II, European countries and Canada rebuilt their health care systems on a single-payer model. However, the United States continued its system of private health care insurance, which was largely paid by employers to cover the health care of employees. Rep. John Dingell, Sr. introduced a bill to establish a national system of health care. When Dingell died in 1955, his son was elected to represent the same Michigan district in Congress. [[John Dingell]], Jr. introduced the National Health Insurance Act, to provide universal health care in each session of congress.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dingell.house.gov/issue/health-care|title=Health Care|accessdate=April 10, 2014}}</ref> In the Senate, [[Edward M. Kennedy]] advocated universal health care.

In 1965, Congress passed the law establishing [[Medicare]] - a single-payer insurance program for citizens over 65, which was funded through a federal payroll tax.

The United States Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) in 1986. EMTALA requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. EMTALA applies to virtually all U.S. hospitals. As a result, many people who could not afford to see a doctor came to hospital emergency rooms for non-emergency care. Because EMTALA does not have a way of paying for this care, hospitals raised the rates charged to other patients to cover these costs.

On April 12, 2006, Massachusetts Governor [[Mitt Romney]] signed state health legislation which provided for universal health coverage in that state.<ref>{{cite news|title=Landmark Health Bill Signed|agency=Los Angeles Times and Associated Press|date=April 13, 2006|publisher=The Seattle Times|url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002927493_insure13.html}}</ref>

Obama during the 2008 elections had campaigned on healthcare reform, promising that the negotiations would not be behind closed doors, but televised publicly on C-Span.<ref>Spiering, C. (2010, January 6). "[http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltway-confidential/2010/01/video-obama-promises-health-care-negotiations-will-be-cspan Video: Obama Promises That Healthcare Negotiations Will Be On C-Span]." ''Washington Examiner''. Holan, A.D. (2009, July 10). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/517/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/ Obama Said He'd Televise Health Reform Negotiations on C-Span]." ''PolitiFact''.</ref> He had also promised Planned Parenthood on July 17, 2007, that "reproductive care" would be central to the coming healthcare bill, and that he believed it important for Planned Parenthood to be part of the system<ref>McGurn, William (2009, November 9). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525962492620186.html The Man Who Made Pelosi Cry 'Uncle']." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref>: {{cquote|"Well, look, in my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care. So it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose... Essentially what we are doing is to say that we're going to set up a public plan that all persons, and all women, can access if they don't have health insurance. It'll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services, and disease-management services, because part of our interest is to make sure that we're putting more money into preventive care. And so many of women's diseases are preventable if they're getting access to regular care. So we subsidize women who don't have health insurance, or can't afford low group rates. We also will subsidize those who prefer to stay in the private insurance market, except the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care, including reproductive care, and mental care services, and they won't be able to keep people out as a consequence of pre-existing conditions. So, that's going to be absolutely vital... I still believe that it is important for organizations like Planned Parenthood to be part of that system, because many young women for example may be much more comfortable when they're in college, or universities, or in other places, going to Planned Parenthood clinics and services, to get contraception, for example."
-Barack Obama before Planned Parenthood, July 17, 2007<ref>nrlccomm (2009, August 18). "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqww8jmizug Obama Promises Abortion in Public Plan]." ''YouTube''.</ref>}}

===Democratic Supermajority===
On April 28, 2009, the 2008 [[Wall Street Journal's]] prediction of a '[[Liberal]] [[Supermajority]]'<ref>(2008, October 17). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html A Liberal Supermajority]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> proved correct; as the defection of Senator [[Arlen Specter]] from the [[Republican Party]] to the [[Democratic Party]] put the Democrats on the verge of one of the rarest blessings in politics, a Supermajority - complete control of the [[House]], two-thirds of the [[Senate]], and [[Presidency]] so that they wouldn't need a single Republican vote to pass bills.<ref>Davis, S. (2009, April 28). "[http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/04/28/sen-specter-to-switch-parties-democrats-near-60-vote-majority/ Sen. Specter To Switch Parties, Democrats Near 60 Vote Majority]." Washington Wire. ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> Senator Bernie Sanders then urged the Democratic party to pursue single-payer healthcare reform.<ref>keithmsnbcer (2009, April 29). "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGYBbFMeFNc Bernie Sanders on Ed Show]." ''MSNBC''. YouTube.</ref> On May 16, 2009, [[Barack Obama]] urged [[Congress]] to pass health care reform within the year, stating, "Our businesses will not be able to compete; our families will not be able to save or spend; our budgets will remain unsustainable unless we get health care costs under control".<ref>(2009, May 16). "[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5js3WXGJZSiC4UpHS8rzfumBXGd-w Obama Urges Health Care Reform by Year's End]." ''AFP''.</ref> On July 1, 2009, [[Al Franken]] was finally declared the winner of his election (narrowly winning by 312 votes<ref>Gilbert, K. (2009, July 1). "[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/al-franken-win-hands-supermajority-to-senate-democrats Al Franken Win Hands Supermajority to Senate Democrats]." ''LifeSiteNews''.</ref>), giving the Democrats their desired Supermajority, and a clear path towards [[healthcare]] reform which Republicans would be powerless to stop.<ref>Hulse, C. (2009, July 1). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/politics/02cong.html Congressional Memo - What's So Super About a Supermajority?]" ''New York Times''.</ref> Nevertheless, sickness of [[Ted Kennedy]] and [[Robert Byrd]] along with several other factors led to question marks about the supermajority's strength.<ref>Pergram, C. (2009, July 1). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/01/democrats-senate-supermajority-strong-advertised/ Democrats' Senate Supermajority Not As Strong As Advertised]." ''FOX News''. Stewart, J. (2009, July 1). "[http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-1-2009/indecision-2008---franken-s-time Indecision 2008 - Franken's Time]." The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. ''Comedy Central''.</ref> Democrats maintained this Supermajority until February 5, 2010, when Republican [[Scott Brown]] was sworn in to replace deceased Senator [[Edward Kennedy]].<ref>(2010, February 5). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/05/democrats-lose-supermajority-brown-sworn/ Democrats Lose Supermajority as Brown Sworn In]." ''Associated Press''.</ref>
====Locking Out Republicans, Literally====
Democrats were so confident that the 2008 elections displayed [[American]] backing for the Democratic Party that in October 2009 they even changed the door locks for the House [[Oversight and Government Reform Committee]] to keep Republicans from meeting when Democrats weren't present.<ref>Crabtree, S. (2009, October 20). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/63941-democrats-lock-republicans-out-of-committee-room Democrats Lock Republicans Out of Committee Room]." ''The Hill''. Pershing, B. (2009, October 23). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR2009102204442.html Democrats on House Committee Lock Out Republicans]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> The debacle occurred because Republicans were trying to launch an investigation into corruption by Democrat Senators [[Kent Conrad]] and [[Chris Dodd]] for receiving special VIP loans from [[Countrywide Financial]].<ref>Sherman, J. (2009, October 20). "[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28531.html Towns Locks Republicans Out, Literally]." ''Politico''. Klein, R. & Jaffe, M. (2009, October 21). "[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/10/dems-lock-out-republicans-literally/ Dems Lock Out Republicans - Literally]." ''ABC News''.</ref> Democrats canceled the meeting by secretly leaving before the meeting was to begin, and a GOP staffer caught this on videotape, set it to the tune of "Hit the Road, Jack", and posted it on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s minority webpage for the press. Committee Chairman Sen. [[Edolphus Towns]] and the Democrats then had the locks changed in retaliation.<ref>Freeman, J. (2009, October 20). "House Democrats Lock GOP Out of Committee Room]." ''Wall Street Journal''. (2009, October 21). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/21/oversight-panels-democrats-lock-republicans-dispute/ Oversight Panel's Democrats Lock Out Republicans After Dispute]." ''FOX News''.</ref>
====Public Option Removed====
On July 8, 2009, Barack Obama met with hospital [[lobbyists]] and struck a deal with the hospital industry to remove the [[public option]] in exchange for the industry's support of the bill, while also reducing costs for hospitals under the plan.<ref>Mogulesku, M. (2010, March 16). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html NY Times Reporter Confirms Obama Made Deal to Kill Public Option]." ''Huffington Post''. Manjunath, Y. (2010, October 6). "[http://www.alan.com/2010/10/06/obamas-not-so-secret-deal-with-the-hospital-industry-to-kill-the-public-option/ Obama's Not-So-Secret Deal With the Hospital Industry to Kill the Public Option]." ''AlanColmes.com''. Manjunath, Y. (2010, October 7). "[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/07/908619/-Obama-rsquo-s-Not-So-Secret-Deal-With-The-Hospital-Industry-To-Kill-The-Public-Option Obama's Not-So-Secret Deal With the Hospital Industry to Kill the Public Option]." ''Daily Kos''.</ref> {{cquote|"Not to worry, [[Jim Messina]], the deputy [[White House]] [[chief of staff]], told the hospital lobbyists, according to White House officials and lobbyists briefed on the call. The White House was standing behind the deal, Mr. Messina told them, capping the industry’s costs at a maximum of $155 billion over 10 years in exchange for its political support... Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying [[Medicare]] rates — generally 80 percent of [[private sector]] rates — or controlled by the [[secretary of health and human services]]. 'We have an agreement with the White House that I’m very confident will be seen all the way through conference,' one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter."
-David Kirkpatrick, ''[[New York Times]]'', [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html Obama is Taking an Active Role in Talks on Health Care Plan]<ref>Kirkpatrick, D. (2009, August 13). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?pagewanted=all Obama is Taking an Active Role in Talks on Health Care Plan]." ''New York Times''.</ref>}} In November 2009, an amendment proposed by [[Dennis Kucinich]] to let states have single-payer healthcare systems without insurance industry lawsuits was stripped from the healthcare bill because [[Nancy Pelosi]] said it would break Obama's promise to let people keep their current insurance plans if they liked them.<ref>Grim, R. (2010, March 18). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/05/pelosi-single-payer-amend_n_347017.html Pelosi-Single Payer Amendment Breaks Obama's Health Care Promise]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref> Kucinich expressed frustration with the move, stating, "They took single-payer off the table right at the beginning, because the table was set by [[insurance]] companies."<ref>Grim, R. (2010, March 18). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/29/pelosi-not-planning-to-al_n_339188.html Pelosi Not Planning to Allow Amendments to Health Care Bill]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref> On March 25, 2010, Obama claimed the public option wasn't included "Because we couldn"t get it through Congress, that's why." He also on December 22, 2009 erroneously<ref>(2011, July 27). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/dec/23/barack-obama/public-option-obama-platform/ Public Option Was in Obama's Platform]." Truth-O-Meter. ''Politifact''. Jilani, Z. (2009, December 22). "[http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/12/22/74682/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/?mobile=nc FLASHBACK: Obama Repeatedly Touted Public Option Before Refusing To Push For It In The Final Hours]." ''ThinkProgress.org''. Hamsher, J. (2009, September 10). "[http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/09/10/yes-obama-campaigned-on-a-public-option/ Yes, Obama Campaigned on a Public Option]." ''FireDogLake''.</ref> claimed that he hadn't campaigned on a public option.<ref>Jacobson, L. & Drobnic Holan, A. (2010, March 26). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/518/create-public-option-health-plan-new-national-heal/ Create a Public Option Health Plan for a New National Health Insurance Exchange]." The Obameter. ''PolitiFact''. Murray, M. & Montanaro, D. (2009, December 23). "[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/12/23/4424556-did-obama-campaign-on-public-option?lite Did Obama Campaign on Public Option?]" First Read. ''MSNBC''.</ref> Following Obama's claim, a liberal group, [[The Progressive Change Campaign Committee]], began airing television ads accusing Obama of breaking his promise of a single-payer healthcare plan.<ref>Seelye, K. (2009, December 23). "[http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/liberal-group-accuses-obama-of-reneging-on-promises/ Liberal Group Accuses Obama of Reneging on Promises]." ''New York Times''.</ref>
====Tax on Medical Device Makers====
The only healthcare industry to not readily acquiesce to the administration's demands for cooperation, medical device manufacturers, were hit with a 2.3% [[excise]] tax.<ref>LeBlanc, S. (2010, June 7). "[http://www.boston.com/business/taxes/articles/2010/06/07/medical_device_makers_new_tax_will_cost_jobs/ Medical Device Makers: New Tax Will Cost Jobs]." ''Associated Press''. Morris, D. & McGann, E. (2009, October 23). "[http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/64493-obama-taxes-pacemakers-heart-valves Obama Taxes Pacemakers, Heart Valves]." Pundits. ''The Hill''. Musgrove, M. (2009, October 14). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/13/AR2009101303015.html Planned Tax on Medical-Device Makers Too High, Firms Say]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> [[The Wall Street Journal]] suggested this was due to retaliation since the tax would add just $40 billion in funds for a bill costing $900 billion.<ref>(2009, September 18). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204518504574418941379207328.html The Innovation Tax]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> Medical device makers continue to accuse the tax of costing jobs in 2012.<ref>Kelly, S. (2012, April 18). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/18/medicaldevices-tax-idUSL2E8FI25620120418 Medical Device Tax May Spur Price Hike, Cost Cuts]." ''Reuters''. Pecquet, J. (2012, March 26). "[http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medical-devices-and-prescription-drug-policy-/218151-medical-device-makers-decry-cost-of-new-tax- Medical Device Makers Decry Cost of New Tax]." HealthWatch. ''The Hill''. Flavelle, C. (2012, March 22). "[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-03-22/how-much-will-the-medical-device-tax-hurt How Much Will the Medical Device Tax Hurt?]" ''Bloomberg Businessweek''.</ref>

===Role of Pro-Life Democrats===
====House Bill: H.R. 3962====
=====Stupak's Resistance=====
In June and July 2009 some 200 [[Planned Parenthood]] [[activists]] arrived in [[Washington D.C.]]<ref>Connolly, C. (2009, July 13). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/07/state_of_play_democrats_dig_in.html State of Play: Democrats Dig In Despite Senate Focus on Hearings]." Daily Dose. ''Washington Post''.</ref> and a number of [[Pro-Choice]] bills began receiving support, as the Pro-Choice movement sought to ensure [[abortion]] would be mandated in health care reform.<ref>Novak, V. (2009, July 31). "[http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/ Surgery for Seniors vs. Abortions?]" ''FactCheck.org''.</ref> The Republicans would find an unlikely ally in the [[Pro-Life Democrats]] (Democrats for Life of America). On June 25, 2009, 19 of them, led by Congressman [[Bart Stupak]], sent a letter to House leader Nancy Pelosi expressing refusal to support any healthcare bill with an [[abortion]] agenda<ref>Kenworthy, Z. (2009, June 30). "[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529632,00.html President Obama's Approval Index Rating Takes a Dive]." ''FOX News''. Russert, L. (2009, July 16). "[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/07/16/4429288-health-bill-to-floor-in-two-weeks Health Bill to Floor in Two Weeks]." First Read. ''MSNBC''.</ref>, which firmly stated, "''Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan... By ensuring that abortions are not funded through any health care reform package, we will take this controversial issue off the table so that Congress can focus on crafting a broadly-supported health care reform bill.''"<ref>Gilbert, Kathleen (2009, June 26). "[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/jun/09062608 Pro-Life Democrats Unite to Protect Unborn Children in Healthcare Restructuring]." ''LifeSiteNews''.</ref>

In July, Stupak introduced the [[Stupak-Pitts amendment]] to ensure [[abortions]] would not be [[subsidized]] in the healthcare bill<ref>(2009, July 22). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5180854-503544.html Dem Says Abortion Language a Must in Healthcare Bill]. ''CBS News''.</ref>, but it was defeated 30-29 in the [[Energy and House Committee]], the committee responsible for drafting it for proposal to the entire [[House of Representatives]], when [[Bart Gordon]] sneakily switched his vote from Yes to No last minute.<ref>McCormack, J. (2009, July 31). "[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/07/house_democrat_introduces_comp.asp Waxman Strong-Arms Vote to Allow Abortion Coverage in Public Plan]." ''The Weekly Standard''.</ref> Chairman [[Henry Waxman]] replaced it with the [[Capps amendment]], which mandated one healthcare plan in each state must cover abortions.<ref name=menges>Menges, D. (2009, October 30). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/31/stupak-on-the-attack/ Stupak On the Attack]." ''The Washington Times''.</ref> On July 17, 2009, Obama once more urged rapid passage of the healthcare bill.<ref>(2009, July 17). "[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hXW-UnAKQIiTxd2SoCN6TDQ0Fm3Q Obama Urges Congress to Pass Health Care Reform]." ''AFP''. Ferraro, T. & Smith, D. (2009, September 10). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/10/us-usa-healthcare-obama-idUSTRE5881V520090910 Democrats Seek to Build Momentum On Healthcare]." ''Reuters''.</ref> Pro-Life Democrats then, in mid-July, nearly stopped the healthcare process in its tracks by initially defeating a rule required to start healthcare reform legislation, 215-214, but Democrats managed to persuade a few members to change their votes, barely passing it.<ref>Pergram, C. (2009, July 17). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/17/abortion-debate-complicate-efforts-overhaul-health-care Abortion Debate May Complicate Efforts to Overhaul Health Care]." ''FOX News''.</ref>

Obama on July 16 pressured Republicans to support the healthcare bill, even as the [[Congressional Budget Office]] criticized the proposed healthcare reform for not paying for itself.<ref>Dixon, K. (2009, July 16). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/16/usa-healthcare-idUSN1641208920090716?pageNumber=2 WRAPUP 2-Obama Looks for Republican Healthcare Backing]." ''The New York Times''.</ref> Republicans criticized the lack of [[tort reform]] and insistence on covering 5.6 million [[illegal immigrants]].<ref>(2009, July 22). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/22/president-obama-uses-magnetism-political-capital-push-health-care/ President Obama Uses Magnetism, Political Capital to Push Health Care Bill]." ''FOX News''.</ref> Obama predicted he would be held responsible if the bill failed, stating: {{cquote|"You know, I intend to be president for a while and once the bill passes, I own it. And if people look and say, 'You know what? This hasn't reduced my costs. My [[premiums]] are still going up 25 percent, insurance companies are still jerking me around,' I'm the one who's going to be held responsible."<ref>Kroft, S. (2009, September 13). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-5301098.html?pageNum=2&tag=contentMain;contentBody Obama on Health Care: 'I Own It']." 60 Minutes. ''CBS News''.</ref>}} Obama initially claimed that allegations of abortion in the healthcare bill were "fabrications" by "people who are bearing false witness."<ref>Bordlee, D. (2009, September 30). "[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113335539 Pelosi & Co. Talk Abortion]." ''The National Review''. Winfield, P. (2009, October 23). "[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/octoberweb-only/142-52.0.html Health Care Reform Splits Democrats on Abortion]." ''Christianity Today''.</ref> On August 21, he said, in a radio talk show, that claims of abortion in the bill were "not true".<ref name=menges /> However, a detailed [[FactCheck.org]] analysis concluded Obama went too far in decrying claims of abortion in healthcare as fabrications, since his own previous promise of "[[reproductive]] services" in the bill coupled with the bill's wording showed that abortion likely would be subsidized by government under the bill.<ref>Jackson, B. (2009, August 21). "[http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/ Abortion: Which Side Is Fabricating?]" ''FactCheck.org''.</ref> On September 9, Obama continued to assert the bill would not fund abortions, promising immediately after [[Joe Wilson]] famously stood up and yelled "You lie!", that "Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."<ref name=menges />

In late September after 31 different Pro-Life Democrats had signed various letters opposing abortion in the healthcare bill, Nancy Pelosi and Obama began meeting with their leader, Bart Stupak, for the first time.<ref>Kirkpatrick, D. (2009, September 28). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/health/policy/29abortion.html Abortion Fight Complicates Healthcare Debate]." ''New York Times''. Gilgoff, D. (2009, November 9). "[http://www.usnews.com/news/religion/articles/2009/10/09/the-countrys-emerging-shift-on-abortion?page=2 The Country's Emerging Shift on Abortion]." ''U.S. News & World Report''.</ref> Stupak denied claims that he was trying to "kill" healthcare reform, stating publicly at the time, "I believe we need comprehensive healthcare reform and I am excited that we are closer than we have ever been to passing a healthcare reform bill in Congress. But any reform must address legitimate concerns, including using public funding for abortions, even if party leaders disagree."<ref>Stupak, B. (2009, October 29). "[http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/65297-i-am-not-trying-to-kill-health-reform-abortion-issue-is-key Stupak: I am Not Trying to Kill Health Care Reform; Abortion Still a Concern]." ''The Hill''.</ref> On October 21, a coalition of Pro-Life groups led by key Republicans, including [[Mike Pence]], delivered a petition signed by 137,000 Americans to Congress expressing disapproval with the healthcare reform legislation.<ref>Brandt, J. (2009, October 21). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/21/house-members-raise-concerns-abortion-funding-health-reform/ House Members Raise Concerns Over Abortion Funding in Health Reform Bill]." ''FOX News''.</ref>
=====Bill Introduced=====
On October 26, the House healthcare bill was unveiled, a 1,930 page piece of legislation, the [[Affordable Healthcare for America Act]] (H.R. 3962).<ref>Allen, J. & Soaghan, M. (2009, November 29). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/65409-pelosi-unveils-healthcare-bill-house-moves-toward-floor-vote Pelosi Unveils Healthcare Bill; House Moves Toward Floor Vote]." ''The Hill''. Jackson, J. (2009, November 7). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5570605-503544.html Key Provisions of the House Healthcare Bill]." ''CBS News''.</ref> Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) accused the bill of being a "government takeover of health care in America".<ref>Barrett, T., Bash, D., et. al. (2009, October 29). "[http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/29/health.care/ House Democrats Unveil $894 Billion Health Care Bill]." ''CNN''.</ref> By early November, the House was trying to pass the healthcare bill<ref>(2009, November 4). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/04/democrats-running-time-address-abortion-dispute-health-care-reform/ Democrats Running Out of Time to Address Abortion Dispute]." ''FOX News''. Oliphant, J. (2009, November 4). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-11-04/news/0911030597_1_abortion-rights-activists-supporters-of-abortion-rights-hyde-amendment Delay on Health Care Bills Loom in Congress]." ''The Chicago Tribune''. (2009, November 2). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/02/abortion-health-care-reform-question/ Abortion Part of Health Care Reform Still in Question]." ''FOX News''. (2009, November 2). "[http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091102/editorial02_st.art.htm Abortion Foes Seek to Use Health Plan to Curb Access]." ''USA Today''.</ref> but Bart Stupak claimed 40 Pro-Life Democrats could vote with him if his Stupak-Pitts Amendment was not voted on to prevent abortion funding in the bill.<ref>Bacon Jr., P. (2009, November 3). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110203232.html Some Democrats Concerned Over Abortion Provisions in Health Bill]." ''The Washington Post''. McCormack, J. (2009, September 21). "[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/941kghiv.asp Democratic Dissenters]." ''The Weekly Standard''.</ref> With 218 votes required for passage, this would derail the historic vote set to occur on November 7.<ref>Whitesides, J. (2009, November 4). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/05/us-usa-healthcare-congress-idUSTRE5A233B20091105 Democrats Wrestle With Abortion on Health Bill]." ''Reuters''. Soraghan, M. (2009, October 22). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/64439-whip-count-shows-dems-lack-votes-on-public-plan Whip Count Shows Democrats Lack Votes on 'Robust' Public Option for Healthcare]." ''The Hill''.</ref> While Senate Leader [[Harry Reid]] (D-UT) sought to create a separate bill in the Senate, he continued to lack the 60 votes needed for a public option, i.e. a government insurance program.<ref>Jen.sen, K. & Litvan, L. (2009, November 2). "[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTYrPXF97cFw Senate, House Move Closer on Health Bills as Battle Goes Public]." ''Bloomberg''.</ref>
=====Passage=====
Bart Stupak and his 40 Pro-Life Democrats refused to budge,<ref>(2009, November 6). "[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120161271 No Public Money for Abortion]." ''The National Review''.</ref> and Pelosi until the last day tried to play 'chicken', denying the Stupak Amendment its vote.<ref>McCormack, J. (2009, November 5). "[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/post_149.asp Pelosi Likely to Allow Vote on Phony Abortion Compromise Ellsworth Amendment (Update)]." ''The Weekly Standard''.</ref> On November 7 Obama made personal last-minute contact with moderate Democrats in an attempt to persuade them to vote for the healthcare bill without Stupak's amendment.<ref>Haberkorn, J. (2009, November 7). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/07/furious-scramble-for-health-reform-support/ Furious Scramble for Health Reform Support]." ''The Washington Times''. Allen, J. & Hooper, M. (2009, November 7). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/66787-health-bill-reaches-moment-of-truth Health Bill Reaches Moment of Truth]." ''The Hill''.</ref> A desperate Nancy Pelosi met with Bart Stupak last-minute and at his request, the [[Conference of Catholic Bishops]]<ref>''Associated Press'' (2009, November 11). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/11/catholic-bishops-inserting-influence-health-care-fight/ Catholic Bishops Sway Health Care Fight]." Retrieved from ''FOX News''.</ref>, ultimately allowing the Stupak-Pitts amendment its vote, which passed by a vote of 240-194.<ref>Silva, C. (2009, November 23). "[http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/11/23/gvsa1123.htm Abortion Amendment Threatens to Derail Health Reform]." ''The American Medical Association''. Duin, J. (2009, November 19). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/19/duin-catholics-celebrate-their-stand-on-health-bil/ Catholics Celebrate Their Stand on Health Bill]." ''The Washington Times''.</ref> While some Republicans had considered voting 'Present' on the Stupak amendment to defeat it and thus perhaps healthcare reform, Pro-Life groups opposed the strategy and were scoring the vote so less than a 'Yes' would change a member's perfect Pro-Life rating.<ref>Hooper, M. (2009, November 9). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/67091-house-gop-mulled-present-strategy-on-abortion-amendment House GOP Mulled 'Present' Strategy on Abortion Amendment]." ''The Hill''.</ref> Republican House leader [[John Boehner]] confronted Democrat [[Charles Rangel]] on the House floor, asking whether the Stupak language would be preserved in the final bill or removed in the end, stating, "I have my doubts this language if it passes has any chance of being in the final version of this bill".<ref>(2009, November 9). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/07/republicans-question-abortion-agreement-effort-stop-health-care-momentum/ Republicans Question Abortion Agreement in Effort to Stop Health Care Momentum]." ''FOX News''.</ref> Boehner refused to vote for the bill without a guarantee the language would be kept.<ref>Phillips, K. (2009, November 7). "[http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/rangel-boehner-tangle-over-ethics-abortion/ Rangel and Boehner Tangle Over Ethics and Abortion]." ''The New York Times''.</ref> {{cquote|"Republican congressional leaders have to be chuckling right now. In the end, all the [[tea-party]] town halls, [[Glenn Beck]] rallies and '[[death panel]]' rumors may have less of a hand in bringing down health care reform than an intraparty Democratic culture war. Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, whose amendment restricting abortion coverage on all policies sold through the new insurance exchange paved the way for passage of health reform in the House of Representatives, vows that 'there will be [[hell]] to pay' if his language gets stripped out of, or weakened in, the final legislation."
-[[Amy Sullivan]], ''[[Time Magazine]]'', [http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1939600,00.html#ixzz1vJ6ILjRr Can Dems Resolve Their Abortion Split?]<ref>Sullivan, Amy (2009, November 16). "[http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1939600,00.html#ixzz1vJ6ILjRr Can Dems Resolve Their Abortion Split?]" ''Time Magazine''.</ref>}} On November 8, 2009, the House healthcare bill, newly amended with the Pro-Life Stupak-Pitts amendment, narrowly passed the House by a vote of 220-215.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2009, November 9). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/07/politics/main5570400.shtml House Passes Landmark Healthcare Bill]." ''CBS News''. Condon, S. (2009, November 16). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/politics/main5588038.shtml Health Care Progress Report: November 9]." ''CBS News''.</ref> [[Joseph Cao]] was the only Republican to vote in favor of the bill.<ref>Haberkorn, J. (2009, November 12). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/12/cao-explains-his-breaking-rank-in-health-care-vote/ Lone GOPer: Health Vote Could End Career]." ''The Washington Times''.</ref> 39 Democrats still voted against the bill, including many fiscally conservative [[Blue Dog Democrats]] and socially conservative Pro-Life Democrats affiliated with DFLA.<ref>Blake, A. (2009, November 10). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/67097-at-risk-dems-defend-their-tough-votes At-Risk Democrats Defend Their Tough Votes on Healthcare Reform Bill]." ''The Hill''.</ref>

=====Reaction=====
Afterwards, Obama stressed that it was time for the Senate to "take the baton."<ref>(2009, November 8). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-08/politics/health.care_1_public-option-republican-filibuster-health-insurance?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama: Time For Senate to 'Take the Baton' on Health Care Reform]." Healthcare Insurance. ''CNN''.</ref> Several Democrats including [[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]] (D-FL) revealed they voted for the bill only with the understanding that it would be removed from the final bill version.<ref>O'Brien, M. (2009, November 9). "[http://thehill.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66969&pop=1&page=8&Itemid=70 Senior Democrat is 'Confident' that Stupak Amendment Will be Stripped]." ''The Hill''.</ref> The passage of Stupak's Pro-Life amendment in the House healthcare bill led to a letter signed by 40 Pro-Choice Senate Democrats, led by [[Dianna DeGette]]<ref name=thrush>Thrush, G. (2009, November 17). "[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29651.html Abortion Causes Family Feud for Democrats]." ''Politico''. Halloran, L. (2009, November 10). "[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120254656 Democrats Face Backlash Over House Abortion Limits]." ''NPR''. Cooper, C. (2009, November 10). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504365_162-5605926-504365.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody The Left's Stupak Stupification]." Coop's Corner. ''CBS News''.</ref>, saying that they would not pass healthcare reform unless Stupak's amendment was removed,<ref>Litvan, L & Rowley, Rowley, J. (2009, November 9). "[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aaqkPE6p_8ig Abortion Curbs Draw 40 Democrats' Threat of 'No' Vote (Update 1)]." ''Bloomberg''. Young, J. (2009, November 9). "[http://thehill.com/homenews/house/67099-liberals-threaten-to-sink-health-bill-over-abortion Liberals Threaten to Oppose Healthcare Bill Over Stupak Abortion Amendment]." ''The Hill''. (2009, November 27). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/27/abortion-s-new-battleground.html Abortion's New Battleground]." ''Newsweek Magazine''.</ref> even as Senate Pro-Life Democrats vowed to reject any bills with abortion agendas. Senator [[Ben Nelson]] (D-NE) promised, "If it isn’t clear that government money is not to be used to fund abortions, I won’t vote for it," and Obama assured that "This is a health-care bill, not an abortion bill."<ref>Jen.sen, K. & Litvan, L. (2009, November 10). "[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aI.clKoFb__M Abortion Issue Threatens Healthcare Overhaul Plan (Update 1)]." ''Bloomberg''. (2009, November 10). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/10/abortion-haggling-looms-health-care-debate-senate/ Abortion Haggling Looms Over Health Care Debate in Senate]." ''FOX News''. Franke-Ruta, G. (2009, November 13). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/11/a-new-frontier-opens-up-in-the.html A New Frontier in the Abortion Wars: Health Insurance]." 44 - Politics and Policy. ''The Washington Post''.</ref>

On the Pro-Life side, a website, StopTheAbortionMandate.com, was created, and [[Susan's B. Anthony's List]], an [[Abortion#Activist|anti-abortion group]], fund-raised in attacks on the bill, receiving contributions over 50% above the previous year's levels, which it used in advertising attacks on Sen. Harry Reid. On the Pro-Choice side, Stupak's stand drew the anger of liberal groups.<ref>Kirkpatrick, D. (2009, November 23). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/health/policy/24abortion.html?_r=1 Health Bill Revives Abortion Groups]." ''The New York Times''. (2009, November 27). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/27/abortion-s-new-battleground.html Abortion's New Battleground]." ''Newsweek Magazine''.</ref> The Progressive Change Campaign Committee performed three "Stop Stupak" fundraisers and began issuing attack ads against him in his home state of [[Michigan]].<ref>Price, D. (2009, November 12). "[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DTNB&s_site=detnews&f_site=detnews&f_sitename=Detroit+News%2C+The+%28MI%29&p_multi=DTNB&p_theme=gannett&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=12BEFFE1532DF538&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM Group Raises Cash, Will Take Stupak to Task]." ''The Detroit News''. Clift, E. (2009, November 12). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/12/both-parties-abandon-women-s-rights.html Both Parties Abandon Women's Rights]." ''Newsweek''.</ref> [[CNN's]] [[Rachel Maddow]] predicted a revolt among [[women]].<ref>Depke, D. (2009, November 13). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/11/13/stupak-is-as-stupak-does.html Stupak Is as Stupak Does]." ''Newsweek Magazine''.</ref>

Democratic Senator [[Barbara Boxer]] vowed to keep the Stupak-Pitts amendment from passing in the [[Senate]].<ref name=thrush /> White House Senior Advisor [[David Axelrod]] claimed Obama would intervene to change the Stupak language, and Stupak responded with "They're not going to take it out. If they do, health care will not move forward,. We won fair and square. ... That's why Mr. Axelrod's not a legislator. He doesn't really know what he's talking about."<ref>(November 17, 2009). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/stupak-health-care-stall-white-house-strips-abortion-restrictions/ Stupak: Health Care Bill Will Stall if White House Strips Abortion Restrictions]." ''FOX News''.</ref> Polls taken in mid-November showed public support for the Pro-Life Democrat position. 61% of Americans, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, oppose using federal money for abortions, while a [[CBS News]] poll found 56% oppose federal subsidies for abortions.<ref>Black, N. (2009, November 18). "[http://www.christianpost.com/news/most-americans-against-abortion-coverage-in-health-care-bill-41906/ Most Americans Against Abortion Coverage in Health Care Bill]." ''The Christian Post''.</ref>
====Senate Bill: H.R. 3962====
On November 18 the U.S. Senate under Senate Leader Harry Reid introduced its own health care bill (H.R. 3962 The Affordable Health Care for America Act), separate from the House bill. Obama called this bill a 'milestone' and urged Congress to pass it quickly.<ref>Bazinett, K. & McAuliff, M. (2009, November 19). "[http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-11-19/news/17939142_1_reform-bill-illegal-immigrants-public-health-insurance-plan Senate Rolls Out $849 Billion Health Care Reform Bill; President Obama Urges Congress To Act Quickly]. ''New York Daily News''.</ref>

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska attempted to introduce the [[Nelson Amendment]], a [[Pro-Life]] amendment identical to the Stupak-Pitts amendment, but it was defeated 54-45 on December 8.<ref>Feldmann, L. (2009, December 9). "[http://www.minnpost.com/christian-science-monitor/2009/12/nelson-amendment-fails-health-care-abortion-battle-isn’t-over Nelson Amendment Fails, But Healthcare Abortion Battle Isn't Over]." ''The Christian Post''.</ref> Four Senators stood in the way of the bill's passage, [[Ben Nelson]], [[Mary Landrieu]], [[Blanche Lincoln]], and [[Joe Lieberman]].<ref>Tantaros, A. (2009, December 16). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/06/obama-heads-captiol-hill-health-care-push/ The Senate's Health Care Bill Isn't On My Christmas List]. ''[[FOX News]]''. Cordes, N. (2009, December 15). [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/15/eveningnews/main5983872.shtml What Will it Take to Win Over Lieberman?]. ''[[CBS News]]''.</ref> By December 16th, both Landrieu and Lieberman had agreed to support the bill since its public option and Medicare expansions were removed.<ref>Haberkorn, J. (2009, December 17). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/17/democrats-recraft-health-bill-to-win-passage/?feat=home_headlines Dems Recraft Health Bill to Win Passage]. ''The Washington Times''.</ref> Lieberman agreed only on condition that Medicare not be expanded to include Seniors as young as 55.<ref>(2009, December 16). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/16/senate-dems-contemplate-half-loaf-health-care/ Democrats' Health Care Wish List Cut Short]. ''Associated Press''.</ref> Landrieu in the process agreed to take $100 million in Medicaid money for her state, and was accused by Republican [[John Cornyn]] as having been "bribed".<ref>Sherman, J. (2009, December 18). [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30783.html Mary Landrieu hot over NRSC comments]. ''Politico''.</ref>
{{cquote|"We are approaching the eve of Christmas and maybe in that spirit, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid morphed into Santa Claus, giving out presents to the little boys and girls who were naughty and (not so) nice this year. Of course, he was not using his own money. America's overused credit card, issued by the Bank of China, may have to be used one more time to pay for Reid's deals. The majority leader traded to help ensure the votes of Sens. Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Chris Dodd, Bernie Sanders and others representing 11 states by giving them special perks for staying on the health care bus that's about to drive us all over the financial cliff."
-[[Ed Rollins]], [http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/23/rollins.health.care.deals.reid/ Harry Reid Playing Santa With Your Money], [[CNN]].<ref>Rollins, E. (2009, December 23). [http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/23/rollins.health.care.deals.reid/ Harry Reid Playing Santa With Your Money]. ''[[CNN]]''.</ref>}}
On December 19 following 13 hours of negotiations, Senator Nelson finally agree to back the Senate bill in exchange for tighter restrictions on abortion and increased Medicaid funding for his state.<ref name=hersz>Herszenhorn, D.M. & Hulse, C. (2009, December 19). [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/health/policy/20health.html?pagewanted=all Democrats Clinch Deal for Deciding Vote on Health Bill]. ''[[The New York Times]]''.</ref> The [[National Right to Life Committee]] opposed Nelson's compromise and said it was "light years removed" from the House bill's language per the Stupak Amendment.<ref>Jensen, K. & Litvan, L. (2009, December 20). [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aim3g2AJwUHI House, Senate Health-Care Legislation: Side-by-Side Comparison]. ''Bloomberg''.</ref> A day later, both the RNC and Rick Santorum then initiated a robocall to 100,000 Nebraskans asking them to call Ben Nelson and ask him to reconsider.<ref>Budoff Brown, C. (2009, December 19). [http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1209/RNC_Santorum_hit_Nelson_in_robocall.html?showall RNC, Santorum hit Nelson in Robocall]. ''Politico''.</ref> On December 22nd, the GOP led by [[John McCain]] began accusing Nelson of a "Cornhusker Kickback" because his state had received $45 million of Medicare funding in the deal. Nelson denied this, claiming "I didn't ask for a special favor here".<ref>Scott, B. (2009, December 22). [http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/gop_blasts_kickback_health_fix_dAelgwc0jXXhMD6fwB05IK GOP blasts 'kickback' health fix]. ''[[New York Post]]''.</ref> Landrieu's deal was likewise criticized as the "Louisiana Purchase".<ref>Rowley, J. & Gaouette, N. (2009, December 23). [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aIkM0vXz_yxk Republicans Assail ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ Health Deals (Update1)]. ''[[Bloomberg]]''.</ref>

Both the [[AARP]] and [[American Medical Association]] ran ads urging Senators to vote for the bill. On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed its bill on a party-line vote, 60-39, without a single Republican vote.<ref>Pear, R. (2009, December 24). [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/health/policy/25health.html Senate Passes Health Care Overhaul on Party-Line Vote]. ''The New York Times''.</ref>

===Reconciliation===
The possibility of splitting healthcare into two bills and reconciling them was rumored as early as August 20, 2009.<ref>Weisman, J. & Bendavid, N. (2009, August 20). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125072573848144647.html New Rx for Health Plan: Split Bill]." ''The Wall Street Journal''. Hetchtkopf, K. (2009, August 20). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5255030-503544.html Dems Might Split Healthcare Reform Into Two Bills]." ''CBS News''.</ref>

<ref>Bash, D., Glass, E., & Walsh, D. (2010, March 19). "[http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/19/health.care.abortion/ Abortion Again an Issue in Health Care Debate]." ''CNN''.</ref>

==Effort to Repeal==
On January 19, 2011, the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] voted 245-189 to repeal Obamacare (56 percent to 44 percent). In an historic repudiation of an entitlement program that was only 10 months old, the House voted to overturn President Obama's health care takeover.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/19/house-poised-vote-health-law-repeal/ House Republicans Vote to Overturn Obamacare in Symbolic Move], [[Fox News|FoxNews.com]], Published January 19, 2011.</ref><ref>An historic repudiation of an entitlement that is only 10 months old. ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', Review & Outlook: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704590704576091973130244618.html The Repeal Vote], January 20, 2011.</ref> Repealing the bill would eliminate $770 billion in the newly mandated tax increases, according to the CBO.<ref>Philip Klein. [http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/07/breaking-cbo-says-repealing-ob CBO Says Repealing Obamacare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion], ''The American Spectator'', January 07, 2011.</ref> The CBO released accounting data which shows that repealing the national health care law would reduce net government spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021; that number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus [[Medicare]] cuts. The [[Tea Party Movement]] firmly supports the proposed repeal of Obamacare.

On February 2, 2011, the [[U.S. Senate]] proceeded with a hearing to discuss the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and whether or not the individual mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance under penalty of a fine is constitutional.<ref>Amanda Carey. [http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/03/senate-hearing-on-health-care-bills-constitutionality-had-more-show-than-substance/ Senate hearing on health care bill’s constitutionality had more show than substance], ''The Daily Caller'', February 03, 2011.</ref> The amendment to repeal Obamacare failed in the Senate by a 51-47 vote.<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/02/undoing-obamacare-senate-repeal-fails-47-51-on-party-line-vote-1099-provision-killed-83-17/ Undoing Obamacare: Senate repeal fails 47-51 on party-line vote; 1099 provision killed 83-17], MichelleMalkin.com, February 2, 2011.</ref>

The Individual Mandate requiring U.S. citizens to buy healthcare was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as constitutional in 2012. It is possible the entire bill could end up getting repealed.<ref>(2012, April 7). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7404552n Obama vs. Supreme Court: How Serious?]" ''CBS News''.</ref> A ''CBS News''/''New York Times'' poll taken March 21-25, 2012, found that just 26% of Americans want the Supreme Court to keep the entire healthcare law intact.<ref>Condon, S. (2012, March 26). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57404793-503544/poll-1-in-4-want-supreme-court-to-uphold-health-care-law/?tag=featuredPostArea Poll: 1 in 4 Want Supreme Court to Uphold Health Care Law]." ''CBS News''.</ref>

Obama criticized the Supreme Court for considering the case, saying to overturn the bill would be "unprecedented" and was criticized by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who said he should "back off. Let the Court do its work. Let our system work the way it was intended."<ref>Condon, S. (2012, April 5). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57410114-503544/mcconnell-tells-obama-to-back-off-on-supreme-court/ McConnell Tells Obama to 'Back Off' on Supreme Court]." ''CBS News''.</ref> Following this, Obama conceded the Supreme Court does have the power to overturn the bill.<ref>(2012, April 5). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7404408n WH Concedes Court's Power to Kill Health Care Law]." ''CBS Evening News''.</ref>

The Congressional Budget Office in 2011 projected that repealing the bill would add $211 billion to the deficit, but this was contradicted in April 2012 by economist Charles Blahouse who said the bill adds $340 billion to the deficit.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2012, April 10). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57411669/study-obamas-health-care-law-will-add-at-least-$340-billion-to-deficit/?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesArea Study: Obama's health care law will add at least $340 billion to deficit]." Retrieved from ''CBS News''.</ref>

As of April 2014, the House of Representatives has voted 55 times to scale back or repeal the law, but none of those proposals has received consideration in the Senate.<ref name=fulltime/>

In October 2013, the Congress needed to adopt a continuing resolution to allow the federal government to remain open after the existing appropriation laws expired. The House adopted a series of continuing resolutions which were conditioned upon the repeal or modification of the ACA. However, the Senate adopted a series of continuing resolutions which did not contain such ACA conditions. As a result of the impasse, many federal programs were shut down, and remained shut until the House agreed to funding without ACA conditions.

== Basic Requirements ==

Beginning in 2014, Americans are required to buy government-approved, private health insurance or else pay a penalty.

Health insurance companies will be required to spend on medical care at least 80% of the premium payments they receive from individual and small-group plans (and at least 85% from large group plans). The federal government will define what constitutes medical care.

=== Immediate Impact in 2010 ===

Creating temporary high-risk pool with subsidized premiums for certain people with pre-existing conditions.

Imposing new taxes on some facilities, such as tanning parlors.

Health insurers raised premiums for Americans as a direct result of President Obama's health care overhaul.<ref>Janet Adamy. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html?KEYWORDS=health+care+insurance+premiums Insurers Pin Rate Hikes on Health Law], ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', September 07, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703340904575285002595068326.html?KEYWORDS=health+care+insurance+premiums Health Law Augurs Transfer of Funds From Old to Young], WSJ.com, July 25, 2010.</ref>

=== Requirements for Insurance Companies ===

Prohibit bans on pre-existing health conditions in children, lifetime and annual limits on expenses, and limits coverage exclusions of pre-existing health conditions in adults.

Requires family policies to include coverage of children up to age 26.

Allows states to form compacts in order to allow the interstate sale of insurance.

Requires direct access to obstetrical and gynecological care, which might include [[abortion]].

Creates (starting in October 2013) health insurance exchanges or marketplaces that will be state-based and state-administered, but states can opt out of this if certain conditions are met; insurance can be sold within the exchange only if government-approved. If a state fails to set up its own exchange, residents of the state can purchase insurance on a federally-administered exchange. Insurance can be sold outside of the exchange, but only policies purchased on the exchange will be eligible for a premium tax credit.<ref name=pcredit/>

Prohibits health plans from discriminating against providers, but plans are not required to contract with any provider.

Requires health plans to develop politically correct language services, community outreach and cultural competency trainings.

Requires "silver" insurance plans sold on the exchange to implement a premium tax credit program for individuals making less than $45,960 ($94,200 for a family of four).<ref name=pcredit>{{cite web|url=https://www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-to-save-on-monthly-premiums/|title=Will I qualify for lower costs on monthly premiums?|work=healthcare.gov|accessdate=April 10, 2014}}</ref> The insurance company receives the credit from the federal government and is responsible for billing the difference to each insured person.

=== Employer Requirements ===

Requires that employers with more than 50 full-time employees provide health insurance or pay a penalty.

Employers with 25 or fewer full-time employees, receiving average salaries of $50,000 or less, can apply for tax credits in order to provide their employees with health insurance.

=== Medicaid ===

Obamacare expands [[Medicaid]] (medical care for the poor) to everyone (under the Medicare age of 65) who has income less than 133% the federal poverty level. States must pay this enormous new burden, but federal government promises to reimburse costs of newly eligible patients under this program from 2014 to 2016. Although the law was drafted to make this a required part of the existing Medicare program, the Supreme Court considered an appeal from certain states and interpreted the law as giving each state the option to either retain the prior scope of Medicaid or expand Medicaid. If a state refuses to expand Medicaid, the taxes collected from that state will be redirected to states that have expanded Medicaid, and hospitals will still be required to provide medical care to the uncovered individuals without reimbursement.

On April 10, 2014, Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius acknowledged there are extensive backlogs of people in some states who have applied for Medicaid but remain unable to access care because of out-of-date state computer systems. In April 2014, the government said three million people had enrolled in Medicaid from October 1 through February 28.<ref name=Sebelius>{{cite news|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/10/us-usa-healthcare-obama-idUSBREA3918920140410|title=Obamacare enrollment to surpass 7.5 million: U.S. official|first=David|last=Morgan|date=April 10, 2014|accessdate=April 11, 2014|work=Reuters}}</ref>

=== New Bureaucracy ===

Establishes a new Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program with the goal of creating non-profit, member-run health insurance companies in every state

=== Impact on the deficit and expanded welfare spending ===
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that Obamacare’s refundable health insurance tax credits (or [[tax expenditure]]s<ref>[http://www.concordcoalition.org/publications/facing-facts/1996/0913/back-door-entitlement The Back-Door Entitlement], The Concord Coalition.</ref> in D.C. parlance) will add to the [[national debt]] $1.36 trillion in the first seven years of implamentation. 85% of filers who claim the tax credit will end the year with zero or negative income tax liability. Since the tax credit is refundable, nearly all 11.3 million of these filers will have negative income tax liability and will no longer pay the cost of government by contributing federal income taxes. Tax credits, or tax expenditures, are a form of federal un-appropriated [[backdoor spending]].

For example, a family of four at 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (about $48,677 in 2016) cannot pay more than 6.3% of their income for health insurance. The CBO estimates that the average cost of the reference insurance plan (the plan used to calculate the tax credit) will be $14,100 for family coverage in 2016. Therefore, a family of four that qualifies for a credit in 2016 and that makes $48,677 would be required to pay about $3,067 for health insurance (6.3% of household income). The difference, $11,033, is the value of this family’s refundable tax credit. According to the CBO, 20 million Americans will receive health insurance tax credits in 2020 at a cost of $130 billion.<ref>[http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/10-27-11_Obamacares_Subsidies_and_Tax_Distribution_Final.pdf Impact of the Obamacare Tax Credits], House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Staff Report, October 27, 2011.</ref>

== Basis for Legal Challenges ==
===Commerce Clause===
There have been several grounds for challenging the Cosntitutionality of the bill. Obamacare includes an "individual responsibility requirement" compelling persons to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. The one legal justification for this requirement by Congress is the [[Commerce Clause]]:
{{cquote|The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section ... is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2). ... [Paragraph (2) states,] The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.}}

Apparently uncertain that this would withstand legal scrutiny as a valid exercise of Commerce Clause authority, on March 21 (the same day as passage) the Joint Committee on Taxation released a 157-page "technical explanation" of the bill. This "explanation" grounded the justification for the bill in the tax authority of Congress, and nowhere mentioned commerce. As Professor Randy Barnett explained in an article on April 29, 2010 in the Wall Street Journal:
{{cquote|The word "commerce" appeared nowhere. Instead, the personal mandate is dubbed an "Excise Tax on Individuals Without Essential Health Benefits Coverage." But while the enacted bill does impose excise taxes on "high cost," employer-sponsored insurance plans and "indoor tanning services," the statute never describes the regulatory "penalty" it imposes for violating the mandate as an "excise tax." It is expressly called a "penalty."}}

Professor Barnett then explained that in ''Bailey v. Drexel Furniture'' (1922), "the Supreme Court struck down such a penalty saying, 'there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.'" A subsequent Supreme Court decision, ''U.S. v. Kahriger'' (1953), upheld a punitive tax on gambling based on an express statement in the law that Congress was exercising its power to tax. No such statement exists in Obamacare. ''See also Sonzinsky v. U.S.'' (1937) ("Inquiry into the hidden motives which may move Congress to exercise a power constitutionally conferred upon it is beyond the competency of courts."). Professor Barnett noted that the penalty is not enforced as a tax in a customary manner, providing further evidence that Obamacare is based on the Commerce Clause and not on any taxing authority.

Requiring Americans to buy insurance "would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers," wrote Judge Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee in the Eastern District of Virginia. The federal judge also wrote:
{{Cquote|At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it's about an individual's right to choose to participate.<ref name=unconstitutional/>}}

It has also been pointed out that because the penalty applies to inactivity, it is beyond the powers authorized by the [[Sixteenth Amendment]].

Since the [[federal]] judge decided the entire healthcare reform bill law was unconstitutional, states such as Alaska have decided not to implement the mandated reforms. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/17/alaska-governor-refuses-enact-obamacare/?test=latestnews Alaska Governor Refuses to Enact 'Obamacare', Fox News, February 17, 2011]</ref> This prompted Obama's Justice Department to appeal to Judge Vinson by claiming that states cannot ignore the new health care law while his ruling is being appealed.

===Origination Clause===
On September 12, 2012, the [[Pacific Legal Foundation]] filed suit in a Washington, D.C., federal court, arguing that the mandate is unconstitutional under the [[Origination clause]].<ref>[http://www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/amended_suit_claims_obamacare_was_enacted_in_violation_of_origination_claus/ Amended Suit Claims Obamacare Was Enacted in Violation of Origination Clause] ABA Journal. Welss, Debra.</ref> The Origination Clause (Article I, Section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution) provides that "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

On September 17, 2009, Congressman Charlie Rangel introduced a bill in the House, H.R. 3590, the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009," whose purpose was "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees." The bill passed the House on October 8 by a 416-0 vote.

On November 19, Harry Reid introduced his own version of H.R. 3590 in the Senate. He took the bill that had been unanimously passed by the House, renamed it the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," deleted all its contents after the first sentence, and replaced it with totally different content. What followed was the first pass of the Senate version of Obamacare.<ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/Justice-Roberts Justice Roberts Turns Obamacare into Origination Clause Shell Game] Breitbart. Leahy, Michael P.</ref>

Thus, the only portion of Obamacare to originate in the House was its number. Congress frequently uses this same practice for many years, and if the Supreme Court were to overturn the law based on the Origination Clause, a large number of other laws would be open to court challenge as well.

==History of Mandatory Coverage==

One of the early proposals (a predecessor to the one enacted) would create a system to require adults (over age 19, U.S. citizens, not incarcerated) to enroll themselves and dependent children in a plan through the state-wide Health Help Agency (HHA) unless they provide evidence of enrollment or coverage through Medicare, a health insurance plan offered by the Department of Defense, an employee benefit plan through a former employer (i.e. retiree health plans), a qualified collective bargaining agreement, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Indian Health Service. The law contains a religious exemption for people, such as [[Christian Scientists]] who do not receive health care. {{USC|26|5000A(d)(2)}}. Each adult would have the responsibility to enroll each child in a plan. Dependent children include individuals up to age 24 claimed by their parents for deductions in the tax code.
[[File:Penalty.jpg|right|thumbnail|200px|If an individual fails to purchase coverage and does not meet the exceptions or the religious exemption, then under Obamacare a financial penalty may be assessed for non-indigent individuals. (Image courtesy See-Ming Lee)]]

===History of Penalty for Failure to Purchase Coverage===

Monthly payments for Obamacare are massive, roughly 12-15% of an individual's annual salary. If an individual fails to purchase coverage and does not meet the exceptions or the religious exemption, then a financial penalty will be assessed for non-indigent individuals. An exemption is available if more than 8% of the individual's household income would be required to pay for the cheapest available coverage.<ref>https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/</ref>

Fines were to be paid to the HHA of the State in which the person resides. That agency also may establish a procedure to waive the penalty if the penalty poses a hardship. Each State would determine appropriate mechanisms to enforce the requirement that individuals be enrolled.<ref> http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/Healthy%20Americans%20Act/HAA_Section_by_Section.pdf (Link doesn't work.)</ref>

The law that was enacted replaced the state-based approach with a direct penalty to be paid to the United States.

===Privacy Rights===

Section 163 of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would have "require[d] the Secretary of HHS to adopt standards for typical transactions between insurers and providers such as claims, eligibility, enrollment, and prior authorization building on the standards in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996".<ref>http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/sbys3200.pdf</ref>

==Rationed Care==

Doctors have said they anticipate more people waiting in the waiting-rooms, more phone calls, people upset because they want to be seen now. Doctors will be overbooked. As the health care system brings in more and more patients, the system will be overwhelmed. Obamacare will be a tremendous burden for doctors in the United States.

Obamacare will shorten the amount of time Doctors have with each patient, and lengthen the amount of time patients will have to wait. Dr. Sreedhar Potarazu said that the current bill passed into law will create a scenario where the supply cannot meet the demand. Because the necessary health care reform needs are not included in Obamacare, there are still no protections for physicians in the medical industry, and doctors are going into the profession to work harder to earn less.

There will be an oversight board where the government looks at what should and shouldn't be given to patients, regardless of medical need. There is going to be rationing of care, according to Dr. Sreedhar Potarazu. Doctors have agreed there will be "rationed care" under Obamacare.<ref>[http://beta.video.foxbusiness.com/v/4115101/doctors-respond-to-health-care-reform/?playlist_id=87185 Doctors Respond to Health-Care Reform], FoxBusiness.com, March 18, 2010.</ref>

==Disinformation==

If private citizens have disagreements, discussions, and dissections of Obamacare, the proposed expansion of federal debt and deficits through its planned regulation of the healthcare industry, whether its communicated through e-mail, websites, blogs, or even casual conversation the Obama administration has asked that these people be reported to the executive branch of the federal government.<ref>McCullough, K. (2009, August 6). [http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2009/08/06/welcome_to_gestapo-care Welcome to Gestapo-Care]. ''TownHall.com''.</ref> To counter any discussions related to the repeal of Obamacare, or that are against the implementation of Obamacare which will in turn destroy jobs and create more taxpayer debt, a Web page at whitehouse.gov entitled "Reality Check" has claimed that the president's program "would be fully paid for over 10 years, and it would not add one penny to the deficit."<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq Frequently Asked Questions About Health Insurance Reform]. Health Insurance Reform Reality Check. ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref>

The [[CBO]] is mandated to prepare cost estimates and to show how individual legislative proposals would change spending or revenue levels under current law.<ref>[ http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/budgetprocess.shtml Overview]. ''Congressional Budget Office''.</ref> A July 15 2009 letter from the CBO made this assessment,
{{Cquote|Enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period."<ref>Elmendorf, D.W. (2009, June 15). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf Preliminary Analysis of Major Provisions Related to Health Insurance Coverage Under the Affordable Health Choices Act]. ''Congressional Budget Office''. U.S. Congress.</ref>}} However, deceptively, CBO analysis of the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bills show that they would reduce the federal budget deficit by $109 billion <ref>http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=421</ref> and $81 billion <ref>http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=387</ref> respectively.

In a 2010 report, HHS claimed a provision in the health-care law would extend the Medicare trust fund by 12 years. The Congressional Budget Office released a memo that said HHS’s math was more than a little off.

Health and Human Services Secretary [[Kathleen Sebelius]] appearing on Capitol Hill for questioning admitted to double-counting in the Obamacare budget. Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania said “The same dollar can’t be used twice. This is the largest of the many budget gimmicks Democrats used to claim Obamacare would reduce the deficit.” <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/04/hhs-secretary-sebelius-admits-to-double-counting-in-obamacare-budget/ HHS Secretary Sebelius admits to double-counting in Obamacare, The Daily Caller, March 4, 2011]</ref>

==Implementation==
{| class=wikitable align=right
|+States implementing Medicare Expansion<ref>{{cite news|url=http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/|title=Status of State Action on the Medicaid Expansion Decision, 2014|work=Kaiser Family Foundation|accessdate=April 4, 2014}}</ref>
!State!!Status as of April 2014
|-
|Alabama||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Alaska||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Arizona||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Arkansas||Implementing Expansion in 2014<ref group=note name="ar">AR and IA have approved Section 1115 waivers for Medicaid expansion.</ref>
|-
|California||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Colorado||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Connecticut||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Delaware||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|District of Columbia||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Florida||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Georgia||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Hawaii||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Idaho||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Illinois||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Indiana||Open Debate<ref group=note name="in">IN and PA have pending waivers for alternative Medicaid expansion plans.</ref>
|-
|Iowa||Implementing Expansion in 2014<ref group=note name="ar"/>
|-
|Kansas||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Kentucky||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Louisiana||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Maine||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Maryland||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Massachusetts||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Michigan||Implementing Expansion in 2014<ref group=note>MI has an approved waiver for expansion and plans to implement in April 2014.</ref>
|-
|Minnesota||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Mississippi||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Missouri||Open Debate
|-
|Montana||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Nebraska||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Nevada||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|New Hampshire||Implementing Expansion in 2014<ref group=note>NH has passed legislation approving the Medicaid expansion that is expected to be signed by the Governor in March 2014. While the state plans to seek a waiver at a later date, the legislation calls for the expansion to begin July 1, 2014.</ref>
|-
|New Jersey||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|New Mexico||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|New York||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|North Carolina||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|North Dakota||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Ohio||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Oklahoma||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Oregon||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Pennsylvania||Open Debate<ref group=note name="in"/>
|-
|Rhode Island||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|South Carolina||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|South Dakota||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Tennessee||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Texas||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|-
|Utah||Open Debate
|-
|Vermont||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Virginia||Open Debate
|-
|Washington||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|West Virginia||Implementing Expansion in 2014
|-
|Wisconsin||Not Moving Forward at this Time<ref group=note>WI amended its Medicaid state plan and existing Section 1115 waiver to cover adults up to 100% FPL in Medicaid, but did not adopt the expansion.</ref>
|-
|Wyoming||Not Moving Forward at this Time
|}
The ACA as passed assumed that the eligibility for [[Medicaid]] would be automatically expanded in all 50 states. However, some states appealed this provision, and the US Supreme Court ruled that each state would have the right to decide whether to continue Medicaid on its present terms or to expand Medicaid to cover more low-income individuals. Although the ACA provided for the federal government to pay for all costs of medicaid expansion during the first four years, there was no statutory guarantee for full federal funding after that time. So, some states, particularly those with Republican Governors or Republican-controlled legislatures, refused to expand the eligibility requirements for the Medicaid program in their states. However, hospitals faced financial pressures to limit or end free charity care for indigent patients under the new structure, leaving low-income people in a difficult, un-insured dilemma.

Individuals and families who earned enough money to not qualify for [[Medicaid]], and were not covered by employer-provided insurance, were then required to purchase insurance through health care exchanges in order to receive federal subsidies of insurance premiums and deductibles. However, there were massive problems with the online health care exchanges operated by the federal government for states that did not set up their own exchanges. This was true at the start of the open season in October 2013 as well as toward the end of the open season in March 2014. Despite these problems, 7.5 million people signed up for insurance on the exchanges.<ref name=Sebelius/><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/04/01/more-7-million-americans-have-enrolled-private-health-coverage-under-affordable-care|title=7.1 Million Americans Have Enrolled in Private Health Coverage Under the Affordable Care Act|work=whitehouse.gov|date=April 1, 2014}}</ref> This number does not indicate a growth in the number of people covered by private health insurance. First, the 7.5 million includes people who became covered by Medicaid expansion. Second, some of the people were already covered by a grandfathered health plan, but were forced to purchase on the exchange so as to receive premium and deductible subsidies. Third, some states, like California, required insurance companies to cancel their existing insurance plans as a precondition of offering plans on the health care exchanges. Fourth, purchasing a plan and signing-up are two very different criteria in determining the viability of government healthcare. The Obama administration has declined to provide "paid for" statistics.

Some people thought that they had purchased insurance through the exchange, but because of malfunctions in the back office of the exchange, the insurance providers did not receive any record of the insurance purchase. The Obama Administration launched a crash program to fix the federal exchange software and in January 2014 replaced the contractor responsible for building and operating the healthcare.gov website.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/01/10/obama-administration-to-replace-top-healthcare-gov-contractor/|title=Obama administration to replace top HealthCare.gov contractor|date=January 10, 2014|accessdate=April 3, 2014|work=Washington Post|author= Juliet Eilperin and Amy Goldstein}}</ref>

Although a number of Americans gave up their grandfathered health care plans for new policies. If the number of people purchasing policies under the ACA is not sufficient, insurance companies will raise their rates in future years, perhaps trapping these Americans who gave up their rights to switch back to the grandfathered plans.

The ACA imposed a mandate for employers who hire more than 50 full time employees. A full time employee is defined as someone who works 30 or more hours per week. In response, some employers have cutback the number of full time employees to avoid the duty to comply with the ACA's insurance requirements. The Obama Administration has postponed the implementation of the employer mandate until 2015. Some employers have cut the hours that their staff could work to under 30 hours per week. For example, adjunct faculty members have found that the number of classes per semester have been reduced so that they will not be covered by employer insurance. House Republicans have passed legislation through the House to increase the definition of full time worker to 40 hours per week.<ref name=fulltime>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-votes-to-change-health-care-laws-definition-of-full-time-work/2014/04/03/dc0b7066-bb69-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html|title=House votes to change health-care law’s definition of full-time work|first=Ed |last=O’Keefe|date=April 3, 2014|work=Washington Post|accessdate=April 10, 2014}}</ref>

The ACA requires health plans to offer women family planning and contraceptive services. Some employers object that such coverage violates religious principles. This issue has been taken to the United States Supreme Court with a decision expected by the summer of 2014.

Following the troubled roll-out of the ACA, on April 11, 2014, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced her resignation.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/11/us-usa-healthcare-idUSBREA3926R20140411|title=Health secretary resigns after Obamacare launch woes|first=Roberta|last=Rampton|date=April 11, 2014|accessdate=April 11, 2014|wprl=Reuters}}</ref>

== Obama Administration health care plan and liberal elitism ==
[[File:Arrogant obama.jpg|right|125px|thumbnail|[[Barack Obama]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism]] and [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]

In 2007, when Obama was running for the office of President of the United States, he promised Americans "health care that is as good as the health care that I have as a member of Congress."<ref>http://www.emaxhealth.com/10/18430.html</ref> The ACA has a provision which requires members of Congress and their staff to purchase insurance on a health care exchange instead of from the health care plans offered through the federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The Obama Administration wrote implementing regulations which would have Congress and their staff receive a subsidy on the exchange-purchased insurance equal to the amount that OPM subsidizes the insurance of all other federal employees. However, during the October 2013 government shutdown crisis, one of the provisions the House added to one of the continuing resolution to fund the federal government was a prohibition of such a subsidy. The Senate rejected it.<ref>http://theweekincongress.com/2013/10/08/how-the-senate-and-house-handled-h-j-res-59-the-continuing-resolution-for-fy-2014/</ref>

The Obama administration's [[Liberal Elite|liberal elitism]] is not unusual when it comes to health care. For example, [[Belinda Stronach]], a former Member of the Canadian Parliament, chose to have a surgical treatment in the United States rather than be treated in Canada for her condition ([[Canada]] has a [[socialized medicine]] system of health care).<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/09/14/canadian-official-refuses-canadian-health-care/</ref>
[[File:MedSybolBlog.jpg|left|125px]]

Congressman [[John Fleming]] has offered a legislative amendment that would require United States congressmen and senators to take the same health care plan they try to force on others (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt). Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go to his website and sign his petition.<ref>http://fleming.house.gov/index.html</ref> Fleming and other Congressmen advocate ending the health care plans offered through OPM and placing all federal employees under the health care exchanges.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://fleming.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fleming_letter_to_president_on_opm_fix.pdf|title=Letter to President Obama|date=August 9, 2013|format=PDF|accessdate=April 17, 2014}}</ref>

===Two-Tier Health Care System===
Socialist regimes reveal their true nature by the special treatment they give to their permanent ruling class; they deny such treatment for ordinary citizens of their country. The worst corruption in socialist regimes flows from that simple two-caste system. Some critics claim there is a two-tier health care system under the ACA.<ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamacare-means-a-two-tier-health-care-system/ Obamacare Means a Two-Tier Health Care System], by James Lewis at ''Pajamas Media'', March 9, 2010.</ref>

The first example of Obamacare's creation of a two-tier health care system was seen as millions of hardworking Americans struggle to make ends meet and watch as their health care costs increase due to provisions in Obamacare. Senate staffers planned to participate in a two-day orgy of back massages, organic food tastings and milk mustache photos as part of a "health fair" for the staffers, who enjoy some of the best health care in the country.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/08/senate-office-host-health-fair-covered-staffers/ Senate Office to Host Health Fair for Well-Covered Staffers], FoxNews.com, October 08, 2010.</ref> The Senate staffers will be treated to seated massages, herbal [[tea|teas]], polarity therapy, low-fat [[cheese]] samples and organic foods. A [[pharmacist]] and health coach will be available to speak to fair-goers about their medications, nutrition and healthy lifestyle questions. All of which is at the American taxpayers expense. Of course, the ACA provisions regarding employee health care had not gone into effect at the time of that proposed health fair.

Less than one year after Obamacare was signed into law, 111 [[unions]], companies, and organizations had received approval for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/lots-of-unions-are-on-the-hidden-list-to-receive-obamacare-waivers/ Lots of Unions Are on the ‘Hidden’ List to Receive Obamacare Waivers], ''[[The Blaze]]'', November 15, 2010.</ref><ref name=waivers>Applications for waivers from annual limit requirements: [http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html Approved Applications for Waiver of the Annual Limits Requirements of the PHS Act Section 2711], (as of December 3, 2010).</ref><ref>When the American people learned that the congressmen who wrote the new healthcare law were exempt from it, questions regarding the alleged benefits of the new legislation were raised. Further proof that Obamacare may not be all that it was touted to be can be found in the fact that 111 companies, including a number of unions, have been given waivers to be exempted from certain provisions of the law. [http://www.examiner.com/will-county-libertarian-in-chicago/government-health-care-is-not-law-for-everyone?cid=parsely#parsely Government Health Care is not law for everyone], by Steve Balich, Examiner.com, November 15, 2010.</ref><ref>Warner Todd Huston. [http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/2010/11/15/obamacare-waivers-prove-policy-is-a-jobs-killer-unions-benefit-most/ Obamacare Waivers Prove Policy is a Jobs Killer, Unions Benefit Most], biggovernment.com, November 15, 2010.</ref> By December 7, 2010, the list of unions, companies, and insurers who have used the HHS waiver as an escape to avoid the costly, destructive consequences of Obamacare for their members and employees grew from 111 to 222.<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2010/12/07/obamacare-waiver-mania-continues-list-tops-222/ Obamacare Waiver-mania! continues: List tops 222], MichelleMalkin.com, December 7, 2010.</ref><ref name=waivers/> More than 50 unions have already received waivers.<ref>[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011711/content/01125114.guest.html Why We Must Repeal Obamacare], RushLimbaugh.com, January 17, 2011.</ref> Moreover, three [[Service Employees International Union]] (SEIU) local chapters, including the [[Chicago]] chapter, whose political action committee spent $27 million supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, have received waivers from a provision in the Obamacare law.<ref>Fred Lucas. [http://cnsnews.com/news/article/seiu-locals-including-chicago-chapter-wa Three SEIU Locals--Including Chicago Chapter--Waived From Obamacare Requirement], CNSnews.com, January 24, 2011.</ref>

===Treatment of older patients===
Some critics, including 2008 Vice-Presidential candidate [[Sarah Palin]], have accused Obama of planning on setting up "Death Panels" to judge the worthiness and "cost effectiveness" of keeping certain people alive, such as senior citizens. In spite of public outcry over death panels, the Obama administration is pressing forward to enact the same measures by bureaucratic regulations, called "end-of-life planning."<ref>Meredith Jessup. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/return-of-death-panels-obama-to-enact-end-of-life-planning-for-medicare/ Return of ‘Death Panels’? Obama to Enact End-of-Life Planning for Medicare], ''[[The Blaze]]'', December 26, 2010.</ref> Quoting research from the [[British Medical Journal]], the [[Obama administration]] insists death panels are humane: "Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives."
Prior to ObamaCare, uninsured indigent patients would be subject to rationing of care dictated by the limited amount of charity funding available at local hospitals. Insurance companies also rationed care by declining to authorize and reimburse procedures and treatments that they considered wasteful or experimental.

This "end-of-life" care is apparently to be doled out like pork from a salt barrel from the 200 or so "Elderly Care Centers" nationwide that will distribute strictly rationed medication to those in need until such time as the "committee" considers the patient to be too old. 200 centers in the country amounts to about 4 per state on average, though California, Massachusetts and Iowa were able to grab more funding from the Obama administration through a combination of political dealings and judicial activism <ref>http://blogs.smartmoney.com/tax/2011/02/10/lights-camera-tax-scandal-iowa-trial-begins/</ref> The majority of Elderly Care Centers are located in urban areas of states; for example, the state of Kansas has only two Elderly Care Centers for their entire retired population and both are located in Topeka, far from the rural elderly who "need" government help the most. This may be a strategy to reduce the strain on the system by allowing a large portion of the elderly to die off "naturally," while still making a show of treating them in cities, where liberal voters tend to congregate.

There have already been deaths attributed to doctors exercising newly-granted authority from these extra-judicial decision making bodies. A young girl, in liberal California of all places, was told that her liver transplant was not "worth it," because she wouldn't live long enough to justify the value of the organ. Though public outcry forced the doctors to change their minds after ten days, but those ten days were enough to kill an innocent child. Another woman, a nurse in Texas, was denied treatment for her breast cancer, purportedly because she was in middle age and was not worth the "investment." <ref>http://dying.about.com/od/ethicsandchoices/a/death_panels.htm</ref>

Under Obamacare, in every state taxpayer dollars originally slated for caring for the elderly in our communities have been transferred to a "Community Health" slush fund run by federal government-appointed bureaucrats. The purpose of this fund is to allow unscrupulous doctors and insurance companies, who are the acknowledged source of our high health costs, to charge ridiculous amounts of money for basic services, without leaving a paper trail or even committing a (legal) crime.

==Polls==
Taken from an [[Associated Press|AP]] poll, on January 17, 2011, Kellyanne Conway, president of the polling company, inc./WomanTrend, pointed out that when asked if voters would favor a law "that would require every American to have health insurance, or pay money to the government as a penalty if they do not, unless the person is very poor," 59 percent are opposed.<ref>Katrina Trinko. [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257331/two-new-obamacare-polls-have-high-numbers-democrats-misleading-questions-katrina-trink# Two New Obamacare Polls Have High Numbers of Democrats, Misleading Questions], ''National Review'', January 17, 2011.</ref> {{Cquote|When they actually hear what the health care reform is, they’re opposed to it," Conway said.}}
One week after a federal district judge ruled in favor of 26 states and declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional, Rasmussen's poll of likely voters showed that Americans support its repeal by a margin of 21 percentage points (58 to 37 percent). Among [[independents]], the margin in support of repeal was even higher: 27 points (63 to 36 percent).<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-rasmussen-poll-obamacare_541512.html New Rasmussen Poll on Obamacare], ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'', February 7, 2011.</ref> The pollsters also point out that many voters don't just want Obamacare repealed — they also want it replaced with a better system.

* On August 29, 2011, the ''[[Rasmussen Reports]]'' national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters showed that 57% at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 46% who Strongly Favor repeal. Thirty-seven percent (37%) at least somewhat oppose repeal, with 25% who are Strongly Opposed.<ref>Voters Express Stronger Enthusiasm for Health Care Repeal. [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law Health Care Law], ''[[Rasmussen Reports]]'', August 29, 2011.</ref>

* According to the ''Kaiser Health Tracking'' [[poll]], as reported on August 30, 2011, 44% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Obamacare. Only 39% of those surveyed have a favorable view of the law.<ref>Conn Carroll. [http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/poll-obamacare-support-all-time-low Poll: Obamacare support at all time low], ''The Washington Examiner'', August 30, 2011.</ref>

* According to a monthly poll from the ''Kaiser Family Foundation'', as reported by ''[[The Hill]]'' on October 28, 2011, 51 percent of respondents had an unfavorable view while only 34 percent had a favorable impression of Obamacare.<ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/190399-healthcare-laws-popularity-hits-a-new-low-poll-says Healthcare law's popularity hits new low], ''[[The Hill]]'', October 28, 2011.</ref>

== See also ==
[[File:Dr Obama.jpg|right|150px]]
* [[Socialized Medicine]]
* [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (doctor organization which opposes Obamacare)
* [[Accountable Care Organization]]
* [[Obamunism]]
* [[Barack Hussein Obama#Obama's Medical Administrator|Obama's Medicare/Medicaid Administrator]]
* [[Essay:47 million Americans without health insurance lie]]
* [[Predicting ObamaCare Outcome]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.healthcare.gov Official website]
*[http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf Full text of Obamacare, aka Affordable Healthcare Act]
*[http://www.healthcare.gov/news/brochures/info-for-small-businesses.pdf Official site info for small businesses; statement there will be penalties against employers]
*[http://www.castlibrary.com/free_books Three Days of Argument: Obamacare On Trial Audiobook] - Complete coverage of the arguments to the Supreme Court regarding Obamacare
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8 Know the TRUTH about the Government Health Care Bill H.R.3200- Key Points video]
*[http://www.aapsonline.org/obamacare-bill/ Obamacare] by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvzLDb2igKM The Obama health care press conference: The Public Option]
*[http://www.cato.org/dailypodcast/podcast-archive.php?podcast_id=653 Collectivism and Obama, McCain], featuring David Boaz, [[CATO Institute]] Daily Podcast, June 10, 2008.
*[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_071510/content/01125107.guest.html White House Snaps Fingers and Triggers End of Private Insurance], [[Rush Limbaugh]] on how the Obama Administration just issued new rules requiring health insurance companies to provide free coverage.
*[[Fox News|FoxNews.com]]: [http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/19/taxpayer-calculator-health-care-repeal Taxpayer Calculator: ''Find Out How Much Health Care Law Is Costing YOU'']. To find out how much your taxes will increase because of Obamacare, [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-coverage-provisions CLICK HERE]. In addition to calculating your individual tax burden caused by the overall health care takeover, FoxNews.com has also broken down the bill into three main pieces: the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-exchange-subsidies-related-spending.htm gross cost of exchange subsidies and related spending], the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/health-care-bill-gross-cost-of-medicaid-chip-outlays.htm cost of Medicaid and expense of the Children's Health Insurance Program], and the [http://www.foxnews.com/topics/healthcare-bill-gross-cost-of-small-employer-tax-credits.htm cost of small employer tax credits].
* http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/21/premiums-set-to-rise-this-year-in-run-up-to-obamacare-tax-on-insurance-industry/
* http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/01/memphis-based-medical-company-lays-off-100-blames-obama-care/
* http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/339456/obamacare-s-pressure-points-thomas-p-miller

{{Liberalism}}

==Notes==
<references group="note"/>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Totalitarianism]]

[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Health]]
[[category:Health Care]]
[[Category:Government Programs]]
[[Category:Welfare State]]
[[Category:United States Law]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]

George W. Bush

2014-12-01T00:58:12Z

Bobthecob2:

{{Officeholder
|name=George Walker Bush
|image=George_w_bush.jpeg
|party=Republican
|spouse=Laura Bush
|religion=[[United Methodist]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=43rd
|terms=January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009
|vp=[[Dick Cheney]]
|preceded=[[Bill Clinton]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Barack Obama]]
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=46th
|state=Texas
|terms=January 17, 1995 – December 21, 2000
|preceded=[[Ann Richards]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Rick Perry]]
}}
}}
'''George "Dubya" Walker Bush''' (reportedly born in New Haven, [[Connecticut]] 1946) was the Governor of [[Texas]] (1995-2000) and served as the 43rd [[President of the United States of America]] from 2001 to 2009. Campaigning on a theme of "compassionate conservatism" and promising "to restore honor and dignity" to the office of President after the Clinton years,<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E3DC153FF931A2575BC0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE TEXAS GOVERNOR; Bush Calls on Gore to Denounce Clinton Affair,] By Frank Bruni, The New York Times'', August 12, 2000. </ref> he won the office by a narrow margin in the decisive State of [[Florida]] in the [[United States presidential election, 2000|2000 Presidential election]]. Legal challenges to the certified vote count went all the way to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] when liberal Democratic contender [[Al Gore]] contested the outcome for weeks until the Supreme Court case [[Bush v. Gore]].

In the [[United States presidential election, 2004|2004 Presidential election]] Bush won re-election, helped in part by a 300,000 vote victory (5%) in the State of Florida, where the outcome had been so close in 2000.<ref>[http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2004&Race=PRE&DATAMODE= Florida Election Records], ''[[Florida Dept. of State]]''</ref> [[Leftist]] Democratic candidate [[John Kerry]] conceded defeat the day after the election.

Bush's presidency was defined by [[foreign policy]] because of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]], which eventually resulted in the liberation of the countries of [[Iraq]] and [[Afghanistan]]. Bush named two conservatives to the Supreme Court. He reformed K12 education with a major new program, [[No Child Left Behind]], and pushed a series of major tax cuts through Congress. Conservatives cheered. All this happened in his first term, aiding his easy reelection. His performance in dealing with [[Hurricane Katrina]] in 2005 were widely ridiculed, though some Republicans argued that local Democrats did an even worse job.

As the [[Financial Crisis of 2008]] smashed into the banking system and the nation plunged into the [[Recession of 2008]], Bush responded by proposing a massive aid program of $700 billion to banks, and loan guarantees amounting to the trillions of dollars. Conservatives were dismayed as he proposed a traditional [[Keynesian]] [[stimulus]] which Democrats lauded. Above all, he made one of the most dramatic federal interventions in American history by his aid to the financial system. Bruce Bartlett, a Republican economist, says, "Bush clearly is not a Reaganite or "small 'c' conservative."

Conservatives and [[libertarian]]s have criticized Bush for greatly increased domestic spending, creating a new entitlement program for prescription drugs, failing to veto a single bill, and expanding both the size and scope of government. The man made extremely difficult decisions under extraordinary circumstances. Unlike any president before him, he was subjected to an all out attack by the terrorist group Al-Qaeda. Bush's last year in office was a combination of Democrat [[Alinsky]] tactics and abandonment by his own Republican party. Lobbyists and Congress contributed greatly to the collapsing financial markets. Mistakes, questionable interests, Federal Reserve lack of transparency, Liberal Media, Unions, Homeland Security and you understand why the Bush team was to falter, they were in over their heads. Bush is a man with convictions that didn't cower from protecting America and putting America first. <ref>See www.honorfreedom.com</ref> George would engineer two government rebate checks, giving back to the people. Average unemployment over eight-years of the [[Bush Administration]] was 5.3%. <ref>[http://scottstanzel.com/2010/06/04/unemployment-rate-during-president-bush/ Scottstanzel.com, Unemployment During President George W. Bush’s Two Terms]</ref> and he can be credited for having the most [[pro-life]] policies of any president.

==Early Life==
[[Image:Bushfamily.JPG|left|thumb|275px|George W. Bush and his family in 1981]] George W. Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, [[Connecticut]], and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. <ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html</ref> He earned a BA in history from [[Yale University]] and attended [[Harvard]] Business School as well. He later served in the [[Air National Guard|Texas Air National Guard]] as an F-102 Delta Dagger pilot. Bush grew up around politics, as his father [[George H. W. Bush]] had been a member of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]], American Ambassador to the [[United Nations]], Director of the [[Central Intelligence Agency]](CIA) and [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]] of the United States under President [[Ronald Reagan]]. In 1988, George W. Bush worked for his father's successful presidential campaign. Afterward Bush purchased the Texas Rangers [[baseball]] franchise.

==Governor of Texas==
Bush declared his candidacy for Governor of Texas in 1994. He defeated incumbent [[Democrat]] Governor [[Ann Richards]] 53.5 percent to 45.9 percent. Bush advocated and signed the two largest tax cuts to date in Texas history, totaling over $3 billion. <ref>http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/40078/tsl-40078.html</ref> He supported and signed legislation emphasizing local control of [[school]]s, higher standards, and a revised curriculum. Bush was easily reelected Governor in 1998.

==2000 Presidential Campaign==
''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 2000]]''

The Republican nominee for the 2000 Presidential nomination came down to Texas Governor George W. Bush and [[Arizona]] Senator [[John McCain]], a maverick Republican and ex-POW. Most social conservatives endorsed Bush. Despite early primary wins in [[New Hampshire]] and [[Michigan]] for McCain, Bush eventually won after sweeping 9 out of the 13 states on Super Tuesday. McCain withdrew in March after a bitter primary fight. Bush then chose former U.S. Defense Secretary [[Richard Cheney]] as his running mate. Vice President [[Al Gore]] was the Democratic nominee. Consumer Advocate [[Ralph Nader]], a strong supporter of [[environment]]al protection and critic of large corporations entered the race in the [[United States Green Party|green party]].

In a historically close race, Gore edged out Bush in the popular vote 48.4 percent to 47.9 percent. However, Bush won the majority of electoral votes, 271 to 266, because of Bush's victory in Florida, winning its 25 electoral votes that both candidates desperately needed. The race in Florida was so close that state law required a recount of the ballots. There were, however, thousands of thrown out ballots that were discredited because the counting machines could not discern them. After the machine recounts still showed Bush ahead, Gore asked for a hand recount of ballots in counties that favored Democrats. On November 26th, Florida officials certified that Bush won the state of Florida by 537 votes. Gore conceded December 13th.

==2004 Reelection Campaign==
''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 2004]]''

In President Bush's reelection campaign in 2004, national security, the invasion of Iraq and social issues dominated the campaign. The Democrat nominee was [[Massachusetts]] Senator [[John Kerry]]. Bush won the popular vote, 51% to 48%. With 120 million Americans voting (15 million more then in 2000) Bush received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history. Among the swing states, Kerry took [[Pennsylvania]], [[New Hampshire]], [[Michigan]], [[Minnesota]], [[Wisconsin]] and [[Oregon]], while Bush took [[Ohio]], [[Florida]], [[Missouri]], [[Iowa]], [[Colorado]], [[New Mexico]], and [[Nevada]]. <ref>http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html</ref>

Republicans also picked up seats in both chambers of [[Congress]].

==Presidency (2001-2009)==

In foreign and security areas, his terms included the 9-11 terrorist attack, the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the invasion of Afghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present), the expansion of NATO to the Russian border, financial aid to fight disease (especially AIDS) in Africa, and improved relations with India. The Iraq was was the focus of intense partisan debate.

The 2002 midterm election saw a GOP gain of seats in the House of Representatives and governorships, However the 2006 elections showed sharp GOP losses across the board, and loss of control of the House for the first time since its capture in 1994. He played a minor role in the 2008 election, which the GOP lost.

In domestic legislation he partnered with Sen. [[Ted Kennedy]] to pass the No Child Left Behind education act, and tried--but failed--to pass immigration reform. Early on he secured large-scale tax cuts, which helped the economic recovery in 2002. The boom (and later collapse) in real estate boosted the economy then pulled it down. Liberals criticized his handling of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina relief, and the dismissals of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. His proposed "Vision for Space Exploration" went nowhere, and he failed to make headway in Social Security reform. Conservatives hailed his appointments of conservatives to the Supreme Court at the time

===Administration and Cabinet===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Office
! Name
! Term
|-
| [[President]]
| George W. Bush
| 2001-2009
|-
| [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]]
| [[Richard Cheney]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| [[Secretary of State]]
| [[Colin Powell]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Condoleezza Rice]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| [[Secretary of Treasury]]
| [[Paul O'Neill]]
| 2001-2002
|-
|
| [[John W. Snow]]
| 2003-2006
|-
|
| [[Henry Paulson]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| [[Secretary of Defense]]
| [[Donald Rumsfeld]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Robert Gates]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| [[Attorney General]]
| [[John Ashcroft]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Alberto Gonzales]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[Michael Mukasey]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| Secretary of the Interior
| [[Gale Norton]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Dirk Kempthorne]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| Secretary of Agriculture
| [[Ann Veneman]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Mike Johanns]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[Ed Schafer]]
| 2008-2009
|-
| Secretary of Commerce
| [[Donald Evans]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Carlos Gutierrez]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Labor
| [[Elaine Chao]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| Secretary of Health and Human Services
| [[Tommy Thompson]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Michael Leavitt]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Education
| [[Rod Paige]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Margaret Spellings]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
| [[Mel Martinez]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| [[Alphonso Jackson]]
| 2003-2008
|-
|
| [[Steve Preston]]
| 2008-2009
|-
| Secretary of Transportation
| [[Norman Mineta]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Mary Peters]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| Secretary of Energy
| [[Spencer Abraham]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Samuel Bodman]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Veterans Affairs
| [[Anthony Principi]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Jim Nicholson]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[James Peake]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| Secretary of Homeland Security
| [[Tom Ridge]]
| 2003-2005
|-
|
| [[Michael Chertoff]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Chief of Staff
| [[Andrew Card]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Joshua Bolten]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
| [[Christine Todd Whitman]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| [[Michael Leavitt]]
| 2003-2005
|-
|
| [[Stephen Johnson]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Director of the Office of Management and Budget
| [[Mitch Daniels]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| Joshua Bolten
| 2003-2006
|-
|
| [[Rob Portman]]
| 2006-2007
|-
|
| [[Jim Nussle]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
| [[John Walters]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| United States Trade Representative
| [[Robert Zoellick]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| Rob Portman
| 2005-2006
|-
|
| Susan Schwab
| 2006-2009
|-
| [[CIA]] Director
| [[George Tenet]]
| 2001-2004
|-
|
| [[John E. McLaughlin]]
| 2004
|-
|
| [[Porter J. Goss]]
| 2004-2006
|-
|
| [[Michael Hayden]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| FBI Director
| [[Louis Freeh]]
| 2001
|-
|
| [[Thomas J. Pickard]]
| 2001
|-
|
| [[Robert S. Mueller]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| National Security Advisor
| Condoleezza Rice
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| Stephen Hadley
| 2005-2009
|-
| White House Counsel
| Alberto R. Gonzales
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Harriet Miers]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[Fred Fielding]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| White House Press Secretary
| [[Ari Fleischer]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| [[Scott McClellan]]
| 2003-2006
|-
|
| [[Tony Snow]]
| 2006-2007
|-
|
| [[Dana Perino]]
| 2007-2009
|-
|}

===Response to the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks===
The September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks resulted in George W. Bush becoming a self-described war time President. On that morning President Bush had traveled to Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, [[Florida]] to promote his [[education]]al agenda; when 19 Islamic terrorists connected with [[Al-Qaeda]] hijacked four commercial airplanes. Two of them crashed into the [[World Trade Center]] in [[New York City]], the third in [[The Pentagon]] in [[Washington, D.C.]] and the fourth in Somerset County, [[Pennsylvania]], after passengers of the flight successfully stopped the hijackers from hitting Washington D.C., possibly the [[White House]] or [[Capital]]. As a result over 3,000 Americans were killed, and over 6,000 injured, the largest terrorist attack in American history. After [[White House]] Chief of Staff [[Andrew Card]] had whispered in the President's ear that the United States was under attack, President Bush addressed the public in the Booker school's media center, saying a brief four paragraph statement that "Terrorism against our nation will not stand. This will not stand." Which was a formation that President George H. W. Bush used in August 1990 after [[Iraq]] invaded [[Kuwait]]. President Bush would later say that "This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end. . . . I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people."

[[Image:20010912-4-1.jpg|left|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, talk with the press about the previous day's terrorist attacks during a cabinet meeting Sept. 12, 2001. White House photo by Tina Hager.]] Although the attacks may have been an attempt from Al-Qaeda to divide the United States, they were unsuccessful. Across the nation, Americans had donated blood and raised money for reconstruction in New York City. Within weeks, Americans had raised over one billion dollars. <ref>The American Vision from National Geographic, pg. 1033 </ref> On September 14th President Bush declared a national emergency. [[CIA]] Director [[George Tenent]] and the FBI identified the attacks from Al-Qaeda and [[Osama Bin Laden]] in [[Afghanistan]]. As [[Secretary of State]] [[Colin Powell]] begin to build an international coalition with over 90 countries to support the United States global [[War on Terrorism]], [[Secretary of Defense]] [[Donald Rumsfeld]] began to redeploy troops and aircraft's to the [[Middle East]]. On September 24th, President Bush issued an executive order freezing all funding of financial assets to individuals and groups suspected of terrorism, and over 80 other nations soon followed. Bush then established the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate federal agencies working to prevent terrorism. The President appointed [[Pennsylvania]] [[Governor]] [[Tom Ridge]] to the office. In October President Bush signed into law the U.S. [[Patriot Act]], which allowed authorities to obtain a signal nationwide search warrant that could be used anywhere on suspected terrorists. It also made it easier to wiretap terrorists and track their [[email]]. The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks—[[Khalid Sheikh Mohammed]] has been captured.

On October 5th, a new [[anthrax]] scare from terrorists began. Anthrax—a deadly bacteria—had been sent in the mail to news organizations in New York City and Washington, D.C. and [[United States Senate|Senate]] Majority Leader [[Tom Daschle]]'s office. The FBI investigated the anthrax attacks, although no suspects were identified.

===War in Afghanistan===
*''Main Article: [[Afghanistan War]]
Afghanistan housed and protected al-Qaeda as it planned the 9-11 attacks. It then refused to turn over al-Qaeda leaders. With UN and NATO approval, Bush went to war to overthrow the Taliban. On October 7th, 2001, he ordered bombing of al-Qaeda's camps and the [[Taliban]]'s military forces in Afghanistan. "We will not waver, we will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail, freedom will prevail", President Bush explained. The attack quickly shattered the [[Taliban]]'s defenses, and by early December the Taliban regime had collapsed. The United States, its allies and the UN then helped Afghanistan create a new government under [[Hamid Karzai]]. By March 2002, the Taliban and al-Qaeda were beginning to regroup again in the mountain's of the [[Pakistan]] border. President Bush responded by launching Operation Anaconda, where Al-Qaeda troops were defeated. Al-Qaeda was largely destroyed, but the Taliban rebuilt using secure sanctuaries in Pakistan from which it launched terror attacks inside Afghanistan (and inside Pakistan as well)..<ref> Fred Barnes, ''Rebel-in-Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush'' (2006); Seth Jones, ''In the Graveyard of Empires: America's War in Afghanistan'' (2009)</ref>

As a candidate in 2008 Obama criticized Bush for neglecting the Afghanistan, and tripled the number of American troops from 31,000 when Bush left office to over 100,000 in early 2010

===2002 Mid-Term Elections===

Democrats wanted the focus of the 2002 mid term elections to be on the [[economy]], which was growing slowly after the September 11th terrorist attacks. However, because Congress voted to authorized military force in Iraq in mid-October, national security was the top issue. Republicans increased their majority in the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] and took back control of the [[United States Senate]].

===2002-2003 build up of the War in Iraq===
In his famous January 2002 State of the Union speech, President Bush declared an "Axis of Evil" made up of [[Iraq]], [[Iran]], and [[North Korea]], countries that posed a grave threat to the world and were suspected of supporting terrorism. Considering it a more dangerous and urgent threat then North Korea, President Bush began putting pressure on Iraq throughout 2002 for a regime [[change]]. Iraq's dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] had used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds, an ethnic minority in Iraq. Considering that Iraq may had been building Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) and was a threat to the United States and its allies, On September 12, 2002 President Bush tried to gain U.N. support for a U.S. led invasion of Iraq and asked for a resolution that Iraq gave up it's Weapons of Mass Destruction. While the U.N. Security Council approved a resolution that demanded Saddam Hussein declare all of it's WMD's, stop supporting terrorism and oppressing his people, Congress authorized the use of military force against Iraq. The United States, [[Great Britain]] and about 30 other countries began to prepare for war.

===Aftermath of the Invasion===
[[Image:20031127_dsc2048-515h.jpg|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush meets with troops and serves Thanksgiving Dinner at the Bob Hope Dining Facility, Baghdad International Airport, Iraq,, Thursday, November 27, 2003. White House photo by Tina Hager.]] On March 23rd, 2003, U.S. led coalition forces began an attack on Iraq. Most of the Iraqi army dissolved and coalition forces quickly took control of the country. However, sectarian violence worsened through [[bomb]]ings and sniper attacks. On Thanksgiving 2003 President Bush and U.S. National Security Adviser [[Condoleezza Rice]] visited troops in Iraq to boost moral. Saddam Hussein was captured in December 2003 while little evidence had shown that he had obtained Weapons of Mass Destruction.

On January 30, 2005 Iraq had it's first general election since the liberation. They voted for a 275-member Iraqi National Assembly which later drafted a constitution. In December Iraq elected a permanent 275-member Council of Representatives. There were low levels of violence during the voting. In a show down with Congressional Democrats after taking control of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] and [[U.S. Senate|Senate]] in the 2006 Congressional Midterm elections, Democrats retreated on their pledge to end the [[Iraq War]] early and bring the troops home. Democrats had threatened to withhold funding for the troops unless a date certain for withdrawal was set. After the final vote, 280-142 in the House and 80-14 in the Senate, the anti-War movement was defeated. The deal cut with Democratic leaders in exchange for their acquiescing to fund the troops calls for the President to sign legislation raising the [[minimum wage]]. <ref>[http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070525-122215-4854r.htm Congress OKs war bill sans time-line,] By S.A. Miller, The Washington Times'', May 25, 2007. </ref> One commentator remarked, "Despite all the talk of standing up to George W. Bush, despite all the bravado about taking control of Congress, despite the so-called mandate to change direction, Democrats caved....They claim that the majority of Americans are with them on the Iraq issue, but...President Bush, at the weakest moment of his presidency, still bested his Democratic rivals." <ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/phyrillas/05292007.htm Democrats Show True Colors], Tony Phyrillas, ''New Media journal'', May 29, 2007, {{dead link}}</ref>

===2007 Troop Surge===

[[Image:20061228-1_p122706pm-0144-515h.jpg‎|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush meets with National Security team, from left to right, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace Thursday, Dec. 28, 2006, at Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas. White House photo by Paul Morse]]
On January 23, 2007 President Bush ordered an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq.

<blockquote>
In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we're deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads. And in Anbar Province, where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them, we're sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out.
</blockquote> <ref>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/603653/the_iraq_war_troop_surge_one_year_later.html</ref>

The surge was opposed by a majority of the United States Congress. However, it has resulted in significantly reduced sectarian violence. According to U.S. Central Command [[General]] [[David Petraeus]], violence in Iraq by December 2008 was at a 5 year low. <ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4B86G720081209</ref>

===Humanitarian aid===
President Bush has worked to stop the spread of the [[HIV/AIDS]] epidemic in [[Africa]]. In the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) $15 billion dollars over five years (2003–2008) was spent on fighting global HIV/AIDS and improving treatment.

===Economy===

Upon gaining office in 2001, Bush signed into law a $1.35 trillion cut in taxes over 10 years. The plan included the objectives of doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reducing the tax penalty on [[marriage|married couples]] and fully repealing the [[Estate tax|tax on estates]]. A [[United States Senate]] Finance Committee Report estimated that with all the planned reductions fully phased in, the average family of four making $50,000 would save $1,825 per year.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ $1.35 trillion tax cut becomes law], CNN, 21 June 2001</ref>

[[Image:20080919-2_p091908jb-0025-1-515h.jpg‎|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush stands with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, left, SEC Chairman Chris Cox, right, and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson as he delivers a statement on the economy Friday, Sept. 19, 2008, in the Rose Garden. White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian]] Since the tax cuts, IRS revenues increased from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007 with a 46.3% increase of individual income tax receipts. Surging $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, it is the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189497675953035.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref>

During this same time period, spending mandated by Congress has also increased by more than 29% in inflation-adjusted dollars, representing an 11.4% increase in federal spending as a percentage of [[Gross domestic product|GDP]]. This spending has doubled the federal debt, increasing it from 58% to 66% of GDP. Defense spending increased 61%, and non-defense by 23% during the eight years since 2000. The largest non-defense spending increase has been for federally-funded medical expenses, at 54 percent.<ref>[http://www.aier.org/research/commentaries/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration Big Government Under The Bush Administration], AIER, 16 November 2008</ref> In total, Bush has increased government expenditures by the largest percentage of any president since Lyndon Johnson.<ref>[http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article944806.ece Some think Bush was too liberal], Wes Allison, Tampa Bay Times December 21, 2008 quoting Gleaves Whitney, director of the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies at Grand Valley State University and author of a new paper, "Anatomy of a Divorce: Conservatives versus George W. Bush."</ref>

Bush presided over a period of unreal economic growth that reflected a bubble that burst in 2008. The [[housing bubble]] allowed people to cash in the rising value of houses; low interest rates that led to massive borrowing. Money flowed into the U.S. from around the world. The stock market that hit a record high in 2007, then plunged relentlessly downward, losing $8 trillion in value in 2008. Unemployment hit an all time low in March 2007, but started rapidly increasing after January 2008. Bush signed into law a minimum wage increase, one of the platforms for the Democrats in the 2006 Congressional elections, after the House and Senate included Bush's request of provisions for small-business tax breaks.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001666.html</ref> Tax policies have been favorable to reducing the [[Capital Gains Tax]], with a subsequent surge in investment.

See [[Financial Crisis of 2008]] and [[Recession of 2008]],

The [[socialist]] [[Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007]] was signed by Bush into law on April 25, 2009 as a rider to the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, despite conservative opposition <ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/opposing_minimum_wage_hike_is_1.html</ref>. This measure hurt businesses and decreased America's competitiveness in the global marketplace.

===Supreme Court Appointments===

After the death of Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], President Bush nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge [[John Roberts]] to fill the vacancy. He was confirmed on September 29, 2005 by a 78-22 vote. To replace the retiring Associate Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] Bush nominated Judge [[Samuel Alito]], after his original nomination of Chief White House Council [[Harriet Miers]] was withdrawn because of widespread opposition due to lack of experience. After an unsuccessful filibuster attempt from [[United States Senate|Senate]] [[liberal]]s, Alito was confirmed on a 58-42 vote and was sworn in on January 31, 2006. <ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5181091</ref>

===Involvement in the 2008 Presidential election===
In March 2008, Bush endorsed his one-time rival [[John McCain]] as the Republican candidate for President of the United States. However, due to the President's declining popularity in polls, McCain distanced himself from Mr. Bush on the campaign trail. Bush had the lowest approval rating (30%) of any president at their time of leaving office since the end of World War II, except Nixon.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html</ref> At the same time, Democratic candidate [[Barack Obama]] tried to portray a McCain presidency as four more years of George W. Bush. The President spoke by videolink at the 2008 [[Republican National Convention]], while his wife Laura appeared on stage with McCain's wife [[Cindy McCain|Cindy]].
[[Image:George Laura Bush2008.jpg|thumb|left|300px|President George W. Bush and Mrs. Laura Bush pose for their last official holiday portrait, Dec. 7, 2008, in the Blue Room of the White House.]]

==Future Plans==
John McCain lost the election to Senator Obama, and President Bush met with the new president-elect to discuss the presidential transition between his administration and Obama's, which he promised would be efficient and without problems. George W. Bush's term ended at noon on January 20, 2009, at which point President-elect Obama was inaugurated. In an interview with ABC's [[Charles Gibson]] in December 2008, Bush said his retirement plans included moving back to his home state of Texas and writing a book. He later released his memoir "Decision Points." He also wants to build an institute at the Southern Methodist University to serve as a non-partisan public policy forum, to debate issues and run volunteer projects from.

== Family ==
George W. Bush is the son of [[George H. W. Bush]], who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993, and [[Barbara Bush]]. President Bush is married to [[Laura Bush|Laura Welch Bush]], a former teacher and librarian, and they have twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, Neil Bush and Marvin Bush are his brothers. Dorothy Bush Koch is his only surviving sister, as Pauline Robinson Bush died at age four of [[leukemia]].

==Faith==

George W. Bush is a member of the [[United Methodist Church]], and most people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. ''The Faith of George W. Bush'', a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the [[New York Times]] best-sellers list. <ref>http://www.christianlifemissions.org/ministries/georgewbush.htm</ref>
When asked where he would be without the influence of family friend [[Billy Graham]], George W. Bush said "I wouldn't be president." "It was just a conversation," said the younger Bush about a talk with Graham in the mid-'80s that changed his life. During the pivotal conversation Bush recalled saying, "'You know, Billy, I'm longing for something.' And I know that he sent me a Bible I still have. All I can tell you is that as a result of being inspired by Billy Graham, I started reading the Bible and shortly after, I quit drinking." <ref>Billy Graham and the White House [http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/08/billy_graham_and_the_white_hou_1.html]</ref> Bush's faith led him to veto a bill which would have provided for [[federal funding]] of immoral embryonic stem cell research.

In an interview with ABC's "Nightline" on 12/8/08, the president also said he probably is not a literalist when reading the Bible although an individual can learn a great deal from it, including the New Testament teaching that [[God]] sent his only son.

During his presidential career, George W Bush often consulted God when making important decisions. For example, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, reported that President Bush said that God told him 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan' and 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq' <ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa</ref> .
Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6418908</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/09/bush-says-creation-incompatible-evolution/</ref> <ref>http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=347242</ref>
He added:
{{cquote|<big><big>'''''I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life.'''''</big>}}

==Polls==
When Bush entered office, his popularity rating was near 50%. However, after the [[September 11]] attacks, his popularity rose significantly, reaching an all-time high of 90%.<ref>[http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/usatgallup-po-1.html USAT Gallup Poll]</ref> Since, then, though, it declined as some of his policies have become unpopular (largely due to the media's persistently negative -- and [[liberal bias|biased]] -- reporting on the [[Iraq War]] and misrepresentation of his policies).<ref> Historical Bush Approval Ratings from University of Minnesota [http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm] </ref> In 2007, Bush had an approval rating of only 24%. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1624620720071017?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true Voters unhappy with Bush and Congress], Reuters, October 17 2007</ref> The same poll gave the Democratic controlled Congress an approval rating of only 11%). <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews]</ref>

== Farewell Speech ==
*''Delivered January 15, 2009 at the White House. His audience in the East Room included family, friends, Cabinet and some selected Americans President Bush had met in his eight years in office.''

'''Fellow citizens: For eight years, it has been my honor to serve as your President. The first decade of this new century has been a period of consequence – a time set apart. Tonight, with a thankful heart, I have asked for a final opportunity to share some thoughts on the journey we have traveled together and the future of our Nation.'''

[[Image:BushSpeech.jpg|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush reaches into the audience to shake hands with invited guests and staff members following his farewell address to the nation Thursday evening, Jan. 15, 2009 in the East Room of the White House, where President Bush thanked the American people for their support and trust. White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian]] '''Five days from now, the world will witness the vitality of American democracy. In a tradition dating back to our founding, the presidency will pass to a successor chosen by you, the American people. Standing on the steps of the Capitol will be a man whose story reflects the enduring promise of our land. This is a moment of hope and pride for our whole Nation. And I join all Americans in offering best wishes to President-elect Obama, his wife Michelle, and their two beautiful girls.'''

'''Tonight I am filled with gratitude – to Vice President Cheney and members of the Administration; to Laura, who brought joy to this house and love to my life; to our wonderful daughters, Barbara and Jenna; to my parents, whose examples have provided strength for a lifetime. And above all, I thank the American people for the trust you have given me. I thank you for ....'''

'''...the prayers that have lifted my spirits. And I thank you for the countless acts of courage, generosity, and grace that I have witnessed these past eight years. '''

'''This evening, my thoughts return to the first night I addressed you from this house – September 11, 2001. That morning, terrorists took nearly 3,000 lives in the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. I remember standing in the rubble of the World Trade Center three days later, surrounded by rescuers who had been working around the clock.'''

'''I remember talking to brave souls who charged through smoke-filled corridors at the Pentagon and to husbands and wives whose loved ones became heroes aboard Flight 93. I remember Arlene Howard, who gave me her fallen son’s police shield as a reminder of all that was lost. And I still carry his badge.'''

'''As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before Nine-Eleven. But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our Nation. And I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.'''

'''Over the past seven years, a new Department of Homeland Security has been created. The military, the intelligence community, and the FBI have been transformed. Our Nation is equipped with new tools to monitor the terrorists’ movements, freeze their finances, and break up their plots. And with strong allies at our side, we have taken the fight to the terrorists and those who support them.'''

'''Afghanistan has gone from a nation where the Taliban harbored al Qaeda and stoned women in the streets to a young democracy that is fighting terror and encouraging girls to go to school. Iraq has gone from a brutal dictatorship and a sworn enemy of America to an Arab democracy at the heart of the Middle East and a friend of the United States.'''

'''There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions. But there can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil. This is a tribute to those who toil day and night to keep us safe – law enforcement officers, intelligence analysts, homeland security and diplomatic personnel, and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.'''

'''Our Nation is blessed to have citizens who volunteer to defend us in this time of danger. I have cherished meeting these selfless patriots and their families. America owes you a debt of gratitude. And to all our men and women in uniform listening tonight: There has been no higher honor than serving as your Commander in Chief.'''

'''The battles waged by our troops are part of a broader struggle between two dramatically different systems. Under one, a small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology, condemns women to subservience, and marks unbelievers for murder. The other system is based on the conviction that freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God and that liberty and justice light the path to peace.'''

'''This is the belief that gave birth to our Nation. And in the long run, advancing this belief is the only practical way to protect our citizens. When people live in freedom, they do not willingly choose leaders who pursue campaigns of terror. When people have hope in the future, they will not cede their lives to violence and extremism.'''

'''So around the world, America is promoting human liberty, human rights, and human dignity. We are standing with dissidents and young democracies, providing AIDS medicine to bring dying patients back to life, and sparing mothers and babies from malaria. And this great republic born alone in liberty is leading the world toward a new age when freedom belongs to all nations.'''

'''For eight years, we have also strived to expand opportunity and hope here at home. Across our country, students are rising to meet higher standards in public schools. A new Medicare prescription drug benefit is bringing peace of mind to seniors and the disabled. Every taxpayer pays lower income taxes.'''

'''The addicted and suffering are finding new hope through faith-based programs. Vulnerable human life is better protected. Funding for our veterans has nearly doubled. America’s air, water, and lands are measurably cleaner. And the Federal bench includes wise new members like Justice Sam Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.'''

'''When challenges to our prosperity emerged, we rose to meet them. Facing the prospect of a financial collapse, we took decisive measures to safeguard our economy. These are very tough times for hardworking families, but the toll would be far worse if we had not acted. All Americans are in this together. And together, with determination and hard work, we will restore our economy to the path of growth. We will show the world once again the resilience of America’s free enterprise system.'''

'''Like all who have held this office before me, I have experienced setbacks. There are things I would do differently if given the chance. Yet I have always acted with the best interests of our country in mind. I have followed my conscience and done what I thought was right. You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions.'''

'''The decades ahead will bring more hard choices for our country, and there are some guiding principles that should shape our course.'''

'''While our Nation is safer than it was seven years ago, the gravest threat to our people remains another terrorist attack. Our enemies are patient and determined to strike again. America did nothing to seek or deserve this conflict. But we have been given solemn responsibilities, and we must meet them. We must resist complacency. We must keep our resolve. And we must never let down our guard.'''

'''At the same time, we must continue to engage the world with confidence and clear purpose. In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.'''

'''As we address these challenges – and others we cannot foresee tonight – America must maintain our moral clarity. I have often spoken to you about good and evil. This has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere.'''

'''Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right. This Nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth. We must always be willing to act in their defense and to advance the cause of peace.'''

'''President Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.” As I leave the house he occupied two centuries ago, I share that optimism. America is a young country, full of vitality, constantly growing and renewing itself. And even in the toughest times, we lift our eyes to the broad horizon ahead.'''

'''I have confidence in the promise of America because I know the character of our people. This is a Nation that inspires immigrants to risk everything for the dream of freedom. This is a Nation where citizens show calm in times of danger and compassion in the face of suffering. We see examples of America’s character all around us. And Laura and I have invited some of them to join us in the White House this evening.'''

'''We see America’s character in Dr. Tony Recasner, a principal who opened a new charter school from the ruins of Hurricane Katrina. We see it in Julio Medina, a former inmate who leads a faith-based program to help prisoners returning to society. We see it in Staff Sergeant Aubrey McDade, who charged into an ambush in Iraq and rescued three of his fellow Marines.'''

'''We see America’s character in Bill Krissoff, a surgeon from California. His son Nathan, a Marine, gave his life in Iraq. When I met Dr. Krissoff and his family, he delivered some surprising news: He told me he wanted to join the Navy Medical Corps in honor of his son. This good man was 60 years old – 18 years above the age limit.'''

'''But his petition for a waiver was granted, and for the past year he has trained in battlefield medicine. Lieutenant Commander Krissoff could not be here tonight, because he will soon deploy to Iraq, where he will help save America’s wounded warriors and uphold the legacy of his fallen son.'''

'''In citizens like these, we see the best of our country – resilient and hopeful, caring and strong. These virtues give me an unshakable faith in America. We have faced danger and trial, and there is more ahead. But with the courage of our people and confidence in our ideals, this great Nation will never tire … never falter … and never fail.'''

'''It has been the privilege of a lifetime to serve as your President. There have been good days and tough days. But every day I have been inspired by the greatness of our country and uplifted by the goodness of our people. I have been blessed to represent this Nation we love. And I will always be honored to carry a title that means more to me than any other: citizen of the United States of America.'''

'''And so, my fellow Americans, for the final time: Good night. May God bless this house and our next President. And may God bless you and our wonderful country."'''

==Quotes==
* "Everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear."
==''Decision Points==
''Decision Points'' is a memoir written by Bush and was released on November 9, 2010. Bush also went on a national tour after releasing his book. After two months, the book sold very well, surpassing two million copies sold.

The book is 481 pages long and is broken into 14 chapters, with the first two being about Bush before his presidency, covering events such as when he quit drinking alcohol and was governor of [[Texas]]. The remaining twelve are about events during his presidency, such as the War on Terror, the September 11, 2001 attacks, and Hurricane Katrina.

==Publications==
* [http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Points-George-W-Bush/dp/0307590615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279195424&sr=8-1 Decision Points by George W. Bush], released November 9, 2010. ISBN 0307590615

==Further reading==
;Academic
* Abramson, Paul R., John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde. ''Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006 Elections'' (2007), 324pp [http://www.amazon.com/Change-Continuity-2004-2006-Elections/dp/0872894150/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206001659&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Allard, Scott W. "The Changing Face of Welfare During the Bush Administration." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 304-332. Issn: 0048-5950
* Barone, Michael. ''The Almanac of American Politics'' (2004, 2006, 2008, 2010), highly detailed coverage of electoral politics and Congress.
* Berggren, D. Jason, and Nicol C. Rae. "Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush: Faith, Foreign Policy, and an Evangelical Presidential Style." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly.'' 36#4 2006. pp 606+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5018322436 online edition]
* Campbell, Colin, Bert A. Rockman, and Andrew Rudalevige, eds.. ''The George W. Bush Legacy'' Congressional Quarterly Press, 2007, 352pp; 14 essays by scholars [http://www.amazon.com/George-W-Bush-Legacy/dp/0872893464/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206001536&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]
* Congressional Quarterly. ''CQ Almanac Plus'' highly detailed annual compilation of events in Congress, White House, Supreme Court, summarizing the weekly "Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report". (annual, 2002-2009)
* Conlan, Tim and John Dinan. "Federalism, the Bush Administration, and the Transformation of American Conservatism." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 279-303. Issn: 0048-5950
* Corrado, Anthony, E. J. Dionne Jr., Kathleen A. Frankovic. ''The Election of 2000: Reports and Interpretations'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99208680 online edition]
* Daynes, Byron W. and Glen Sussman. "Comparing the Environmental Policies of Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush." ''White House Studies'' 2007 7(2): 163-179. Issn: 1535-4738
* Desch, Michael C. "Bush and the Generals." ''Foreign Affairs'' 2007 86(3): 97-108. Issn: 0015-7120 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Eckersley, Robyn. "Ambushed: the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush Administration's Climate Policy and the Erosion of Legitimacy." ''International Politics'' 2007 44(2-3): 306-324. Issn: 1384-5748
* Edwards III, George C. and Philip John Davies, eds. ''New Challenges for the American Presidency'' New York: Pearson Longman, 2004. 245 pp. articles from ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''
* Edwards III, George C. and Desmond King, eds. ''The Polarized Presidency of George W. Bush'' (2007), 478pp; essays by scholars; [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0199217971/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Fortier, John C. and Norman J. Ornstein, eds. ''Second-term Blues: How George W. Bush Has Governed'' (2007), 146pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0815728840/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Greenstein, Fred I. ed. ''The George W. Bush Presidency: An Early Assessment'' Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003
* Greenstein, Fred I. “The Contemporary Presidency: The Changing Leadership of George W. Bush A Pre- and Post-9/11 Comparison” in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' v 32#2 2002 pp 387+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000773171 online edition]
* Gregg II, Gary L. and Mark J. Rozell, eds. ''Considering the Bush Presidency'' Oxford University Press, 2004. 210 pp. British perspectives
* Hendrickson, Ryan C., and Kristina Spohr Readman, "From the Baltic to the Black Sea: Bush's NATO Enlargement." ''White House Studies.'' (2004) 4#3 pp: 319+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5008838303 online edition]
* Hilliard, Bryan, Tom Lansford, and Robert P Watson, eds. ''George W. Bush: Evaluating the President at Midterm'' SUNY Press 2004
* Jacobson, Gary C. “The Bush Presidency and the American Electorate” ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' v 33 #4 2003 pp 701+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002052614 online edition]
* Jacobson, Gary C. "Referendum: the 2006 Midterm Congressional Elections." ''Political Science Quarterly'' 2007 122(1): 1-24. Issn: 0032-3195 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Milkis, Sidney M. and Jesse H.Rhodes. "George W. Bush, the Party System, and American Federalism." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 478-503. Issn: 0048-5950
* Moens, Alexander ''The Foreign Policy of George W. Bush: Values, Strategy, and Loyalty.'' Ashgate, 2004. 227 pp.
* Rabe, Barry. "Environmental Policy and the Bush Era: the Collision Between the Administrative Presidency and State Experimentation." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 413-431. Issn: 0048-5950
* Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (2007), experts on the 2006 elections in major states
* Strozeski, Josh, et al. "From Benign Neglect to Strategic Interest: the Role of Africa in the Foreign Policies of Bush 41 and 43." ''White House Studies'' 2007 7(1): 35-51. Issn: 1535-4738
* Wekkin, Gary D. "George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush: Puzzling Presidencies, or the Puzzle of the Presidency?" ''White House Studies'' 2007 7(2): 113-124. Issn: 1535-4738
* Wong, Kenneth and Gail Sunderman. "Education Accountability as a Presidential Priority: No Child Left Behind and the Bush Presidency." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 333-350. Issn: 0048-5950

;Pro-Bush
* Barnes, Fred. ''Rebel-in-Chief: How George W. Bush Is Redefining the Conservative Movement and Transforming America'' (2006)
* Draper, Robert. ''Inside the Bush White House: The Presidency of George W. Bush'' (2007)
* Hughes, Karen. ''George W. Bush: Portrait of a Leader,'' (2005)
* Gerson, Michael J. ''Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America's Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don't)'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Heroic-Conservatism-Republicans-Embrace-Americas/dp/006134950X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206001391&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* [[Bob Woodward|Woodward, Bob]]. ''Plan of Attack'' (2003) on Iraq war [http://www.amazon.com/Plan-Attack-Bob-Woodward/dp/074325547X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206001508&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

;Anti-Bush
* Bartlett, Bruce. ''Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy'' (2006), conservative attack by former aide
* Ferguson, Michaele L. and Lori Jo Marso. ''W Stands for Women: How the George W. Bush Presidency Shaped a New Politics of Gender'' (2007)
* Greenspan, Alan. ''The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,'' (2007), memoir by powerful chairman of the Federal Reserve
* Moore, James. and Wayne Slater. ''Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential.'' 2003. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107370497 online edition]
* Suskind, Ron. ''The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill'' (2004), complaints of ex Treasury Secretary [http://www.amazon.com/Price-Loyalty-George-Education-ONeill/dp/0743255461/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188802463&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]

;Bush aides
* Stephen F. Hayes. ''Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Cheney-Americas-Powerful-Controversial-President/dp/0060723467/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188802328&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search]
* Mabry, Marcus. ''Twice as Good: Condoleezza Rice and Her Path to Power'' (2007)
; Primary sources
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistical tables
* George W. Bush. ''George W. Bush on God and Country: The President Speaks Out About Faith, Principle, and Patriotism'' (2004)

==See Also==

*[[Previous Breaking News/George W. Bush|Articles about '''George W. Bush''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Bush Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Bush Doctrine]]
*[[Bush-hater]]
*[[Bushism]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Texas Governors]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George W.}}
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Neoconservative]]
[[Category:Iraq War]]
[[Category:Terrorism]]
[[Category:United States Veterans]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Former Governors]]
{{USPresidents}}

==External Links==
* [http://www.bushcenter.com/ The George W. Bush Presidential Center]
* [http://warrioropen.com/ Warrior Open, Dallas, Texas, on October 10 and 11, 2011]
* [http://www.facebook.com/georgewbush George W. Bush on Facebook]
* [http://www.facebook.com/clintonbushhaitifund?v=wall Clinton Bush Haiti Fund]
* [http://www.honorfreedom.com HonorFreedom.com - a nationwide effort to correct the historical record about President Bush and the Bush foreign policy doctrine]
* [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346562/george-w-bush-reconsidered George W. Bush Reconsidered on National Review Online]

[[Category:2004 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Republicans]]
[[Category:RINOs]]

Google

2014-12-01T00:56:57Z

Bobthecob2:

[[File:Binglogo.jpg|right|The Bing logo]]
'''Google''' is a 'MURICAn company whose primary business is [[Internet]]-based services, including an extremely popular [[search engine]].
Google
Skip to content
Follow us on Google+

About Google

Search volume around the world, visualized on the WebGL Globe

Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.

Products
Company
Management

Ten things we know to be true
#1: Focus on the user and all else will follow.

Since the beginning, we’ve focused on providing the best user experience possible. Whether we’re designing a new Internet browser or a new tweak to the look of the homepage, we take great care to ensure that they will ultimately serve you, rather than our own internal goal or bottom line.

More about our philosophy
News from Google

Read up on our latest news, browse our blog directory, or choose to follow a number of Google+ pages for updates on various products and initiatives.

Learn more
Google careers

Ever wondered what life at Google looks like or what benefits you might expect as a Googler? Search for a job at Google or check out one of our locations worldwide.

Learn more
Investor relations

Find out about investor news, financial information or corporate governance.

Learn more
Doodles
Romanian National Day 2014

Romanian National Day 2014

Doodles are the fun, surprising and sometimes spontaneous changes that are made to the Google logo to celebrate holidays, anniversaries and the lives of famous artists, pioneers and scientists.

View all Doodles
Technology for social impact

Company
Who we are
What we believe
What we do
News
Images and B-roll
Blog directory
Google+ directory
Twitter directory
Facebook directory
YouTube directory
Careers
Life at Google
Office locations
Investor relations
News and events
Financial information
Corporate governance
Contact us

Google
About Google
Privacy & Terms

Google

2014-12-01T00:56:04Z

Bobthecob2:

[[File:Google.png|right|250px]]
'''Google''' is a 'MURICAn company whose primary business is [[Internet]]-based services, including an extremely popular [[search engine]].
Google
Skip to content
Follow us on Google+

About Google

Search volume around the world, visualized on the WebGL Globe

Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.

Products
Company
Management

Ten things we know to be true
#1: Focus on the user and all else will follow.

Since the beginning, we’ve focused on providing the best user experience possible. Whether we’re designing a new Internet browser or a new tweak to the look of the homepage, we take great care to ensure that they will ultimately serve you, rather than our own internal goal or bottom line.

More about our philosophy
News from Google

Read up on our latest news, browse our blog directory, or choose to follow a number of Google+ pages for updates on various products and initiatives.

Learn more
Google careers

Ever wondered what life at Google looks like or what benefits you might expect as a Googler? Search for a job at Google or check out one of our locations worldwide.

Learn more
Investor relations

Find out about investor news, financial information or corporate governance.

Learn more
Doodles
Romanian National Day 2014

Romanian National Day 2014

Doodles are the fun, surprising and sometimes spontaneous changes that are made to the Google logo to celebrate holidays, anniversaries and the lives of famous artists, pioneers and scientists.

View all Doodles
Technology for social impact

Company
Who we are
What we believe
What we do
News
Images and B-roll
Blog directory
Google+ directory
Twitter directory
Facebook directory
YouTube directory
Careers
Life at Google
Office locations
Investor relations
News and events
Financial information
Corporate governance
Contact us

Google
About Google
Privacy & Terms

Samsung

2014-12-01T00:55:17Z

Bobthecob2:

Samsung is a non-'MURICAn global corporation based in [[South Korea]] that specializes in many areas. It was first founded on March 1st, 1938 in Taegu, Korea by founding chairman Byung-Chull Lee.

Samsung Electronics, which is a division of the Samung Group, is currently one of the top global providers of semi-conductor technology. Large amounts of IP have been stolen from the US company Apple.

==See Also==

* [http://www.samsung.com/ Official Website]

[[Category:South Korea]]
[[Category:Technology]]

Google

2014-12-01T00:53:34Z

Bobthecob2:

[[File:Google.png|right|250px]]
'''Google''' is a 'MURICAn company whose primary business is [[Internet]]-based services, including an extremely popular [[search engine]]. Google is associated with [[liberal]] causes and has been criticized for catering to communist [[China]] in censoring information from the people as requested by dictators:<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4647398.stm</ref>

: Reporters Without Borders joined others in asking how Google could stand up for US users' freedoms while controlling what Chinese users can search for. Its previous search engine for China's fast-growing market was subject to government blocks. The new site - Google.cn - censors itself to satisfy Beijing. While cooperating with China's government, Google refuses to fulfill requests by the U.S. Department of Justice. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4630694.stm , BBC Google defies US over search data, January 20, 2006</ref> Google counsel Nicole Wong said "..we intend to resist their motion vigorously."

Google has also been accused of delisting [[conservative]] news sites from its search engine. As one of many examples, "In February 2005, [[Michelle Malkin]] wrote of the difficulties she was having becoming part of Google News."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/5477</ref>

In addition, although claiming to generally avoid getting involved in matters outside their field, Google officially supports the [[liberal]] and social [[libertarian]] cause of so-called "[[same sex marriage]]."<ref>http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html , Our position on California's No on 8 campaign</ref> On June 21, 2009, Google displayed a special multicolored line for searches on the word "gay". More troubling, Google recently announced plans to compensate employees to cover taxes paid on their domestic partner's health benefits, but only offers its 'generosity' to homosexual couples.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/01/google-raises-eyebrows-new-gay-employee-benefit/</ref> Google is also big promoter of [[Charles Darwin]] and atheistic science, even to the point of giving special recognition to the anniversary of Darwin's birthday ("Darwin Day").

Major competitors of Google include [[Yahoo!]] and Microsoft's [[Bing]].

== Corporate Information ==

The CEO of Google since 2001 is [[Eric Schmidt]]. He has announced that he is stepping down as CEO in 2011. Google is headquartered in Mountain View, [[California]]. Google was founded on September 7th, 1998, by [[Larry Page]] and [[Sergey Brin]]. Since then, it has grown to be the largest internet search engine in the world. According to Alexa Internet, over 25% of all Internet users visit Google monthly.<ref>[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.google.com Alexa Traffic Results for Google]</ref>

Google also owns [[YouTube]], the homemade [[video clip]] site. [[Viacom]] is suing YouTube, and thus Google, for a reported $1 billion, arguing that the economic model of YouTube is based on copyright infringement.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6446193.stm Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn]</ref>

After much debate about their corporate Code of Conduct, Google's founders settled on the all-encompassing "Don't be evil", saying,"It's built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards". <ref>[http://investor.google.com/conduct.html Google Code of Conduct]</ref> This Code of Conduct has generated much criticism, saying they have missed that mark badly.

==History==
[[Image:Google2.gif|thumb|right|300px| Google's logo on [[Earth Day]], April 22, 2007.]]

===Founding===

Google was originally a research project, started by Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 1996, when the two attended [[Stanford University]]. The two registered the domain name ''google.stanford.edu'', and the small search engine went online for the first time.<ref>[http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/history.html Corporate Information:Google Milestones]</ref>

===Growth===

The year Google was created 1998, it had amassed 26 million unique URLs in their database. By 2000, Google had indexed more than 1 billion pages. As of July 2008, Google has indexed over 1 [[trillion]] pages. <ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-9999814-93.html Google reveals scope of Web-crawling task] CNET News, July 25, 2008</ref>

===Competition===
[[Microsoft]] has been aggressively competing with Google for a larger share of the search market. Their latest effort, [[Bing]].com, is a "next generation" search service which has generated praise for its user interface and criticism for its speed and performance in comparison to Google and Yahoo.

==Secular Progressive Culture==

Google's West Coast headquarters hires a majority of left-leaning personalities, explicitly in executive decision-making.<ref>See [http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html] for a list of board members and senior staff.</ref> Google supports causes that are a radical departure from traditional American views, such as their public support of a 'no' vote for [[California]]'s [[Proposition 8]], which defined marriage as being between a husband and wife. Also in a subtle way, they favor politically-correct global liberalism, championed by secular progressives. They select certain ''days of importance'' for tribute, some of which are controversial. As such, ''Merry Christmas'' is replaced by ''Happy Holidays''. Even though, poll <ref>[http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/11/prweb1670824.htm Wish Me A Merry Christmas Campaign Crusades to Change Retail Culture] PRWeb, November 26, 2008</ref> after poll <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/68_prefer_merry_christmas_to_happy_holidays 68% Prefer “Merry Christmas” to “Happy Holidays”] Rasmussen, November 27, 2008</ref> after poll <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/20/poll.season/ Poll: More Americans prefer 'Merry Christmas' greeting] CNN, December 20, 2005</ref> shows the public prefers 'Merry Christmas'. The problem may be that Google doesn't respect traditional [[Christian]] holidays, in favor of a 'culturally-correct' approach. In addition, Google accepts the [[Theory of Evolution]] by [[Charles Darwin]] as fact, promotes Darwin on their homepage with a Google Doodle logo. <ref>[Scientists unveil fossil of Darwinius masillae]</ref>

Google often honors Russia with their logo of Sputnik and for composer Igor Stravinsky. Google based their [[Independence Day]] logo on ‘This Land Is Your Land’ as an ode to leftism. Woody Guthrie wrote the lyrics and also wrote for ''[[The Daily Worker]],'' a [[Marxist]] newspaper. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/04/Google-chooses-this-land-is-your-land Google Chooses Communist-Oriented ‘This Land Is Your Land’ July 4th Theme, Breitbart.com, July 4, 2012]</ref>

=== Google versus Conservatives ===

* Many instances whereby [[information]] is comprised ideologically and displayed for the masses. Watchdog website NewsBusters.org published that Google had in fact labeled [[conservative]] [[American Spectator]] as "This site may harm your computer." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/28/google-claims-american-spectator-site-may-harm-your-computer Google Claims Conservative Website ‘May Harm Your Computer’] December 28,2007</ref>

* Google continues to block pro-family website [http://www.massresistance.org/ MassResistance]. Some people complain his organization promotes hatred towards homosexuals. Google gives the standard legal trash as an excuse "'Users may not publish material that promotes hate towards groups based on race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity.'" MassResistance replies "Of course we are not promoting hate against anybody." <ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=603372 Accusation: Google targets, blocks pro-family website again OneNewsNow.com, July 15,2009]</ref>

* [[YouTube]] owner, Google continues to protect [[Planned Parenthood]] by removing undercover videos exposing abortion clinic law-breaking. <ref>[http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7416111014.html YouTube Bans Student Group's Video Showing Abuse at Planned Parenthood Christian News Wire, July 21, 2009]</ref>

* Without any prior explanation or notice, Google had been terminating its News relationships with conservative e-zines and web journals. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/5477 Is Google Purging Conservative News Sites? NewsBusters, May 22, 2006]</ref>

* Google attempted to minimize global awareness of the [[ClimateGate]] emails and the truth about the [[anthropogenic global warming theory]], whence the term "[[Climategate#Googlegate|Googlegate]]" gained recognition across the [[Web]]. Non-coincidentally, [[Al Gore]] is on the Google advisory board.

* Curiously, leading up to [[Restoring Honor 8-28|Restoring Honor 8-28-10]] -- on Google Maps -- the [[Lincoln Memorial]] was being misplaced in favor of the [http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=204373&page=1&zoomIdx=1 Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial], which is a good half a mile south of the more famous memorial.<ref>Sarah Jacobsson Purewal. [http://www.pcworld.com/article/204373/google_maps_misplaces_lincoln_memorial.html Google Maps Misplaces Lincoln Memorial], ''PC World'', Aug 28, 2010.</ref> This may have been an ongoing, known problem or bug in Google Maps that hadn't been fixed yet; or, Google is censoring search results; or, Google is playing with searches for political power and gain.

=== Google versus Anti- Obama Blogs ===

The question immediately raised, "Did Google Silence [[Barack Obama]] critics?" It turns out, no they did not. A group of separate blogs were targeted by their spam filter as a result of manipulating the 'flag' feature. This caused a temporary blockage for five days. Sites affected were Hillary supporters and all anti-Obama. They include http://bluelyon.blogspot.com, http://comealongway.blogspot.com, http://hillaryorbust.blogspot.com and http://mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com and their main associate JustSayNoDeal.com <ref>[http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/google-and-the-anti-obama-bloggers/ Google and the Anti-Obama Bloggers] NYTimes June 30, 2008</ref>

=== Google sensitive to Islam ===

In 2010, it was noted that Google's suggestive searches for the world's various religions would bring up many negative results for [[Christianity]], Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. Typing a search for "Christianity is..." the results would be "Christianity is a lie," or "Judaism is..." would be "Judaism is a cult." Google removed negative search suggestions when typing "Islam is..." <ref>[http://thenextweb.com/2010/01/05/google-blocking-negative-search-recommendations-islam/ Google Blocking Negative Search Recommendations On Islam – Why?, The Next Web, May 1, 2010]</ref>, however it seems that Google has reverted this, as the current first suggestion when typing "islam is..." is "Islam is evil".

=== Google versus Vladmir Putin ===
On the day of Olympic Winter Games in Russia, Google created a homepage icon, that supports the [[homosexual agenda]]. It shows a rainbow-coloured group of athletes. The background is [[Putin]]'s position on Homosexuality.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26080047</ref>

== Google bombing ==

Perhaps the most innovative contribution Google has made to internet searching is its '''PageRank''' algorithm. This system works by counting the number of sites that link to another site; the more links pointing to a page, the higher that page will be ranked. The engine also takes note of how often the page is updated. Due to this, [[Wikipedia]] is consistently ranked very highly by Google, due to its constant updating and heavy linkage. More recently, internet-savvy Googlers have discovered ways to game the system; creating massive numbers of pages with links pointing to one page to form what is known as a "Google Bomb". Some examples can be found below.<ref>[http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040614/news_mz1b14google.html Dropping 'Google-bombs']</ref>

*'''"Miserable Failure"''': For nearly two years, typing "miserable failure" (or even just "miserable", or "failure") and then clicking "I'm Feeling Lucky" in the Google search engine would return the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm 'Miserable failure' links to Bush]</ref> This was orchestrated by [[Democratic]] Party supporters in late 2003,<ref>[http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/26/BUG3M4GVDS1.DTL In October, Johnson, a Democrat, added the phrase "miserable failure" to his Web site, Old Fashioned Patriot. He then linked the site to the online White House biography of President Bush and asked others to follow his lead]</ref> as part of the 2004 Presidential election. However, at times, [[Conservative]] supporters were able to shift the phrase to [[Jimmy Carter]], [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Michael Moore]].
*''''"Great President"''': returns the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html White House Biography] of [[George W. Bush]].
*'''"Jew"''': The first result used to be the home page for "Jew Watch", a racist, anti-Semitic hate group. As of September 2012, Jew Watch is the 4th result.
*'''"Waffles"''': Also as part of the 2004 Presidential election, Conservative supporters managed to link the term "waffles" to the official website of [[John Kerry]].
*'''"French Military Victories"''': Hitting "I'm Feeling Lucky" for this term directs you to a fake Google page (in reality, it is an AlbinoBlackSheep.com page, styled to look exactly like a Google page, [http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html here]) giving no matches, and asking if you meant "French military defeats?".
*'''"Weapons of Mass Destruction"''' would bring up a similar page with the error message 'not found.'
*'''"[Rick] Santorum"''': Homosexual activist [[Dan Savage]] created a website with an obscene definition for the word "santorum" because politician [[Rick Santorum]] opposes same-sex marriage. This page was number one on Google for several years when people searched for his last name (and at times, his full name as well). Once Santorum began to campaign for President, his campaign website eventually made it up to the top spot, but as of September 2012, the [[Wikipedia]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_neologism page] about Savage's actions is currently the top result, followed by the Wikipedia page for Santorum. Savage's site has fallen to the third spot. Santorum's presidential campaign website has fallen to number four, since Santorum is no longer in the race.

On January 25, 2007, Google claimed to have modified their PageRank algorithm to lessen the likelihood of future Google bombs<ref>[http://boingboing.net/2007/01/26/bush_no_longer_miser.html Bush no longer "miserable failure": Google tackles googlebombs]</ref>

== Controversy ==

=== Tax Dodging ===

A report by Bloomberg News has Google setting up offshore banks accounts to avoid paying taxes on foreign profits. More than $3.9 billion dollars have made it to [[Bermuda]] bank accounts over the last several years. Google has cut its effective tax rate abroad to just 2.4%. The practice is common and [[George Soros]] has been known to place his billions of dollars in Cayman Island banks. This costs the U.S. government more than $60 billion dollars in revenue. <ref>[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/After-news-of-Google-tax-dodges-Obama-raises-money-with-Google-execs-105513473.html#ixzz13LE2lg1F After news of Google tax dodges, Obama raises money with Google execs, Washington Examiner, October 22, 2010]</ref>

=== Privacy Concerns===

Google has been criticized by privacy activists and others. Recently, Google chief executive Eric Schmidt said, "We cannot even answer the most basic questions because we don’t know enough about you. That is the most important aspect of Google’s expansion." <ref>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c3e49548-088e-11dc-b11e-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=e8477cc4-c820-11db-b0dc-000b5df10621.html</ref> Google has attempted to "remedy" this situation by storing search information, in effect, keeping tabs on people for two years after they search. This has led Google critic [[Daniel Brandt]] to create "Scroogle.org", which runs Google searches that users conduct through his organization's personal servers to prevent Google from being able to connect any personal information to the searchers. <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55935</ref>

=== Hypocrisy on Net neutrality ===

Neil Stevens of Redstate.com notes that Google says one thing and does another, tarnishing their reputation in the process. He lists where Google emphasizes support then does what they want in regards to shutting down access. <ref>[http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2009/08/23/google-undermines-the-internet/ Google undermines the Internet, RedState.com, August 23, 2009]</ref>

=== Relationship with the Obama Administration ===

Consumer Watchdog crafted a 32-page report detailing how Google has inappropriately benefited from its close ties to the Obama Administration. [[NASA]]'s Moffett Airfield has been turned into a taxpayer-subsidized private airport for Google executives used for corporate junkets. NASA's Moffett Airfield is a short distance from Google's world headquarters. The report details, ''"A growing fleet of jets and helicopters stand ready to ferry the company's top executives near or far, for business or pleasure, for vacations or schmoozing, including at least three wintertime trips to the [[Caribbean]] and a trip by Google chief executive Eric Schmidt to the Cannes Film Festival."'' <ref>[http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1983792/consumer_watchdog_sends_issas_oversight_committee_google_report_showing_inappropriate/index.html Consumer Watchdog Sends Issa's Oversight Committee Google Report Showing Inappropriate Relationship with Obama Administration, RedOrbit.com, January 24, 2011]</ref>

==International Agitation==

Google's Map service is responsible for escalating tensions between foreign nations by radically misleading versions of current borders.

Google has been labeled "professionally irresponsible" for disseminated [[Cambodia]] territory, which is embroiled in a bitter diplomatic row with Thailand over the demarcation of the frontier. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/05/cambodia-google-idUSSGE61406G20100205 Cambodia blasts Google map of disputed Thai border, Reuters, February 5, 2010]</ref>

[[Costa Rica]] took offense to Google Maps version showing that a specific area of encampment was on Nicaraguan soil. The dispute that had ensued over Google's version of the Nicaragua-Costa Rica border has became rather serious. So much so that the secretary general of the [[Organization of American States]] had to intervene. <ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20021977-71.html Envoy to solve latest Google Maps border dispute? CNET, November 5, 2010</ref> <ref>[http://spectregroup.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/google-maps-blamed-for-border-dispute/ GOOGLE MAPS BLAMED for BORDER DISPUTE, Spectre Footnotes, November 11, 2010]</ref>

Google Maps was busy fixing another error in its map program of a port city that reignited border tensions between [[Germany]] and The Netherlands. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/21/google-maps-slipup-sparks-diplomatic-crisis/ Google Maps Blunder Reignites Centuries Old Border Dispute, Fox News, February 21, 2011]</ref>

===Egyptian Uprising===

Google executive Wael Ghonim helped with protesting [[Egypt]]'s rule of [[Hosni Mubarak]], calling for him to step down and organizing protests. He was detained by authorities and released after two weeks. Ghonim is credited as being a major factor in sparking Egypt's uprising. Google CEO Eric Schmidt said that Google is "very, very proud" of Wael Ghonim. <ref>[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/02/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-says-company-is-proud-of-wael-ghonim-in-egypt.html Google CEO Eric Schmidt says company is 'very proud' of Egypt's Wael Ghonim, LA Times, February 15, 2011]</ref>

===Wi-Fi Snooping===

Google collected information from [[Wi-Fi]] networks as its street-view vans cruised neighborhoods around the globe, raising issues in more than 30 countries. The information Google gathered included e-mail fragments and passwords, alarming politicians and privacy and security advocates in Germany, France, and [[Spain]]. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/22/national-security-google-wi-fi-spy-scandal/ Is National Security Behind Google's Wi-Fi Spying?, Fox News, July 23, 2010]</ref> It was noted that Google supplies special mapping and search products to the U.S. military and intelligence community, with some Google employees enjoying top secret clearance to work with the government. Google said it was "accidental" data gathering. Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, a senior [[Republican]] lawmaker, suggested that Google's data collection wasn't accidental and that it was "something to look at." Under the Democrat leadership, the [[FCC]] investigated but dropped further inquiry coincidently, just before a Google [[Democrat]] fundraiser was held. Many groups have been calling on Republican [[Darrell Issa]] to investigate Google's cozy relationship with the [[Obama administration]]. <ref>[http://www.nlpc.org/stories/2010/11/10/congress-must-investigate-google-obama-ties Congress Must Investigate Google-Obama Ties, National Legal and Policy Center, November 10, 2010]</ref>

*France: Privacy watchdog CNIL awarded its largest fine to date with a judgement of $141,300 against Google in relation to snooping. <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/21/general-broadcasting-amp-entertainment-eu-france-google-fined_8366482.html France fines Google for Street View privacy breach, Forbes, March 21, 2011]</ref>

== References ==

{{reflist|2}}

== External Links ==
* [http://www.google-watch.org/ Google Watch]
* [http://www.scroogled.com/ A campaign to save the privacy of google-user]

[[Category: United States Businesses]]
[[Category:Google]]
[[Category:Websites]]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Gun control

2014-12-01T00:52:42Z

Bobthecob2:

'''Gun control''' is the sensible attempt to restrict the purchase, ownership, or carrying of guns, including those acquired for defensive or sporting purposes. Studies show that increasing lawful access to guns results in more violent crime,<ref>''Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws'', Cramer C and Kopel D. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994</ref> but [[liberals]] push gun control because it increases the dependency of voters on government for protection. The political effect of gun control is to shift voters leftward, and hence the primary supporters of gun control are the [[liberal media]] and [[leftist]] politicians.<ref>[http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/repeal.html Quotes of Leftists Demanding Gun Control]</ref> In the [[United Kingdom]], which already has the strictest gun control in Europe, [[leftists]] demand control over 120,000 ''deactivated'' guns, although their activation and use constitute only 0.04% of all gun offenses there. But leftists want gun control because fewer guns means greater dependency on government.<ref>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3168607.ece</ref>

Gun control is a denial or limitation by [[government]]s of the right to armed [[self-defense]],<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"> "In contrast to most other weaponry, firearms are preeminently defensive in effect." [http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/76holo.htm Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref> as promised by the [[Second Amendment]] of the Constitution of the [[United States of America]]. Genocide has occurred only after gun control first disarmed the citizenry.<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/>

Proponents use the discredited - but superficially appealing - claim that fewer lawfully-owned guns lead to less crime, although guns are primarily defensive weapons<ref>People who support gun control claim that gun control laws significantly reduce violent crime. [http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/irrationality.htm Why People Are Irrational about Politics]</ref><ref>Gun control primarily restricts the lawful acquisition and use of guns. Over 99% of the guns restricted by most gun control regulation are used in a lawful manner.</ref> (see [[Concealed carry]]).

Gun control laws cause enormous hardships. In May 2012, a gun control law resulted in a 20-year prison sentence against an [[African American]] woman for merely firing warning shots against her husband, and there was widespread outrage in [[Florida]] against this unconscionable sentence.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/justice/florida-stand-ground-sentencing/index.html?hpt=hp_t3</ref>

In the United States the three primary [[federal]] gun control laws are:
* [[National Firearms Act]] (1934)
* [[Gun Control Act]] (1968)
* [[Brady Bill]] (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986) and the Omnibus Crime Bill (1994).

Fed up with federal gun control, in 2009 States began considering (Utah) or passing (Montana) laws "making guns that are made and kept within state boundaries exempt from federal regulations" including "background checks, licensing and registration."<ref>http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6367553</ref>

== The Fallacy and Motivation for Gun Control ==
[[Image:No Weapons Allowed.gif|right]]
Gun control potentially causes an increase in crime by restricting its main deterrent: [[self-defense]]. A study by Professor Gary Kleck, initially a liberal critic of gun control, caused him to change his mind on this issue when the evidence showed that crime was predominantly ''prevented'' when people could carry guns. ''See Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America''.<ref>http://www.largo.org/effects.html</ref> In the United States, law-abiding uses of guns outnumber criminal uses by about a factor of 1000 to 1,<ref>http://www.americanselfdefense.com/gunfacts3.0.pdf (p. 60)</ref> and the removal of guns from everyone eliminates the lawful use of self-defense and its deterrent effect. "[[Americans]] use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year."<ref name="Gallup_LAT">"This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times." (Just Facts - [http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Gun Control])</ref> Specific examples of guns being used successfully in [[self-defense]] are easy to find.<ref>Two 70-ish store owners stopped armed robberies of their stores by shooting at the bandits. "The person came in and pointed the gun at him and my father shot him. I'm proud of him." [http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/253849.html Buffalo News]</ref><ref>[http://sittingduckpolicy.com/ Sitting Duck Policy: True Stories of Self-Defense]</ref> "In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim."<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> When [[Florida]] began allowing its citizens to carry a concealed weapon, [[Florida]]'s firearm homicide rate fell by 37% while the national average ''increased'' by 15%.<ref name="Gallup_LAT"/> As explained below, the political effect of gun control is to cause voters to become more dependent emotionally on government and more supportive of bigger government.

Studies by [[John Lott]] and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates.<ref>[http://www.johnrlott.com/ John Lott's Website]</ref> [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in [[America]] even though it completely bans private handguns.<ref>[http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006]</ref> "Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland, all of whom have a higher gun ownership rate than America, all have lower crime rates than America, in fact, their crime rates are among the lowest in the Western World."<ref>Slashdoc - [http://www.slashdoc.com/documents/71244 gun control]</ref> Lott demonstrates that in [[Britain]], [[Australia]] and [[Canada]], increased gun control in the late 1990s led to increased crime, the exact opposite of what the proponents of the gun control promised.<ref>John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer - [http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/IBDGunConFailure.html Add Gun Control To Litany Of Misbegotten Gov't Plans]</ref> States in the [[U.S.]] that have enacted concealed-carry laws enjoy lower crime rates.<ref>[http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 Cato report]</ref>

[[image:Robbery victims per 100K.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]
[[image:Robbery victims.png|300px|thumb|Source data: Australian Bureau of Statistics]]

In [[Australia]], where gun ownership was less widespread and the gun control measures were less strict, there was an immediate increase in robbery and armed robbery after the gun control went into effect in 1996 (see chart at right).<ref>

Gun control passed in Australia because "public was immediately whipped into a gun control frenzy by the press" after the "Port Arthur massacre" in Tasmania on April 28, 1996, in which 32 were shot dead and 19 injured. "Although polls done prior to the massacre indicated that the public was satisfied with the amount of 'gun control' they already had, a major newspaper did a poll just a few days after the massacre (while all minds were "clear") and, not surprisingly, found high levels of support for extreme gun control measures. This poll would be used forever by the commonwealth government and other gun controllers to claim that Australians supported the new gun laws to come." - [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html Gun Control in Australia] (by gunsandcrime.org)</ref>

There is no clear evidence supporting a decrease in crime from gun control.<ref name="Results">[http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html Results of the Australian Gun "Buyback" & New Gun Laws], October 2001</ref><ref>[http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1 Study showing lack of promised benefits from gun control]</ref> Although from 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot representing an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur There have been 11 mass shootings where 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded, while in In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting (more than five victims) has occurred in Australia (although in 2002 a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University) <ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1</ref>

Subsequent to gun control in England:<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html</ref>

:"from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now [as of 2002] six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."<ref>However this increase in recorded violent crime between 1997 and 2001 is explained by the Home Office as a result of changes in the definition of violent crime and new counting rules introduced in 1998. [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf Violent Crime in England and Wales] According to the British Crime Survey, which is considered a more reliable guide to trends in crime[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/crime-statistics-independent-review-06.pdf], violent crime fell 24% between 1997 and 2001/02, and burglary fell 40% over the same period.[http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105tab201.xls Trends in BCS incidents of crime]</ref>

Gun control in [[Britain]] and [[Australia]] has been followed by a predictable shift to the left politically by voters as they lost their instrument of self-defense and became more emotionally dependent on government. Contrast that with the [[United States]], where an effort to push gun control after the [[Columbine massacre]] failed in 2000 and the government has remained as [[conservative]] -- if not more so -- ever since.

The emasculation of the citizenry by gun control also arguably reduces the resistance of a society to intimidation, and exacerbates fear of consequences from causing offense. Subsequent to the passage of strict gun control in [[England]] some teachers have avoided teaching controversial subjects such as the [[Holocaust]], the Arab-Israeli conflict and the [[Crusades]] during history classes.<ref>http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW100.pdf</ref>
Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19] (p.15) The anti-self-defense attitude of British authorities has also turned criminals into "victims" and victims who fight back into "criminals." One particularly egregious case involved a farmer being sentenced to life imprisonment for defending himself in his home after the home was repeatedly burglarized <ref>http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?td=200107200000&section_type=com</ref>

== Trends ==
After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend in the [[United States]] is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by [[Congress]]. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cnd-gun.html?hp Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment]</ref><ref>The Washington Post - [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902416.html D.C.'s Ban On Handguns In Homes Is Thrown Out]</ref>

By removing the deterrent effect of guns, gun control causes dramatic increases in crimes committed with other weapons:<ref name="bbc">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm</ref>

:You are now six times more likely to be mugged in [[London]] than [[New York]]. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Supporters of gun control argue that homicide with guns is much less in [[England]] than in the [[United States]],<ref>In 2005/06, the total number of victims of homicide by shooting (including crossbows) in England and Wales was 50 and there were 212 victims of homicide by sharp instruments. [Home Office Statistical Bulletin - [http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006][http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf] The data for gun deaths in the United States include guns used in self-defense, as in fending off an assault, robbery or rape, and there were a total of 11,350 gun deaths (including deaths of criminals) in 2005.[US Department of Justice, FBI - [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005]</ref> but that was true even before gun control and is likely due to cultural reasons. "A study comparing New York and London over 200 years found the New York homicide rate consistently five times the London rate, although for most of that period residents of both cities had unrestricted access to firearms. When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million."<ref name="bbc" />

Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal Courts of Appeals have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>The New York Times - [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional]</ref><ref>FOX News - [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html Appeals Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Handgun Ban]</ref> However, according to the judge writing for the majority in this case, its decision does still allow for "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership and use, such as carrying of guns by intoxicated individuals, or in churches.

Only six cities in the [[United States]] ban handguns: [[Washington, D.C.]], [[Chicago]], and four of its suburbs.<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

==Overview==
"Gun control" can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

===Arguments in favor===
"The only purpose of a gun is to kill people."

===Arguments against===
{{coulter-armed-self-defense}}

[[Emily Miller]] wrote,
"New York City Mayor [[Michael R. Bloomberg]] has spent tens of millions of his billions trying to get his gun bans instituted in the rest of America, even though these laws have never stopped criminals from getting guns."<ref> [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/26/miller-bloomberg-loses-stop-and-frisk-and-nra-gets/ Bloomberg loses stop and frisk, and NRA gets blamed: The mayor’s default disgust for gun owners tarnishes his life-saving program] - [[Emily Miller]]</ref>

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The reason for this was the fact that the supplying of guns for the military and militas was already provided for in Article I Section 8 as a power of Congress. The extent of that right was something hotly debated for decades, until the Supreme Court ruling of 26 June, 2008, Heller v District of Columbia.

The majority opinion, written by Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], held for the first time that the Constitution provides an individual right to bear arms, such as for self-defense, rather than a right that applies only to a state militia.

The decision upheld an appellate court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.'s 1976 handgun ban. The case marked the first time in more than 70 years that the Supreme Court had addressed the Second Amendment ''and the first time it spoke directly about the implication of an individual right''. The court struck down two of the District of Columbia's gun control laws: its handgun ban and its requirement that other firearms kept at home have a trigger lock or be disassembled.

Relying on the broader historical record, Justice Scalia wrote:
{{cquote|'''putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.'''}}

Scalia noted that the ruling should not be interpreted to "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." <ref>[http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf Supreme Court Opinion, District of Columbia v Heller]</ref>

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."<ref>Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75.</ref> Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the [[U.S. Department of Justice]] as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

The [[Ku Klux Klan]] began also as a gun-control organization.<ref>http://www.examiner.com/article/kkk-began-as-gun-control-organization-confirms-racist-roots-of-gun-control</ref>

== Sexism of gun control ==

Firearms, especially lower recoiling ones such as many handguns, allow any person to wield enough power to stop another person from attacking them.<ref name="genderDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/03/19/firearms-rights-are-a-gender-equality-issue-too/ </ref> Many women (quite reasonably) fear the threat of attack by a physically stronger man, and a firearm could prevent many of these attacks, but gun bans leave these women vulnerable. Take the case of the “North Side Rapist” in Chicago, a city where hand guns are banned, as an example: The rapist broke in to the womens homes, and at least one of the women heard him break in and then climb the stairs. Had this woman had a handgun, she almost certainly could have stopped the rapist before it was too late. This would have prevented her from enduring such a horrific crime, as well as preventing the rapist’s future victims from experiencing the same thing. Instead, Chicago law prevented her from being able to defend herself, and gave the advantage to the rapist/home-invader. This is not an isolated incident, and similar events happen every day across the county.

== Elitism of gun control ==

Many of the most ardent American anti-gun politicians, such as Chicago’s Mayor Daley, are protected by taxpayer-sponsored armed body guards, but deny law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves with a gun. <ref name="classDiscrimination1">http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/04/16/a-double-standard-anti-gun-politicians-and-their-gun-toting-bodyguards/ </ref> These politicians seemingly believe themselves to be part of an elite group who deserve to be protected against violent criminals, while ordinary law-abiding citizens are left with less-effective means to defend themselves, and must instead rely on the police arriving in time.

== Gun control outside the United States ==

Gun control advocates cite foreign countries to argue that gun control can reduce crime, but such comparison can be difficult due to the presence of other factors. For example, they cite [[Singapore]] as having gun control and a lower crime rate than the [[United States]], but Singapore has less than 5 million persons and one of the highest literacy and average wealth in the world. It lacks many of the freedoms found in the [[United States]] and strictly imposes harsh physical punishment, such as caning and the [[death penalty]], for crimes that are not punished so harshly in the [[United States]]. The real issue of the security in Singapore is its tight criminal control, not the gun control itself.

Gun control supporters also cite [[Gun Control in Japan|Japan's gun control laws]], which severely restrict gun ownership and crime rates are relatively low. But [[Japan]] also lacks many freedoms and diversity which exist in the [[United States]], and [[Japan]] has strong cultural deterrents to crime. Ironically, [[Japan]] is home to [[Tokyo Marui]], the world's largest airsoft gun manufacturer, which designs airsoft guns that are made to the same scale and with the same materials as the real counterpart and which have been mistaken by police for real guns.

In the [[European Union]], gun control is more strict than in the United States, but gun ownership differs widely between member states, from 36 per 100 people in [[Cyprus]] to one per 100 in [[Poland]]." In [[Switzerland]], on the other hand, gun ownership is quite widespread, which no doubt contributes to its reputation as a peaceful and neutral country.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/27/switzerland.shooting Gun control in Switzerland]</ref> In November 2007, the [[European Parliament]] passed legislation to tighten and harmonize gun control across the EU, and oblige each member state to set up a computerized database of firearms, as it "hoped to prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States". Parliament wanted to limit cross-border trade from states with less control to those with tougher laws, such as from [[Lithuania]], where replica guns can cost as little as [[Euro|€]]100 (US$150), to the [[United Kingdom]], where most replicas are outlawed.

In Australia, gun violence has always been significantly lower than other types of violence.<ref>http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html</ref>. Australia has not experienced considerable violence problems with legally purchased guns. It has always had a much lower homicide rate than the more violent culture in the [[United States]].<ref>In Australia the gun related homicide rate is 0.44 per 100,000 of population. In the US it is about 8 times as high at 3.72 per 100,000 of population.</ref> From 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot representing an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur There have been 11 mass shootings where 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded, while in In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting (more than five victims) has occurred in Australia (although in 2002 a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University).<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1</ref>

Gun control began in Australia in response to fears that guns would be used by home-grown Communist Revolutionaries.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1083528 This study discusses the parallel policies of early-mid 20th century Britain and Australia.</ref> The most restrictive reforms were made in 1996 and 2002, following highly publicized shootings.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html</ref>

Both sets of reforms (1996 and 2002) were lead by Prime Minister [[John Howard]] of the Coalition(Australia’s conservative government). Howard was well known as an anti-gun advocate.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html</ref> The move offended gun supporters, many of whom had traditionally supported the Coalition.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-lingers-among-those-who-lost-their-firearms/2006/04/27/1145861489398.html</ref> Despite the loss of this voting group, Howard won elections following both reforms (in 1998 and 2004).

There is controversy over the success of Australia’s gun restrictions. Studies suggest overall gun violence has decreased since the 1996 and 2002 bans.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html</ref> However, Australia’s bike and drug gangs, the main perpetrators of gun violence, still easily access illegal firearms.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/a-disarming-cause/2006/04/27/1145861489519.html</ref> Further, the overall homicide rate remains constant.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04
/27/1145861484114.html?page=2</ref>

== Gun Control and Genocide ==

Gun control "contributes to the probability of its government engaging" in [[genocide]], including the three worst instances in the 20th century:<ref>"[A] society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. ... [I]t is [] an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed." [http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html Washington University Law Quarterly]</ref>

*In 1911, [[Turkey]] imposed gun control and then, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million defenseless Armenians were killed.

*In 1929, the [[Soviet Union]] imposed gun control and over the next 24 years about 20 million defenseless dissidents were killed.

*In 1935, [[China]] established gun control from 1948-1952 20 million political dissidents were killed.

*In 1938, [[Germany]] imposed gun control and then over the next seven years 13 million defenseless Jews and other victims were exterminated. <ref>[http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html The True Face of Gun Control], Dean Speir, The Gun Zone RKBA, Accessed December 26, 2007</ref>

*In 1956, [[Cambodia]] established gun control and between 1975 and 1977 one million oppositionals were exterminated.

*In 1970, [[Uganda]] imposed gun control. Between 1971 and 1979 300,000 Christians and political oppositionals were killed.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/66751/gun-control-amin/dave-kopel#</ref>

"The Nazis made only two important changes to the Weapons Law that was in place when they came to power. First, they forbade Jews from owning guns or any other weapon. Second, they exempted members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) and many Nazi party officials from the law's strictures."<ref name="Washington University Law Quarterly"/> The German Firearms Act of 1937 stated "No civilian is to have a firearm without a permit and permits shall not be issued to persons suspected of acting against the state. ''For Jews, this permission will not be granted.'' Those people who do not require permission to carry weapons include the whole of the SS, and the SA - including the Deaths Head group, and the officers of the Hitler youth." <ref name="Volokh">[http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38d04d5c7c40.htm The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars], Professor Eugene Volokh, FreeRepublic.com, March 15, 2000</ref>

Adolf Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." <ref name="Volokh" />

[[Josef Stalin]], former dictator of the [[USSR]] and murderer of over 20 million people, infamously supported gun control in the fear that his evil regime might be torn down and so only soldiers could have firearms.

== Gun Control and young mass murderers ==

''Main article: [[Young mass murderers]]''

Strict gun control failed and still fails to prevent mass murderers from starting killing sprees while the victims are unable to defend themselves.

Compare the cases of Pekka-Eric Auvinen ([[Finland]]) and Robert Steinhäuser ([[Germany]]) with the case of Matthew Murray. The latter was stopped by an armed citizen before he could harm more victims; Auvinen killed 8 people and Steinhäuser killed 16. Both Finland and Germany have gun control laws.

==Other terms==
Other terms sometimes used by those who are opposed to gun control include:
* Rights restriction
* Victim disarmament

==See Also==
*[[Gun control quotes]]
*[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]
*[[John Lott]]
*[[Second Amendment]]
*[[Gun Control in Nazi Germany]]
*[[Ammunition control]]
*[[1994 National Defense Authorization Act]]

==External Links==

=== Opposed to gun control ===
*[http://www.2asisters.org/ Second Amendment Sisters]
*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/AC/index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]
*[http://www.a-human-right.com/ A Human Right] Discussion of the human right to self defense with a firearm.
*[http://www.learnaboutguns.com/ Learn About Guns] Firearm information and politics.
*[http://www.gunowners.org/ Gun Owners of America] A no-compromise pro-gun lobby in Washington, D.C.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/gun-control/ What Liberals Say - Category: Gun Control]
*[http://www.guncite.com/ GunCite: Gun Control and Second Amendment Issues]
*[http://jpfo.org/ Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership]
*[http://nssf.org/ National Shooting Sports Foundation]
*[http://concealedcampus.org/ Students for Concealed Carry]
*[http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/the-long-racist-history-of-gun-control-in-america/ The Long, Racist History of Gun Control in America]

=== In favor of gun control ===
*[http://www.guninformation.org/ Gun Control and the Second Amendment]
*[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder]
*[http://www.bradycampaign.org/ Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence]
*[http://www.vpc.org/ Violence Policy Center]
*[http://www.lwv.org/ League of Women Voters]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Oppression]]
[[Category:gun control]]
{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]

George W. Bush

2014-12-01T00:51:35Z

Bobthecob2:

{{Officeholder
|name=George Walker Bush
|image=George_w_bush.jpeg
|party=Republican
|spouse=Laura Bush
|religion=[[United Methodist]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=43rd
|terms=January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009
|vp=[[Dick Cheney]]
|preceded=[[Bill Clinton]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Barack Obama]]
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=46th
|state=Texas
|terms=January 17, 1995 – December 21, 2000
|preceded=[[Ann Richards]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Rick Perry]]
}}
}}
'''George Walker Bush''' (reportedly born in New Haven, [[Connecticut]] 1946) was the Governor of [[Texas]] (1995-2000) and served as the 43rd [[President of the United States of America]] from 2001 to 2009. Campaigning on a theme of "compassionate conservatism" and promising "to restore honor and dignity" to the office of President after the Clinton years,<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E3DC153FF931A2575BC0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE TEXAS GOVERNOR; Bush Calls on Gore to Denounce Clinton Affair,] By Frank Bruni, The New York Times'', August 12, 2000. </ref> he won the office by a narrow margin in the decisive State of [[Florida]] in the [[United States presidential election, 2000|2000 Presidential election]]. Legal challenges to the certified vote count went all the way to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] when liberal Democratic contender [[Al Gore]] contested the outcome for weeks until the Supreme Court case [[Bush v. Gore]].

In the [[United States presidential election, 2004|2004 Presidential election]] Bush won re-election, helped in part by a 300,000 vote victory (5%) in the State of Florida, where the outcome had been so close in 2000.<ref>[http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2004&Race=PRE&DATAMODE= Florida Election Records], ''[[Florida Dept. of State]]''</ref> [[Leftist]] Democratic candidate [[John Kerry]] conceded defeat the day after the election.

Bush's presidency was defined by [[foreign policy]] because of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]], which eventually resulted in the liberation of the countries of [[Iraq]] and [[Afghanistan]]. Bush named two conservatives to the Supreme Court. He reformed K12 education with a major new program, [[No Child Left Behind]], and pushed a series of major tax cuts through Congress. Conservatives cheered. All this happened in his first term, aiding his easy reelection. His performance in dealing with [[Hurricane Katrina]] in 2005 were widely ridiculed, though some Republicans argued that local Democrats did an even worse job.

As the [[Financial Crisis of 2008]] smashed into the banking system and the nation plunged into the [[Recession of 2008]], Bush responded by proposing a massive aid program of $700 billion to banks, and loan guarantees amounting to the trillions of dollars. Conservatives were dismayed as he proposed a traditional [[Keynesian]] [[stimulus]] which Democrats lauded. Above all, he made one of the most dramatic federal interventions in American history by his aid to the financial system. Bruce Bartlett, a Republican economist, says, "Bush clearly is not a Reaganite or "small 'c' conservative."

Conservatives and [[libertarian]]s have criticized Bush for greatly increased domestic spending, creating a new entitlement program for prescription drugs, failing to veto a single bill, and expanding both the size and scope of government. The man made extremely difficult decisions under extraordinary circumstances. Unlike any president before him, he was subjected to an all out attack by the terrorist group Al-Qaeda. Bush's last year in office was a combination of Democrat [[Alinsky]] tactics and abandonment by his own Republican party. Lobbyists and Congress contributed greatly to the collapsing financial markets. Mistakes, questionable interests, Federal Reserve lack of transparency, Liberal Media, Unions, Homeland Security and you understand why the Bush team was to falter, they were in over their heads. Bush is a man with convictions that didn't cower from protecting America and putting America first. <ref>See www.honorfreedom.com</ref> George would engineer two government rebate checks, giving back to the people. Average unemployment over eight-years of the [[Bush Administration]] was 5.3%. <ref>[http://scottstanzel.com/2010/06/04/unemployment-rate-during-president-bush/ Scottstanzel.com, Unemployment During President George W. Bush’s Two Terms]</ref> and he can be credited for having the most [[pro-life]] policies of any president.

==Early Life==
[[Image:Bushfamily.JPG|left|thumb|275px|George W. Bush and his family in 1981]] George W. Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, [[Connecticut]], and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. <ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html</ref> He earned a BA in history from [[Yale University]] and attended [[Harvard]] Business School as well. He later served in the [[Air National Guard|Texas Air National Guard]] as an F-102 Delta Dagger pilot. Bush grew up around politics, as his father [[George H. W. Bush]] had been a member of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]], American Ambassador to the [[United Nations]], Director of the [[Central Intelligence Agency]](CIA) and [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]] of the United States under President [[Ronald Reagan]]. In 1988, George W. Bush worked for his father's successful presidential campaign. Afterward Bush purchased the Texas Rangers [[baseball]] franchise.

==Governor of Texas==
Bush declared his candidacy for Governor of Texas in 1994. He defeated incumbent [[Democrat]] Governor [[Ann Richards]] 53.5 percent to 45.9 percent. Bush advocated and signed the two largest tax cuts to date in Texas history, totaling over $3 billion. <ref>http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/40078/tsl-40078.html</ref> He supported and signed legislation emphasizing local control of [[school]]s, higher standards, and a revised curriculum. Bush was easily reelected Governor in 1998.

==2000 Presidential Campaign==
''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 2000]]''

The Republican nominee for the 2000 Presidential nomination came down to Texas Governor George W. Bush and [[Arizona]] Senator [[John McCain]], a maverick Republican and ex-POW. Most social conservatives endorsed Bush. Despite early primary wins in [[New Hampshire]] and [[Michigan]] for McCain, Bush eventually won after sweeping 9 out of the 13 states on Super Tuesday. McCain withdrew in March after a bitter primary fight. Bush then chose former U.S. Defense Secretary [[Richard Cheney]] as his running mate. Vice President [[Al Gore]] was the Democratic nominee. Consumer Advocate [[Ralph Nader]], a strong supporter of [[environment]]al protection and critic of large corporations entered the race in the [[United States Green Party|green party]].

In a historically close race, Gore edged out Bush in the popular vote 48.4 percent to 47.9 percent. However, Bush won the majority of electoral votes, 271 to 266, because of Bush's victory in Florida, winning its 25 electoral votes that both candidates desperately needed. The race in Florida was so close that state law required a recount of the ballots. There were, however, thousands of thrown out ballots that were discredited because the counting machines could not discern them. After the machine recounts still showed Bush ahead, Gore asked for a hand recount of ballots in counties that favored Democrats. On November 26th, Florida officials certified that Bush won the state of Florida by 537 votes. Gore conceded December 13th.

==2004 Reelection Campaign==
''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 2004]]''

In President Bush's reelection campaign in 2004, national security, the invasion of Iraq and social issues dominated the campaign. The Democrat nominee was [[Massachusetts]] Senator [[John Kerry]]. Bush won the popular vote, 51% to 48%. With 120 million Americans voting (15 million more then in 2000) Bush received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history. Among the swing states, Kerry took [[Pennsylvania]], [[New Hampshire]], [[Michigan]], [[Minnesota]], [[Wisconsin]] and [[Oregon]], while Bush took [[Ohio]], [[Florida]], [[Missouri]], [[Iowa]], [[Colorado]], [[New Mexico]], and [[Nevada]]. <ref>http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html</ref>

Republicans also picked up seats in both chambers of [[Congress]].

==Presidency (2001-2009)==

In foreign and security areas, his terms included the 9-11 terrorist attack, the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the invasion of Afghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present), the expansion of NATO to the Russian border, financial aid to fight disease (especially AIDS) in Africa, and improved relations with India. The Iraq was was the focus of intense partisan debate.

The 2002 midterm election saw a GOP gain of seats in the House of Representatives and governorships, However the 2006 elections showed sharp GOP losses across the board, and loss of control of the House for the first time since its capture in 1994. He played a minor role in the 2008 election, which the GOP lost.

In domestic legislation he partnered with Sen. [[Ted Kennedy]] to pass the No Child Left Behind education act, and tried--but failed--to pass immigration reform. Early on he secured large-scale tax cuts, which helped the economic recovery in 2002. The boom (and later collapse) in real estate boosted the economy then pulled it down. Liberals criticized his handling of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina relief, and the dismissals of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. His proposed "Vision for Space Exploration" went nowhere, and he failed to make headway in Social Security reform. Conservatives hailed his appointments of conservatives to the Supreme Court at the time

===Administration and Cabinet===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Office
! Name
! Term
|-
| [[President]]
| George W. Bush
| 2001-2009
|-
| [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]]
| [[Richard Cheney]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| [[Secretary of State]]
| [[Colin Powell]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Condoleezza Rice]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| [[Secretary of Treasury]]
| [[Paul O'Neill]]
| 2001-2002
|-
|
| [[John W. Snow]]
| 2003-2006
|-
|
| [[Henry Paulson]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| [[Secretary of Defense]]
| [[Donald Rumsfeld]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Robert Gates]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| [[Attorney General]]
| [[John Ashcroft]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Alberto Gonzales]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[Michael Mukasey]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| Secretary of the Interior
| [[Gale Norton]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Dirk Kempthorne]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| Secretary of Agriculture
| [[Ann Veneman]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Mike Johanns]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[Ed Schafer]]
| 2008-2009
|-
| Secretary of Commerce
| [[Donald Evans]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Carlos Gutierrez]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Labor
| [[Elaine Chao]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| Secretary of Health and Human Services
| [[Tommy Thompson]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Michael Leavitt]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Education
| [[Rod Paige]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Margaret Spellings]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
| [[Mel Martinez]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| [[Alphonso Jackson]]
| 2003-2008
|-
|
| [[Steve Preston]]
| 2008-2009
|-
| Secretary of Transportation
| [[Norman Mineta]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Mary Peters]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| Secretary of Energy
| [[Spencer Abraham]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Samuel Bodman]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Veterans Affairs
| [[Anthony Principi]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Jim Nicholson]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[James Peake]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| Secretary of Homeland Security
| [[Tom Ridge]]
| 2003-2005
|-
|
| [[Michael Chertoff]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Chief of Staff
| [[Andrew Card]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Joshua Bolten]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
| [[Christine Todd Whitman]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| [[Michael Leavitt]]
| 2003-2005
|-
|
| [[Stephen Johnson]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Director of the Office of Management and Budget
| [[Mitch Daniels]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| Joshua Bolten
| 2003-2006
|-
|
| [[Rob Portman]]
| 2006-2007
|-
|
| [[Jim Nussle]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
| [[John Walters]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| United States Trade Representative
| [[Robert Zoellick]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| Rob Portman
| 2005-2006
|-
|
| Susan Schwab
| 2006-2009
|-
| [[CIA]] Director
| [[George Tenet]]
| 2001-2004
|-
|
| [[John E. McLaughlin]]
| 2004
|-
|
| [[Porter J. Goss]]
| 2004-2006
|-
|
| [[Michael Hayden]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| FBI Director
| [[Louis Freeh]]
| 2001
|-
|
| [[Thomas J. Pickard]]
| 2001
|-
|
| [[Robert S. Mueller]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| National Security Advisor
| Condoleezza Rice
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| Stephen Hadley
| 2005-2009
|-
| White House Counsel
| Alberto R. Gonzales
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Harriet Miers]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[Fred Fielding]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| White House Press Secretary
| [[Ari Fleischer]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| [[Scott McClellan]]
| 2003-2006
|-
|
| [[Tony Snow]]
| 2006-2007
|-
|
| [[Dana Perino]]
| 2007-2009
|-
|}

===Response to the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks===
The September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks resulted in George W. Bush becoming a self-described war time President. On that morning President Bush had traveled to Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, [[Florida]] to promote his [[education]]al agenda; when 19 Islamic terrorists connected with [[Al-Qaeda]] hijacked four commercial airplanes. Two of them crashed into the [[World Trade Center]] in [[New York City]], the third in [[The Pentagon]] in [[Washington, D.C.]] and the fourth in Somerset County, [[Pennsylvania]], after passengers of the flight successfully stopped the hijackers from hitting Washington D.C., possibly the [[White House]] or [[Capital]]. As a result over 3,000 Americans were killed, and over 6,000 injured, the largest terrorist attack in American history. After [[White House]] Chief of Staff [[Andrew Card]] had whispered in the President's ear that the United States was under attack, President Bush addressed the public in the Booker school's media center, saying a brief four paragraph statement that "Terrorism against our nation will not stand. This will not stand." Which was a formation that President George H. W. Bush used in August 1990 after [[Iraq]] invaded [[Kuwait]]. President Bush would later say that "This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end. . . . I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people."

[[Image:20010912-4-1.jpg|left|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, talk with the press about the previous day's terrorist attacks during a cabinet meeting Sept. 12, 2001. White House photo by Tina Hager.]] Although the attacks may have been an attempt from Al-Qaeda to divide the United States, they were unsuccessful. Across the nation, Americans had donated blood and raised money for reconstruction in New York City. Within weeks, Americans had raised over one billion dollars. <ref>The American Vision from National Geographic, pg. 1033 </ref> On September 14th President Bush declared a national emergency. [[CIA]] Director [[George Tenent]] and the FBI identified the attacks from Al-Qaeda and [[Osama Bin Laden]] in [[Afghanistan]]. As [[Secretary of State]] [[Colin Powell]] begin to build an international coalition with over 90 countries to support the United States global [[War on Terrorism]], [[Secretary of Defense]] [[Donald Rumsfeld]] began to redeploy troops and aircraft's to the [[Middle East]]. On September 24th, President Bush issued an executive order freezing all funding of financial assets to individuals and groups suspected of terrorism, and over 80 other nations soon followed. Bush then established the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate federal agencies working to prevent terrorism. The President appointed [[Pennsylvania]] [[Governor]] [[Tom Ridge]] to the office. In October President Bush signed into law the U.S. [[Patriot Act]], which allowed authorities to obtain a signal nationwide search warrant that could be used anywhere on suspected terrorists. It also made it easier to wiretap terrorists and track their [[email]]. The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks—[[Khalid Sheikh Mohammed]] has been captured.

On October 5th, a new [[anthrax]] scare from terrorists began. Anthrax—a deadly bacteria—had been sent in the mail to news organizations in New York City and Washington, D.C. and [[United States Senate|Senate]] Majority Leader [[Tom Daschle]]'s office. The FBI investigated the anthrax attacks, although no suspects were identified.

===War in Afghanistan===
*''Main Article: [[Afghanistan War]]
Afghanistan housed and protected al-Qaeda as it planned the 9-11 attacks. It then refused to turn over al-Qaeda leaders. With UN and NATO approval, Bush went to war to overthrow the Taliban. On October 7th, 2001, he ordered bombing of al-Qaeda's camps and the [[Taliban]]'s military forces in Afghanistan. "We will not waver, we will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail, freedom will prevail", President Bush explained. The attack quickly shattered the [[Taliban]]'s defenses, and by early December the Taliban regime had collapsed. The United States, its allies and the UN then helped Afghanistan create a new government under [[Hamid Karzai]]. By March 2002, the Taliban and al-Qaeda were beginning to regroup again in the mountain's of the [[Pakistan]] border. President Bush responded by launching Operation Anaconda, where Al-Qaeda troops were defeated. Al-Qaeda was largely destroyed, but the Taliban rebuilt using secure sanctuaries in Pakistan from which it launched terror attacks inside Afghanistan (and inside Pakistan as well)..<ref> Fred Barnes, ''Rebel-in-Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush'' (2006); Seth Jones, ''In the Graveyard of Empires: America's War in Afghanistan'' (2009)</ref>

As a candidate in 2008 Obama criticized Bush for neglecting the Afghanistan, and tripled the number of American troops from 31,000 when Bush left office to over 100,000 in early 2010

===2002 Mid-Term Elections===

Democrats wanted the focus of the 2002 mid term elections to be on the [[economy]], which was growing slowly after the September 11th terrorist attacks. However, because Congress voted to authorized military force in Iraq in mid-October, national security was the top issue. Republicans increased their majority in the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] and took back control of the [[United States Senate]].

===2002-2003 build up of the War in Iraq===
In his famous January 2002 State of the Union speech, President Bush declared an "Axis of Evil" made up of [[Iraq]], [[Iran]], and [[North Korea]], countries that posed a grave threat to the world and were suspected of supporting terrorism. Considering it a more dangerous and urgent threat then North Korea, President Bush began putting pressure on Iraq throughout 2002 for a regime [[change]]. Iraq's dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] had used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds, an ethnic minority in Iraq. Considering that Iraq may had been building Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) and was a threat to the United States and its allies, On September 12, 2002 President Bush tried to gain U.N. support for a U.S. led invasion of Iraq and asked for a resolution that Iraq gave up it's Weapons of Mass Destruction. While the U.N. Security Council approved a resolution that demanded Saddam Hussein declare all of it's WMD's, stop supporting terrorism and oppressing his people, Congress authorized the use of military force against Iraq. The United States, [[Great Britain]] and about 30 other countries began to prepare for war.

===Aftermath of the Invasion===
[[Image:20031127_dsc2048-515h.jpg|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush meets with troops and serves Thanksgiving Dinner at the Bob Hope Dining Facility, Baghdad International Airport, Iraq,, Thursday, November 27, 2003. White House photo by Tina Hager.]] On March 23rd, 2003, U.S. led coalition forces began an attack on Iraq. Most of the Iraqi army dissolved and coalition forces quickly took control of the country. However, sectarian violence worsened through [[bomb]]ings and sniper attacks. On Thanksgiving 2003 President Bush and U.S. National Security Adviser [[Condoleezza Rice]] visited troops in Iraq to boost moral. Saddam Hussein was captured in December 2003 while little evidence had shown that he had obtained Weapons of Mass Destruction.

On January 30, 2005 Iraq had it's first general election since the liberation. They voted for a 275-member Iraqi National Assembly which later drafted a constitution. In December Iraq elected a permanent 275-member Council of Representatives. There were low levels of violence during the voting. In a show down with Congressional Democrats after taking control of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] and [[U.S. Senate|Senate]] in the 2006 Congressional Midterm elections, Democrats retreated on their pledge to end the [[Iraq War]] early and bring the troops home. Democrats had threatened to withhold funding for the troops unless a date certain for withdrawal was set. After the final vote, 280-142 in the House and 80-14 in the Senate, the anti-War movement was defeated. The deal cut with Democratic leaders in exchange for their acquiescing to fund the troops calls for the President to sign legislation raising the [[minimum wage]]. <ref>[http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070525-122215-4854r.htm Congress OKs war bill sans time-line,] By S.A. Miller, The Washington Times'', May 25, 2007. </ref> One commentator remarked, "Despite all the talk of standing up to George W. Bush, despite all the bravado about taking control of Congress, despite the so-called mandate to change direction, Democrats caved....They claim that the majority of Americans are with them on the Iraq issue, but...President Bush, at the weakest moment of his presidency, still bested his Democratic rivals." <ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/phyrillas/05292007.htm Democrats Show True Colors], Tony Phyrillas, ''New Media journal'', May 29, 2007, {{dead link}}</ref>

===2007 Troop Surge===

[[Image:20061228-1_p122706pm-0144-515h.jpg‎|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush meets with National Security team, from left to right, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace Thursday, Dec. 28, 2006, at Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas. White House photo by Paul Morse]]
On January 23, 2007 President Bush ordered an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq.

<blockquote>
In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we're deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads. And in Anbar Province, where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them, we're sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out.
</blockquote> <ref>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/603653/the_iraq_war_troop_surge_one_year_later.html</ref>

The surge was opposed by a majority of the United States Congress. However, it has resulted in significantly reduced sectarian violence. According to U.S. Central Command [[General]] [[David Petraeus]], violence in Iraq by December 2008 was at a 5 year low. <ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4B86G720081209</ref>

===Humanitarian aid===
President Bush has worked to stop the spread of the [[HIV/AIDS]] epidemic in [[Africa]]. In the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) $15 billion dollars over five years (2003–2008) was spent on fighting global HIV/AIDS and improving treatment.

===Economy===

Upon gaining office in 2001, Bush signed into law a $1.35 trillion cut in taxes over 10 years. The plan included the objectives of doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reducing the tax penalty on [[marriage|married couples]] and fully repealing the [[Estate tax|tax on estates]]. A [[United States Senate]] Finance Committee Report estimated that with all the planned reductions fully phased in, the average family of four making $50,000 would save $1,825 per year.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ $1.35 trillion tax cut becomes law], CNN, 21 June 2001</ref>

[[Image:20080919-2_p091908jb-0025-1-515h.jpg‎|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush stands with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, left, SEC Chairman Chris Cox, right, and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson as he delivers a statement on the economy Friday, Sept. 19, 2008, in the Rose Garden. White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian]] Since the tax cuts, IRS revenues increased from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007 with a 46.3% increase of individual income tax receipts. Surging $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, it is the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189497675953035.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref>

During this same time period, spending mandated by Congress has also increased by more than 29% in inflation-adjusted dollars, representing an 11.4% increase in federal spending as a percentage of [[Gross domestic product|GDP]]. This spending has doubled the federal debt, increasing it from 58% to 66% of GDP. Defense spending increased 61%, and non-defense by 23% during the eight years since 2000. The largest non-defense spending increase has been for federally-funded medical expenses, at 54 percent.<ref>[http://www.aier.org/research/commentaries/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration Big Government Under The Bush Administration], AIER, 16 November 2008</ref> In total, Bush has increased government expenditures by the largest percentage of any president since Lyndon Johnson.<ref>[http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article944806.ece Some think Bush was too liberal], Wes Allison, Tampa Bay Times December 21, 2008 quoting Gleaves Whitney, director of the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies at Grand Valley State University and author of a new paper, "Anatomy of a Divorce: Conservatives versus George W. Bush."</ref>

Bush presided over a period of unreal economic growth that reflected a bubble that burst in 2008. The [[housing bubble]] allowed people to cash in the rising value of houses; low interest rates that led to massive borrowing. Money flowed into the U.S. from around the world. The stock market that hit a record high in 2007, then plunged relentlessly downward, losing $8 trillion in value in 2008. Unemployment hit an all time low in March 2007, but started rapidly increasing after January 2008. Bush signed into law a minimum wage increase, one of the platforms for the Democrats in the 2006 Congressional elections, after the House and Senate included Bush's request of provisions for small-business tax breaks.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001666.html</ref> Tax policies have been favorable to reducing the [[Capital Gains Tax]], with a subsequent surge in investment.

See [[Financial Crisis of 2008]] and [[Recession of 2008]],

The [[socialist]] [[Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007]] was signed by Bush into law on April 25, 2009 as a rider to the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, despite conservative opposition <ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/opposing_minimum_wage_hike_is_1.html</ref>. This measure hurt businesses and decreased America's competitiveness in the global marketplace.

===Supreme Court Appointments===

After the death of Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], President Bush nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge [[John Roberts]] to fill the vacancy. He was confirmed on September 29, 2005 by a 78-22 vote. To replace the retiring Associate Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] Bush nominated Judge [[Samuel Alito]], after his original nomination of Chief White House Council [[Harriet Miers]] was withdrawn because of widespread opposition due to lack of experience. After an unsuccessful filibuster attempt from [[United States Senate|Senate]] [[liberal]]s, Alito was confirmed on a 58-42 vote and was sworn in on January 31, 2006. <ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5181091</ref>

===Involvement in the 2008 Presidential election===
In March 2008, Bush endorsed his one-time rival [[John McCain]] as the Republican candidate for President of the United States. However, due to the President's declining popularity in polls, McCain distanced himself from Mr. Bush on the campaign trail. Bush had the lowest approval rating (30%) of any president at their time of leaving office since the end of World War II, except Nixon.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html</ref> At the same time, Democratic candidate [[Barack Obama]] tried to portray a McCain presidency as four more years of George W. Bush. The President spoke by videolink at the 2008 [[Republican National Convention]], while his wife Laura appeared on stage with McCain's wife [[Cindy McCain|Cindy]].
[[Image:George Laura Bush2008.jpg|thumb|left|300px|President George W. Bush and Mrs. Laura Bush pose for their last official holiday portrait, Dec. 7, 2008, in the Blue Room of the White House.]]

==Future Plans==
John McCain lost the election to Senator Obama, and President Bush met with the new president-elect to discuss the presidential transition between his administration and Obama's, which he promised would be efficient and without problems. George W. Bush's term ended at noon on January 20, 2009, at which point President-elect Obama was inaugurated. In an interview with ABC's [[Charles Gibson]] in December 2008, Bush said his retirement plans included moving back to his home state of Texas and writing a book. He later released his memoir "Decision Points." He also wants to build an institute at the Southern Methodist University to serve as a non-partisan public policy forum, to debate issues and run volunteer projects from.

== Family ==
George W. Bush is the son of [[George H. W. Bush]], who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993, and [[Barbara Bush]]. President Bush is married to [[Laura Bush|Laura Welch Bush]], a former teacher and librarian, and they have twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, Neil Bush and Marvin Bush are his brothers. Dorothy Bush Koch is his only surviving sister, as Pauline Robinson Bush died at age four of [[leukemia]].

==Faith==

George W. Bush is a member of the [[United Methodist Church]], and most people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. ''The Faith of George W. Bush'', a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the [[New York Times]] best-sellers list. <ref>http://www.christianlifemissions.org/ministries/georgewbush.htm</ref>
When asked where he would be without the influence of family friend [[Billy Graham]], George W. Bush said "I wouldn't be president." "It was just a conversation," said the younger Bush about a talk with Graham in the mid-'80s that changed his life. During the pivotal conversation Bush recalled saying, "'You know, Billy, I'm longing for something.' And I know that he sent me a Bible I still have. All I can tell you is that as a result of being inspired by Billy Graham, I started reading the Bible and shortly after, I quit drinking." <ref>Billy Graham and the White House [http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/08/billy_graham_and_the_white_hou_1.html]</ref> Bush's faith led him to veto a bill which would have provided for [[federal funding]] of immoral embryonic stem cell research.

In an interview with ABC's "Nightline" on 12/8/08, the president also said he probably is not a literalist when reading the Bible although an individual can learn a great deal from it, including the New Testament teaching that [[God]] sent his only son.

During his presidential career, George W Bush often consulted God when making important decisions. For example, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, reported that President Bush said that God told him 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan' and 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq' <ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa</ref> .
Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6418908</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/09/bush-says-creation-incompatible-evolution/</ref> <ref>http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=347242</ref>
He added:
{{cquote|<big><big>'''''I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life.'''''</big>}}

==Polls==
When Bush entered office, his popularity rating was near 50%. However, after the [[September 11]] attacks, his popularity rose significantly, reaching an all-time high of 90%.<ref>[http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/usatgallup-po-1.html USAT Gallup Poll]</ref> Since, then, though, it declined as some of his policies have become unpopular (largely due to the media's persistently negative -- and [[liberal bias|biased]] -- reporting on the [[Iraq War]] and misrepresentation of his policies).<ref> Historical Bush Approval Ratings from University of Minnesota [http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm] </ref> In 2007, Bush had an approval rating of only 24%. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1624620720071017?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true Voters unhappy with Bush and Congress], Reuters, October 17 2007</ref> The same poll gave the Democratic controlled Congress an approval rating of only 11%). <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews]</ref>

== Farewell Speech ==
*''Delivered January 15, 2009 at the White House. His audience in the East Room included family, friends, Cabinet and some selected Americans President Bush had met in his eight years in office.''

'''Fellow citizens: For eight years, it has been my honor to serve as your President. The first decade of this new century has been a period of consequence – a time set apart. Tonight, with a thankful heart, I have asked for a final opportunity to share some thoughts on the journey we have traveled together and the future of our Nation.'''

[[Image:BushSpeech.jpg|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush reaches into the audience to shake hands with invited guests and staff members following his farewell address to the nation Thursday evening, Jan. 15, 2009 in the East Room of the White House, where President Bush thanked the American people for their support and trust. White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian]] '''Five days from now, the world will witness the vitality of American democracy. In a tradition dating back to our founding, the presidency will pass to a successor chosen by you, the American people. Standing on the steps of the Capitol will be a man whose story reflects the enduring promise of our land. This is a moment of hope and pride for our whole Nation. And I join all Americans in offering best wishes to President-elect Obama, his wife Michelle, and their two beautiful girls.'''

'''Tonight I am filled with gratitude – to Vice President Cheney and members of the Administration; to Laura, who brought joy to this house and love to my life; to our wonderful daughters, Barbara and Jenna; to my parents, whose examples have provided strength for a lifetime. And above all, I thank the American people for the trust you have given me. I thank you for ....'''

'''...the prayers that have lifted my spirits. And I thank you for the countless acts of courage, generosity, and grace that I have witnessed these past eight years. '''

'''This evening, my thoughts return to the first night I addressed you from this house – September 11, 2001. That morning, terrorists took nearly 3,000 lives in the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. I remember standing in the rubble of the World Trade Center three days later, surrounded by rescuers who had been working around the clock.'''

'''I remember talking to brave souls who charged through smoke-filled corridors at the Pentagon and to husbands and wives whose loved ones became heroes aboard Flight 93. I remember Arlene Howard, who gave me her fallen son’s police shield as a reminder of all that was lost. And I still carry his badge.'''

'''As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before Nine-Eleven. But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our Nation. And I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.'''

'''Over the past seven years, a new Department of Homeland Security has been created. The military, the intelligence community, and the FBI have been transformed. Our Nation is equipped with new tools to monitor the terrorists’ movements, freeze their finances, and break up their plots. And with strong allies at our side, we have taken the fight to the terrorists and those who support them.'''

'''Afghanistan has gone from a nation where the Taliban harbored al Qaeda and stoned women in the streets to a young democracy that is fighting terror and encouraging girls to go to school. Iraq has gone from a brutal dictatorship and a sworn enemy of America to an Arab democracy at the heart of the Middle East and a friend of the United States.'''

'''There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions. But there can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil. This is a tribute to those who toil day and night to keep us safe – law enforcement officers, intelligence analysts, homeland security and diplomatic personnel, and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.'''

'''Our Nation is blessed to have citizens who volunteer to defend us in this time of danger. I have cherished meeting these selfless patriots and their families. America owes you a debt of gratitude. And to all our men and women in uniform listening tonight: There has been no higher honor than serving as your Commander in Chief.'''

'''The battles waged by our troops are part of a broader struggle between two dramatically different systems. Under one, a small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology, condemns women to subservience, and marks unbelievers for murder. The other system is based on the conviction that freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God and that liberty and justice light the path to peace.'''

'''This is the belief that gave birth to our Nation. And in the long run, advancing this belief is the only practical way to protect our citizens. When people live in freedom, they do not willingly choose leaders who pursue campaigns of terror. When people have hope in the future, they will not cede their lives to violence and extremism.'''

'''So around the world, America is promoting human liberty, human rights, and human dignity. We are standing with dissidents and young democracies, providing AIDS medicine to bring dying patients back to life, and sparing mothers and babies from malaria. And this great republic born alone in liberty is leading the world toward a new age when freedom belongs to all nations.'''

'''For eight years, we have also strived to expand opportunity and hope here at home. Across our country, students are rising to meet higher standards in public schools. A new Medicare prescription drug benefit is bringing peace of mind to seniors and the disabled. Every taxpayer pays lower income taxes.'''

'''The addicted and suffering are finding new hope through faith-based programs. Vulnerable human life is better protected. Funding for our veterans has nearly doubled. America’s air, water, and lands are measurably cleaner. And the Federal bench includes wise new members like Justice Sam Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.'''

'''When challenges to our prosperity emerged, we rose to meet them. Facing the prospect of a financial collapse, we took decisive measures to safeguard our economy. These are very tough times for hardworking families, but the toll would be far worse if we had not acted. All Americans are in this together. And together, with determination and hard work, we will restore our economy to the path of growth. We will show the world once again the resilience of America’s free enterprise system.'''

'''Like all who have held this office before me, I have experienced setbacks. There are things I would do differently if given the chance. Yet I have always acted with the best interests of our country in mind. I have followed my conscience and done what I thought was right. You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions.'''

'''The decades ahead will bring more hard choices for our country, and there are some guiding principles that should shape our course.'''

'''While our Nation is safer than it was seven years ago, the gravest threat to our people remains another terrorist attack. Our enemies are patient and determined to strike again. America did nothing to seek or deserve this conflict. But we have been given solemn responsibilities, and we must meet them. We must resist complacency. We must keep our resolve. And we must never let down our guard.'''

'''At the same time, we must continue to engage the world with confidence and clear purpose. In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.'''

'''As we address these challenges – and others we cannot foresee tonight – America must maintain our moral clarity. I have often spoken to you about good and evil. This has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere.'''

'''Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right. This Nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth. We must always be willing to act in their defense and to advance the cause of peace.'''

'''President Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.” As I leave the house he occupied two centuries ago, I share that optimism. America is a young country, full of vitality, constantly growing and renewing itself. And even in the toughest times, we lift our eyes to the broad horizon ahead.'''

'''I have confidence in the promise of America because I know the character of our people. This is a Nation that inspires immigrants to risk everything for the dream of freedom. This is a Nation where citizens show calm in times of danger and compassion in the face of suffering. We see examples of America’s character all around us. And Laura and I have invited some of them to join us in the White House this evening.'''

'''We see America’s character in Dr. Tony Recasner, a principal who opened a new charter school from the ruins of Hurricane Katrina. We see it in Julio Medina, a former inmate who leads a faith-based program to help prisoners returning to society. We see it in Staff Sergeant Aubrey McDade, who charged into an ambush in Iraq and rescued three of his fellow Marines.'''

'''We see America’s character in Bill Krissoff, a surgeon from California. His son Nathan, a Marine, gave his life in Iraq. When I met Dr. Krissoff and his family, he delivered some surprising news: He told me he wanted to join the Navy Medical Corps in honor of his son. This good man was 60 years old – 18 years above the age limit.'''

'''But his petition for a waiver was granted, and for the past year he has trained in battlefield medicine. Lieutenant Commander Krissoff could not be here tonight, because he will soon deploy to Iraq, where he will help save America’s wounded warriors and uphold the legacy of his fallen son.'''

'''In citizens like these, we see the best of our country – resilient and hopeful, caring and strong. These virtues give me an unshakable faith in America. We have faced danger and trial, and there is more ahead. But with the courage of our people and confidence in our ideals, this great Nation will never tire … never falter … and never fail.'''

'''It has been the privilege of a lifetime to serve as your President. There have been good days and tough days. But every day I have been inspired by the greatness of our country and uplifted by the goodness of our people. I have been blessed to represent this Nation we love. And I will always be honored to carry a title that means more to me than any other: citizen of the United States of America.'''

'''And so, my fellow Americans, for the final time: Good night. May God bless this house and our next President. And may God bless you and our wonderful country."'''

==Quotes==
* "Everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear."
==''Decision Points==
''Decision Points'' is a memoir written by Bush and was released on November 9, 2010. Bush also went on a national tour after releasing his book. After two months, the book sold very well, surpassing two million copies sold.

The book is 481 pages long and is broken into 14 chapters, with the first two being about Bush before his presidency, covering events such as when he quit drinking alcohol and was governor of [[Texas]]. The remaining twelve are about events during his presidency, such as the War on Terror, the September 11, 2001 attacks, and Hurricane Katrina.

==Publications==
* [http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Points-George-W-Bush/dp/0307590615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279195424&sr=8-1 Decision Points by George W. Bush], released November 9, 2010. ISBN 0307590615

==Further reading==
;Academic
* Abramson, Paul R., John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde. ''Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006 Elections'' (2007), 324pp [http://www.amazon.com/Change-Continuity-2004-2006-Elections/dp/0872894150/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206001659&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Allard, Scott W. "The Changing Face of Welfare During the Bush Administration." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 304-332. Issn: 0048-5950
* Barone, Michael. ''The Almanac of American Politics'' (2004, 2006, 2008, 2010), highly detailed coverage of electoral politics and Congress.
* Berggren, D. Jason, and Nicol C. Rae. "Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush: Faith, Foreign Policy, and an Evangelical Presidential Style." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly.'' 36#4 2006. pp 606+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5018322436 online edition]
* Campbell, Colin, Bert A. Rockman, and Andrew Rudalevige, eds.. ''The George W. Bush Legacy'' Congressional Quarterly Press, 2007, 352pp; 14 essays by scholars [http://www.amazon.com/George-W-Bush-Legacy/dp/0872893464/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206001536&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]
* Congressional Quarterly. ''CQ Almanac Plus'' highly detailed annual compilation of events in Congress, White House, Supreme Court, summarizing the weekly "Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report". (annual, 2002-2009)
* Conlan, Tim and John Dinan. "Federalism, the Bush Administration, and the Transformation of American Conservatism." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 279-303. Issn: 0048-5950
* Corrado, Anthony, E. J. Dionne Jr., Kathleen A. Frankovic. ''The Election of 2000: Reports and Interpretations'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99208680 online edition]
* Daynes, Byron W. and Glen Sussman. "Comparing the Environmental Policies of Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush." ''White House Studies'' 2007 7(2): 163-179. Issn: 1535-4738
* Desch, Michael C. "Bush and the Generals." ''Foreign Affairs'' 2007 86(3): 97-108. Issn: 0015-7120 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Eckersley, Robyn. "Ambushed: the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush Administration's Climate Policy and the Erosion of Legitimacy." ''International Politics'' 2007 44(2-3): 306-324. Issn: 1384-5748
* Edwards III, George C. and Philip John Davies, eds. ''New Challenges for the American Presidency'' New York: Pearson Longman, 2004. 245 pp. articles from ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''
* Edwards III, George C. and Desmond King, eds. ''The Polarized Presidency of George W. Bush'' (2007), 478pp; essays by scholars; [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0199217971/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Fortier, John C. and Norman J. Ornstein, eds. ''Second-term Blues: How George W. Bush Has Governed'' (2007), 146pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0815728840/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Greenstein, Fred I. ed. ''The George W. Bush Presidency: An Early Assessment'' Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003
* Greenstein, Fred I. “The Contemporary Presidency: The Changing Leadership of George W. Bush A Pre- and Post-9/11 Comparison” in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' v 32#2 2002 pp 387+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000773171 online edition]
* Gregg II, Gary L. and Mark J. Rozell, eds. ''Considering the Bush Presidency'' Oxford University Press, 2004. 210 pp. British perspectives
* Hendrickson, Ryan C., and Kristina Spohr Readman, "From the Baltic to the Black Sea: Bush's NATO Enlargement." ''White House Studies.'' (2004) 4#3 pp: 319+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5008838303 online edition]
* Hilliard, Bryan, Tom Lansford, and Robert P Watson, eds. ''George W. Bush: Evaluating the President at Midterm'' SUNY Press 2004
* Jacobson, Gary C. “The Bush Presidency and the American Electorate” ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' v 33 #4 2003 pp 701+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002052614 online edition]
* Jacobson, Gary C. "Referendum: the 2006 Midterm Congressional Elections." ''Political Science Quarterly'' 2007 122(1): 1-24. Issn: 0032-3195 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Milkis, Sidney M. and Jesse H.Rhodes. "George W. Bush, the Party System, and American Federalism." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 478-503. Issn: 0048-5950
* Moens, Alexander ''The Foreign Policy of George W. Bush: Values, Strategy, and Loyalty.'' Ashgate, 2004. 227 pp.
* Rabe, Barry. "Environmental Policy and the Bush Era: the Collision Between the Administrative Presidency and State Experimentation." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 413-431. Issn: 0048-5950
* Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (2007), experts on the 2006 elections in major states
* Strozeski, Josh, et al. "From Benign Neglect to Strategic Interest: the Role of Africa in the Foreign Policies of Bush 41 and 43." ''White House Studies'' 2007 7(1): 35-51. Issn: 1535-4738
* Wekkin, Gary D. "George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush: Puzzling Presidencies, or the Puzzle of the Presidency?" ''White House Studies'' 2007 7(2): 113-124. Issn: 1535-4738
* Wong, Kenneth and Gail Sunderman. "Education Accountability as a Presidential Priority: No Child Left Behind and the Bush Presidency." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 333-350. Issn: 0048-5950

;Pro-Bush
* Barnes, Fred. ''Rebel-in-Chief: How George W. Bush Is Redefining the Conservative Movement and Transforming America'' (2006)
* Draper, Robert. ''Inside the Bush White House: The Presidency of George W. Bush'' (2007)
* Hughes, Karen. ''George W. Bush: Portrait of a Leader,'' (2005)
* Gerson, Michael J. ''Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America's Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don't)'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Heroic-Conservatism-Republicans-Embrace-Americas/dp/006134950X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206001391&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* [[Bob Woodward|Woodward, Bob]]. ''Plan of Attack'' (2003) on Iraq war [http://www.amazon.com/Plan-Attack-Bob-Woodward/dp/074325547X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206001508&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

;Anti-Bush
* Bartlett, Bruce. ''Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy'' (2006), conservative attack by former aide
* Ferguson, Michaele L. and Lori Jo Marso. ''W Stands for Women: How the George W. Bush Presidency Shaped a New Politics of Gender'' (2007)
* Greenspan, Alan. ''The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,'' (2007), memoir by powerful chairman of the Federal Reserve
* Moore, James. and Wayne Slater. ''Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential.'' 2003. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107370497 online edition]
* Suskind, Ron. ''The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill'' (2004), complaints of ex Treasury Secretary [http://www.amazon.com/Price-Loyalty-George-Education-ONeill/dp/0743255461/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188802463&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]

;Bush aides
* Stephen F. Hayes. ''Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Cheney-Americas-Powerful-Controversial-President/dp/0060723467/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188802328&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search]
* Mabry, Marcus. ''Twice as Good: Condoleezza Rice and Her Path to Power'' (2007)
; Primary sources
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistical tables
* George W. Bush. ''George W. Bush on God and Country: The President Speaks Out About Faith, Principle, and Patriotism'' (2004)

==See Also==

*[[Previous Breaking News/George W. Bush|Articles about '''George W. Bush''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Bush Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Bush Doctrine]]
*[[Bush-hater]]
*[[Bushism]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Texas Governors]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George W.}}
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Neoconservative]]
[[Category:Iraq War]]
[[Category:Terrorism]]
[[Category:United States Veterans]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Former Governors]]
{{USPresidents}}

==External Links==
* [http://www.bushcenter.com/ The George W. Bush Presidential Center]
* [http://warrioropen.com/ Warrior Open, Dallas, Texas, on October 10 and 11, 2011]
* [http://www.facebook.com/georgewbush George W. Bush on Facebook]
* [http://www.facebook.com/clintonbushhaitifund?v=wall Clinton Bush Haiti Fund]
* [http://www.honorfreedom.com HonorFreedom.com - a nationwide effort to correct the historical record about President Bush and the Bush foreign policy doctrine]
* [http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346562/george-w-bush-reconsidered George W. Bush Reconsidered on National Review Online]

[[Category:2004 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Republicans]]
[[Category:RINOs]]

Wikipedia

2014-12-01T00:50:28Z

Bobthecob2:

[[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|right|200px]]

'''Wikipedia''' is [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|a politically left leaning]] online [[wiki]]-based [[encyclopedia]]<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm</ref> project owned by the non-profit [[Wikimedia Foundation]] and financially supported by a $20 million annual online fundraising drive<ref>{{cite news|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Foundation_a'Register'' (UK),<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref> teenagers and [[unemployment|unemployed persons]].<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref> Increasingly, Wikipedia is edited by paid PR agents on behalf of their clients. Wikipedia editors, unlike their counterparts at [[Conservapedia]], are overwhelmingly [[liberal]], young males<ref> In 2009, a survey conducted by the Wikipedia Foundation came out concerning the typical Wikipedia editor that declared the average age of an editor is 26.8 years and 87% of the editors are men. [http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds]</ref> — a demographic associated with self-centered belief systems and behavior.

Wikipedia was founded by [[atheist]] [[libertarian]] [[objectivist]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and atheist philosophy professor [[Larry Sanger]]. The website was born out of expert-written project [[Nupedia]] as a way to collaborate on articles. Nonetheless, Wikipedia overtook Nupedia and became an independent project hosted by the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], which also hosts related websites including Wikiquote, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader."<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref>

== Continuing loss of influence ==

Wikipedia's traffic level stems from its high placement in Google searches, and that many people rely upon it for quick research regarding trivial facts. However, users are turning to alternatives such as the voice-based iPhone application [[Siri]] or the Knowledge Graph display on Google search result pages of key facts about search targets.<ref name=timesindia>{{cite news|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/internet/Google-eating-into-Wikipedia-page-views/articleshow/29072825.cms?referral=PM|title=Google eating into Wikipedia page views?|work=Times of India|first=Subodh |last=Varma|date=January 20, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref> Wikipedia page-views dropped by 2 billion between December 2012 and December 2013. Wikipedia's most popular versions are leading the decline: page-views of the English Wikipedia dropped by 12 per cent, those of German version slid by 17 per cent and the Japanese version lost 9 per cent.<ref name=timesindia/>

In addition to the number of visitors declining, there continues to be a drop in active editors as well. In August of 2012, it was reported that Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/pro-evolution-wikipedia-has-shrinking.html Pro-evolution Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors plus [[Quora]] is Wikipedia's worst nightmare]</ref> At the same time, ''Business Insider'' indicated [[Quora]] was "Wikipedia's worst nightmare".<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/pro-evolution-wikipedia-has-shrinking.html Pro-evolution Wikipedia has a shrinking base of editors plus Quora is Wikipedia's worst nightmare]</ref>

== Unreliability of Wikipedia ==

Wikipedia relies on self-selected "editors" to write and compile articles, with no preference given for scholars in the fields about which they are writing. This fact may disqualify Wikipedia from being considered a genuine encyclopedia, ironically even by it's own standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of articles by "well-educated, well-informed content experts."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia</ref> Theoretically, Wikipedia is supposed to compensate for this weakness by requiring references to reputable secondary sources. But editors can delete, without collaboration, any text or entry they dislike, citing one of the many Wikipedia guidelines for doing so. Entries posted by scholars in the field, based on peer-reviewed, academic articles are deleted by editors with an ideological bias. Wikipedia, then, only represents the majority view of it's editors.

As the contribution of volunteer editors has declined, some of the void has been replaced by paid public relations professionals. These paid editors seek to present their client companies or individuals in the best possible light. This has resulted in many articles being transformed into paid advertising pieces that take advantage of the English Wikipedia's high placement on Google search results. This chronic problem has become so severe that the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed amending its terms of service to require disclosures of paid editing conflicts of interest.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Paid_contributions_amendment|title=Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment|date=February 21, 2014|accessdate=March 20, 2014}}</ref> In the competition to control content, the paid PR editors win out because they are monitoring pages as a full time job, while editors seeking to keep content more balanced are only part-time volunteers.

In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:
{{cquote|"An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions."<ref>http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461</ref>}}
Despite its official "neutrality policy," [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In an article entitled "Wikipedia Lies, Slander Continue," [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation on Wikipedia.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref>http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref>

Some say that Wikipedia's unreliability is systemic, citing Douglas Adams: "''In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.'' Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices has produced results and accuracy some claim is far better than originally expected but is still widely questioned. Research released in April 2012 claimed 60% of wikipedia article contain "inaccuracies", leading the "Daily Mail" to dub it "Iffy-pedia".<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131458/Up-articles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html</ref> The lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. Many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. However, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary [[reference]] tool on the [[Internet]].

According to the style manual for the [[Associated Press]], the largest news agency in the United States, Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source, but the hyperlinks in articles may be helpful as sources.

Wikipedia has millions of entries on trivia and mundane topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref> Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there were more than 3.8 million content pages.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011</ref> As of February 2014, there are more than 4.4 million "content" pages, many of which lack educational value. On important topics, the information is often misleading due to the unchecked, [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|systematic liberal bias]] that dominates Wikipedia.
__TOC__

==Origins==
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>

== Leftist bias ==

See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]

''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in the proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a "conservative bias". [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.<ref>http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262</ref>

David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:
{{cquote|There was not a single ideological vision driving Wikipedia’s founders and core contributors as they launched the project. Jimmy Wales, who would become the face of the project and its “benevolent dictator,” according to Andrew Lih’s ''The Wikipedia Revolution'', is a libertarian and [[Ayn Rand|Ayn Randian]] [[Objectivism|Objectivist]]. Also important in shaping Wikipedia was the so-called “hacker ethos,” the culture that has developed amongst computer programmers over the last 40 years and been shaped by the Left, the counterculture, popular culture, and [[anarchism|anarchist]] thought.

What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] ideal that human beings are more prone to [[altruism]] rather than self-interest. In Wikipedia Revolution Wales is quoted as saying, “Generally we find most people out there on the internet are good… It’s one of the wonderful humanitarian discoveries in Wikipedia, that most people only want to help us and build this free nonprofit, charitable resource.” Ward Cunningham was the programmer who created the wiki concept and software. According to Lih, he believed in the Wiki because “People are generally good.”

Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:

A core idea Wikipedia embraced.. was to assume good faith when interacting with others. The guideline promoted optimistic production rather than pessimistic nay-saying, and reads, “Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it; avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence.

But as it worked out, Wikipedia in practice has strayed from these utopian ideas because of the ease with which political and social bias trumps altruism.

After almost a decade of rapid growth and free-wheeling experimentation the situation at the site by the Summer of 2009 was chaos. Political operatives would sabotage one another in electoral contests by vandalizing pages. More malicious misinformation filtered in freely, with living historical figures accused of involvement in conspiratorial plots.<ref>http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/</ref>}}

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the [[liberal]] and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]

=== Research ===

On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]] and he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Anne Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]] which helped demonstrate the Wikipedia has a leftist/[[liberal]] bias plus he discussed the liberal/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref>

For example, Swindle wrote:

<blockquote>"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?"<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref></blockquote>

==Purported "Tertiary" Source and Arbitrary Standards==
Wikipedia purports to be a "tertiary" source, relying on edited work from reputable sources. The policy is meant to build on the work of qualified editors of secondary sources. Some accuse Wikipedia, therefore, of relying on [[hearsay]], and discouraging the application of [[logic]] and new development of new insights. The result is a agglomeration of reheated "consensus" with little or no intellectual merit of its own; in particular, it is impossible to challenge orthodoxy, received wisdom or commonly held misconceptions through the Wikipedia system, no matter how factually incorrect those orthodoxies might be.

Supporters of Wikipedia would claim that relying on secondary sources encourages reliability and objectivity. However, there are cases of Wikipedia applying it's standards arbitrarily. For example, the case of Wikipedia editor "Yeoberry" (user ID 3606936), an editor with a Ph.D. in church history who first posted materials about "Icons" on August 6, 2012, with multiple citations to historical documents. The material was removed and Yeoberry was told that Wikipedia is a "tertiary" source and so he needed to find reliable secondary sources. On April 4, 2013, Yeoberry again added largely the same material, this time citing a newly published academic paper in a peer-reviewed journal. The information was again removed, with editors, at least some of whom religiously affiliated with the organization supporting icons, claiming the editor had a "COI" (conflict of interest). Neither time did the editors removing Yeoberry's material consult Yeoberry. But when Yeoberry reverted back to his edition, he was charged with "edit warring." When Yeoberry challenged the arbitrary use of Wikipedia criteria he was blocked from editing indefinitely and then his access to his own talk page was also blocked.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=548948980#Proposal:_Indefinite_Block</ref>

Wikipedia articles, especially on controversial or political and religious topics, are often guarded by editors who have an interest in slanting the content of the article, may have no formal education on the topic, and can find a so-called reason for suppressing the information they want to suppress. Editors can claim the source is unreliable (as they interpret that); that information gives "UNDUE" weight to the topic the information is about; peer-reviewed, academic articles written by scholars can be removed by editors if, in the opinion of an editor, the view expressed is "Fringe" or if the contributor has a "COI" (conflict of interest) if he's the author of the secondary source or has an advanced education or other interest in the topic; etc. Editors with advanced education in a topic, citing sources from peer-reviewed journals, can have their contributions deleted and their participation prohibited if a few other editors, without such qualification but with enough knowledge of the Wikipedia jargon, decide to suppress him or her.

Originally, encyclopedias were written by scholars, either by one or a few whose knowledge is considered "encyclopedic" (i.e. very broad) or each article is written by an expert in the field. But in Wikipedia, expertise in a given field can disqualify one from contributing in that field resulting in Wikipedia being accused of being a "[[idiocracy]]".

==Economics==

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in [[venture capital]]. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/|title=Wikipedia: Special Treatment for Wikia and some other Wikis|author=Nik Cubrilovic|date=April 28, 2007|accessdate=July 22, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html</ref>

''The Register'' said:<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" with the more utilitarian goal of "a website anyone would want to read". With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

For the past few years, Wikipedia has added banners begging for money from its viewers. The site claims to be in need of more funding, but in fact it is "awash with cash - and raises far more money each year than it needs to keep operating."<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ Wikipedia doesn't need your money - so why does it keep pestering you?], 20 December 2012</ref>

Wikipedia, a registered trademark of Wikimedia Foundation, is used also by services like WikiExperts.us, which is declared as not being affiliated with it.
WikiExperts.us accepts money to write Wikipedia entries for businesses and is included in American business ventures of Alex Konanykhin, the Former Russian oligarch, who has been wanted in Russia since Yeltsin’s days to face charges relating to embezzlement and financial fraud.<ref>{{cite web |title='Not terrorists': Hysteria over MH17 fails to take account of both law and facts |author=Roslyn Fuller |date=July 25, 2014 |accessdate=July 26, 2014 |url=http://rt.com/op-edge/175496-hysteria-mh17-ukraine-facts-terrorists/}}</ref>

==Scandals and decline==

[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.<ref>[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.</ref> Graph courtesy [http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission.]]The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, "The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history.... Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press."<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/033661.html Statistical Decline of the English Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis Dragons flight/Log analysis], October 9, 2007.</ref>

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, "life and death," Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, "OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!" [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]

Further evidence of the decline in Wikipedia is that the number of editors who voted in the 2012 Arbitration Committee elections has dropped to 858.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012#Turnout|title=Arbitration Commitee Elections December 2012|accessdate=December 18, 2012}}</ref> For a website that claims to have thousands of active editors, this is very low.

==False claim about Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism."'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Rewriting its own history==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, "Wikipedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#Sorry.2C_Jimbo.2C_but_not_buying_it. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20, Larry Sanger 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]</ref>

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref>

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

== Seigenthaler scandal ==

In early October 2005, a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,
:"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General [[Robert Kennedy]] in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both [[John F. Kennedy|John]], and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," and "John Seigenthaler moved to the [[Soviet Union]] in 1971, and returned to the [[United States]] in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is "accountable" and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref> Accountability activist [[Daniel Brandt]], a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref>

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of ''USA Today'' from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>

=== CNN interview ===

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:
{{Cquote|PHILLIPS:...I ran my name. I was shocked to see what was under my name. ...I'm telling you right now, Jimmy, that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful. And people go to these sites thinking that this is the truth.}}
{{Cquote|WALES: Well, I mean, I think the real key is that the site matures over time, the -- all of the articles are edited over and over and over, and improved. Anyone's free to contribute. You're free to go and contribute.}}

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, "I find it hard to take him very seriously at all," and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns."

Seigenthaler told the audience "with accountability comes credibility" and expressed fear that, "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result."<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's ''Washington Journal'' with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared,
{{Cquote|a sudden stream of invective — homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist — spilled, as if from a sewer, onto the Wikipedia page under my name. ..It identified me as ...a "Nazi," "fascist-oriented" ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, "Press photo of Seigenthaler." The accompanying line: "He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews." }}

=== Accountability and Section 230 ===
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads, ''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'']]
Upon his retirement from ''USA Today'', Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about [[First Amendment]] rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted [[Jimbo Wales]] told [[Brian Lamb]] in a [[C-Span]] interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,
{{Cquote|And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.<ref>A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>}}

In the case of ''Zeran v. AOL'', Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self regulation by service providers.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529</ref><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf</ref>

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.<ref>http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf</ref>

=== Essjay given oversight ===
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, "I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, [[Jimmy Wales]]; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, "The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious," and quoted some comments, "We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography."<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref>

Others said, "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, '''Biographies of Living Persons''', [[conflict of interest]] restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]
Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrieved 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.<ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref>

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages." No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts." Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by ''BusinessWeek'' magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”<ref> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm</ref> In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref> one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

==Brandt / Berlet feud==
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed [[Chip Berlet]] from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel whose intelligence career stretched back to accompanying President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to the [[Teheran conference]], was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. A Brandt biographical page was created using Berlet as the source for unsavory attacks on Brandt. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&st=40&p=21441&mode=linear#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible.

===Biographies of living persons===

Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}

Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry. Brandt demanded accountability from the army of unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering [[Chip Berlet]]'s agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert."
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

==The Wordbomb Saga==
[[Image:Patrick byrne overstock small.jpg|thumb|right|Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne [http://www.overstock.com/Patrick-Byrne-and-naked-short-selling/7371/static.html]]]
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/</ref> centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com<ref>http://www.overstock.com/community</ref> that a [[Mainstream media|mainstream financial journalist]] Gary Weiss had been editing Wikipedia to impose his point of view on a series of articles relevant to the company. Weiss was once a reporter with BusinessWeek, in 2007 became a columnist with Forbes, and had for over 10 years been posting under fake names to confuse, distort, hijack Usenet groups, stock message boards, and Wikipedia, to prevent the public from understanding criminal activity.<ref>http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/</ref> Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock<ref>http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html</ref> and its CEO Patrick Byrne,<ref>http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/</ref> ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].

In 2006, Judd Bagley, an ally of Overstock’s Patrick Byrne having interviewed the CEO for a personal project, began editing Wikipedia to counter what was perceived to be a skewed representation of Naked Short Selling and Overstock.com. He was swiftly dispatched by influential Wikipedia administrators.

Shortly after, Bagley became Overstock’s Director of Communications, and embarked on an aggressive campaign to publicize the dispute on various websites, aiming to expose the administrators he held responsible for protecting Weiss. Using the moniker “Wordbomb”, Bagley presented evidence<ref>http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/</ref> suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland</ref> but that he was operating other accounts to manipulate consensus and protect his interests in the dispute. Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia policies against Conflict of Interest and No Self Promotion by creating an article about himself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=48341962</ref> Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),<ref>http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php</ref> the organization charged with settling about a quadrillion stock trades each year. The DTCC is also the organization Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said acts an enabler of perpetrators of illegal naked short selling of many public companies.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&st=0&p=36485&mode=linear#entry36485</ref>

Wikipedia responded to Bagley’s campaign in typical schoolyard fashion. The dispute was escalated by a small clique of powerful Wikipedians who seemed less interested in the truth of Bagley’s assertions, and more concerned with attacking perceived threats to the status quo at Wikipedia. With the approval of [[Jimbo Wales]], administrators sided with “Mantanmoreland” / Gary Weiss, and anointed Bagley / Wordbomb an “Enemy Of The Wiki” who needed to be silenced — a “stalker” and a “harasser” for publicizing the details of the person who had been editing relevant articles on Wikipedia, and the people who had been stopping him from doing the same.

For nearly two years, Bagley’s name was invoked to inspire paranoia in the Wikipedia Admin Community to keep questioning editors in line. It became a textbook case for analysis of the intense group-think Wikipedia has become notorious for.
[[Image:Judd bagley overstock.jpg|thumb|left|175px|Judd Bagley was made a target at the highest levels of Wikipedia and became a victim of a global [[witchhunt]] by the Wikipedia Admin Community for daring to expose an unholy alliance of abuse and [[corruption]] on [[Wall Street]] and in the Wikipedia cabal. [http://antisocialmedia.net/] ]]
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897</ref> by a cabal of out-of-control administrators such as Guy Chapman, who denounced Bagley as “lunatic” and “evil” when it suited. UK Wikimedia representative David Gerard banned an entire area of Utah to prevent Bagley raising his issues and made personally disparaging remarks.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2</ref> Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&diff=158954587&oldid=158809362</ref> for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html</ref> that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”

Other editors who raised Overstock’s quite legitimate complaints were banned as proxies of Judd Bagley. Paranoia had taken such a hold that editors with productive records from all over the US, and as far afield as Europe and Asia found themselves accused of being Bagley. When the editor Cla68<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68</ref> questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=165916446&oldid=165916313</ref> “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.

A study<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation</ref> undertaken by concerned administrators into the editing patterns of “Mantanmoreland” came to fruition. Despite the “Mantanmoreland” account ceasing edits on Overstock / Naked Short Selling articles in September 2007, the study revealed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the same person had been operating several accounts to “control” articles. Thus affirming Bagley’s claims.

More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation<ref>http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762#Post2757</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html</ref> that [[Jimbo Wales]], alongside leading administrators, had considered that this person was almost certainly Gary Weiss in a private discussion as long ago as September 2007 (the same month the “Mantanmoreland” account quit editing the relevant articles). Meaning that behind the scenes, they were admitting that Bagley was probably right all along, yet in public were vilifying or blocking anyone who publicly stated so.

After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.<ref>[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]</ref> Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.<ref>http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425</ref>

==Michael Moore==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to ''[[Sicko]]'', published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both ''Sicko'' and the editor's user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of [[Michael Moore]]'s official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore_2] The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,
{{Cquote|No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of '''the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like''') yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).<ref>Wikien-1 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082980.html Harassment sites], Fred Bauder, Sun Oct 14 19:03:28 UTC 2007.</ref>}}

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] The ArbCom chairman further stated, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] The editor whom Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]

==Sinbad hoax==
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.
==Robert Clark Young revenge edits==
From 2006 to 2013, Robert Clark Young, an author who had only published one novel to mixed reviews, edited Wikipedia extensively with 13,000 edits under username "Qworty." He engaged in aggressive behavior making revenge edits to biographical articles of his rival authors and other people against whom he held grudges. He also puffed up his own Wikipedia autobiography, and repeatedly denied that he was connected to Young. He also created other single purpose accounts to further his campaign.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Geri_Litton|title=Geri Litton sockpuppet investigation|date=2007|accessdate=July 11, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qworty/Archive|title=Quorty sockpuppet inviestigant|date=2013|accessdate=July 11, 2013}}</ref> Only after his true identity was revealed in a salon.com article,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/|title=Revenge, ego and the corruption of Wikipedia|date=May 17, 2013|work=salon.com|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref> was Young banned<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#User:Qworty|title=Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797|accessdate=July 9, 2013}}</ref> and efforts made to reverse his vindictive edits. In essence, he would remove favorable items from the biographies of his enemies or nominate them for deletion. The salon.com article concluded,
<blockquote>But Qworty’s example tells us that even when people call attention to a rogue editor, even when that editor’s temper tantrums come to the attention of the founder of Wikipedia, it’s quite possible that no action will be taken.</blockquote>

==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Additionally, the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by the user to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

However, beginning June 15, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation began transitioning content on Wikipedia to be dual licensed under both the GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes</ref>

==Cyberbullying==
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.<ref name="LATimes">{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/29/local/me-wikipedia29 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Molly | last=Hennessy-Fiske | title=Wikipedia threats went unchecked – Los Angeles Times | date=29 April 2008}}</ref><ref name="ABCLocal">[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com]</ref><ref name="LATimes2">{{cite news |title=Student arrested for violent threats on Wikipedia |first= |last= |url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/04/wiki.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef011571abd811970b |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=29 April 2008}}</ref> An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,<ref name="LATimes" /><ref name="ABCLocal" /><ref name="LATimes2" /> and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.pantagraph.com/news/article_baef01f3-e56f-52e1-b9af-e90eb83e811b.html|title=Teen charged after threat to school on Wikipedia|date=31 October 2006|agency=Associated Press |publisher=Pantagraph.com|accessdate=26 January 2011|location=Bloomington, IL}}</ref>
== Wikipedia on bestiality ==

''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]

As noted earlier, the Wikipedia project was initiated by [[atheism|atheists]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref>

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. As of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia". As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law"] article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoopilia and the law"|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}</ref>

See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]
== Trademarks and domain names ==
The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) uses the licensing of its trademarks as a tool to control local chapters. Although each local chapter is in theory an autonomous organization, each chapter signs an contract with the WMF as a condition for using its trademarks. The WMF also tried to stake out control over many domain names that contain the word "wiki" including "[[wikileaks]]". WikiLeaks and [[Wikipedia]] have no affiliation with each other. ("Wiki" describes a type of website and is not a trademark.)<ref>{{cite web |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiLeaks_is_not_part_of_Wikipedia |title=Wikipedia:WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia |work=Wikipedia |publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]] |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/wiki-giants-on-a-collision-course-over-shared-name-2065561.html |title=Wiki giants on a collision course over shared name |last1=Rawlinson |first1=Kevin |first2=Tom |last2=Peck |date=30 August 2010 |work=The Independent |location=London |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref> Wikia did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a "protective brand measure" in 2007.<ref name=wikia>{{cite web |url=http://www.wikia.com/Press:Wikia_Does_Not_Own_Wikileaks_Domain_Names |title=Press:Wikia Does Not Own Wikileaks Domain Names |work=[[Wikia]] |publisher=[[Wikia]] |accessdate=September 17, 2012}}</ref> Wikia started to transfer those domain names to wikileaks on June 14, 2007, but the transfer was never completed, and Wikia held those domain names when the "Wikileaks scandal" broke.<ref name=wikia/>

== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==

''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]

"...dealing with the Wikipedians is like walking into a mental hospital: the floors are carpeted, the walls are nicely padded, but you know there’s a pretty good chance at any given moment one of the inmates will pick up a knife.” - quote from a ''[[New York Times]]'' article on Wikipedia written by the journalist and author Judith Newman<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/fashion/Wikipedia-Judith-Newman.html?smid=pl-share Wikipedia-Mania: Wikipedia, What Does Judith Newman Have to Do to Get a Page?]</ref>

An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?

A survey the foundation conducted last year determined that the average age of an editor is 26.8 years, and that 87% of them are men.

As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.<ref>http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds</ref>}}

[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is "a 26-year-old geeky male" who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.<ref>[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]</ref>

Seth Meyers noted on his ''Late Night'' program, "Wikipedia is now accepting donations using the online currency Bitcoin. So now you can support information you're not sure is true with currency you're not sure is money."<ref>http://www.thespec.com/living-story/4733681-tuesdayfile/ Retrieved August 8, 2014</ref>

When obscure author [[Patrick Modiano]] was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in October 2014, few journalists knew much about him. The person updating his Wikipedia biography to reflect the prize added this warning to the article, "To the Reporter Now Copying From Wikipedia: Be careful boy. Primary sources are still best for journos."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/10/09/nobel_prize_winner_patrick_modiano_s_wikipedia_page_changed_to_add_note.html|title=A Reminder to Journalists Writing About the New Nobel Prize Winner, From Wikipedia|first=Forrest |last=Wickman|date=October 9, 2014|work=Slate|accessdate=October 10, 2014}}</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Modiano&diff=prev&oldid=628920987</ref>
=== Song excerpt ===

{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....

I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,
whiter than sour cream...

They see me strollin', they're laughin'
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so
White and nerdy". - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic<ref>http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm</ref>}}

==Unbiased editor recruitment==
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it. It is to an extent, its editor pool is self-selecting. However, on January 25–29, 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation paid for Gregory Varnum and others to attend and staff a booth at the "24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change" conference in Baltimore, Maryland. The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to recruit more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia. Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.

Wikipedia editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch Sarah Stierch] was the volunteer moderator of the Gender Gap email list where she departed from discussing Wikipedia to freely share her negative experiences with men in her life. In fall 2011, she was hired by the WMF as a Community Fellow to work on creating a "Teahouse" for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project<ref>{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}</ref> explained, "If you click through to the Teahouse, it’s clearly aiming to broaden female participation - just look at the pastel background and references to tea." Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, "Because so much time and energy needed to be spend during the pilot on setting up and maintaining the space, we weren't able to focus as much as we'd have liked on gender-targeted strategies for recruiting female guests and hosts. There are clearly more experiments that need to be run in order to better integrate the space with other gender gap efforts and WikiWomen's calls to actions." The WMF terminated Stierch on January 9, 2014 following complaints of her moonlighting as a paid editor.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-January/129466.html</ref>

On August 18, 2014, during the Congressional summer recess, the [[Cato Institute]] and Wikimedia DC jointly conducted a seminar to encourage Congressional staff members to edit Wikipedia about pending legislation and policy issues.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/08/18/a-call-to-edit-congress-and-wikipedia-told-to-peacefully-co-exist/|title=A call to edit: Congress and Wikipedia told to peacefully co-exist|first=Nancy|last=Scola|date=August 18, 2014|accessdate=August 22, 2014|work=Washington Post}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.c-span.org/video/?321030-1/discussion-wikipedia-government-transparency|date=August 18, 2014|accessdate=August 22, 2014|title=Wikipedia and Congress|work=C-SPAN}}</ref> The panel discussion included Michelle Newby, a full-time Cato employee who edits Wikipedia as a part of her job. She promised to work with any Congressional Staff that would be interested in editing.

==See also ==
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]
*[[Wikimedia Foundation]]
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])
*[[Deletionpedia]]
*[[Essay:Wikipedia and Citizendium]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain], By Cade Metz, ''The Register'', 6th December 2007.
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief - It can seriously damage your grades] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', June 15, 2006
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 18, 2005
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/01/2013-is-starting-off-to-be-bad-year-for.html Study shows that the world's biggest pro-evolution website is driving away newcomer editors! Also, video shows evolutionists at Wikipedia are clowns!]
*[http://www.wikipediocracy.com Wikipediocracy]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies Wikipedia's List of Wikipedia controversies]
*[http://www.mises.org/story/2704 Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?], By Dick Clark, 9/19/2007. Retrieved from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ November 5, 2007.
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]
[[Category:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]]
[[Category:Wikimedia Foundation]]

Debate: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare: a proper ruling?

2014-12-01T00:49:50Z

Bobthecob2:

'''[[Obamacare]] is upheld by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] (5-4) ''as a tax, not as a valid exercise of government power under the [[Commerce Clause]]'':

{{cquote|The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of [[Congress]]'s power under the [[Commerce Clause]]. ... In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes ...."}}

=Yes=

The Supreme Court did not say that Obamacare is a good piece of legislation, or that it is right for the country. It merely said it is legal, which is hard to deny. It may be job-killing, it may not solve our health care problems, but it doesn't violate the Constitution. [[User:Jpope14|Jpope14]] 11:55, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

As bad as this law is, SCOTUS was right to say that, as a ''tax'', it is constitutional. On a personal level, I'm glad for this ruling, because it will force Congress to act to repeal it; and given the fact that they have been ceding their power to the executive and legislative branch for the last 30 years, this would be a good time to retake some of it. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:14, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

Personal responsibility is an important part of being an American. The law gives every American a choice: either get some form of health insurance or pay a penalty that will grow over time to be equal to the cost of a typical health insurance policy. The Supreme Court has held that that penalty provision is constitutional under the taxing power. The problem with the current system is that many people do not have health insurance and then go to the hospital emergency room and demand free health care. That is irresponsible and imposes a high cost on all other users of the health care system. Currently, hospitals are recovering the cost of their free care from the other paying customers. Much of the free care is provided at emergency rooms, when the same care would be less expensive if it was done at a clinic or doctor's office. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 07:59, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

==No==

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among
the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
1.8.3

Even if it was a tax it would mean those who have healthcare would be getting a deduction, therefore making taxes non uniform, in violation of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout
the United States;"
1.8.1

Also, regardless of whether or not it is a tax, it is clearly in favor of those who purchase healthcare and is an attempt to force people to get healthcare, which is in violation of Article 1 Section 9 Clause 6, suggesting that individuals are also included (which they aren't because it is specifically stated earlier that individuals are not to be subject to regulatory clauses at all) in regulatory clauses which is clearly what the Obama admin believes:
"No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of
Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of
another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be
obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."
1.9.6

:Interesting points, but couldn't your argument equally apply to mortgage interest deductions? Or the child care deduction? Or charitable giving? I'm inclinded to agree with you, but given that our tax system is so screwed up, this tax isn't that different. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:11, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:You are misreading the very portion of the law that you are citing. "Duties, Imposts, and Excises" shall be uniform. Taxes do not have to be uniform. For example, the more money I earn, the higher percentage of taxes I pay. Taxes have never been "uniform" because the law does not require them to be. [[User:Jpope14|Jpope14]] 15:58, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
::No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. 1.9.4. Also this isn't even a tax question, the tax code has not been changed at all. There was no raise in taxes and there was no deduction added for people who have healthcare, this is clearly nothing more than a penalty. Back when this was going through congress Obama laughed at the notion that it was a tax hike and said critics only said that to make it look like a commercial regulation was a tax, but now that its constitutionality has been questioned its a tax!?
:::And yet, the whole time President Obama said it wasn't a tax, conservatives derided him and (rightly) pointed out that it was. Now that their own definition is being used to call it constitutional, conservatives are trying to take it back. It was dishonest of the president, but we all knew that for political expediency's sake he would never use the word tax. But that's precisely what it is, which makes it perfectly constitutional. [[User:Jpope14|Jpope14]] 00:04, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::::There is no separate power in the Constitution for imposing penalties. It is covered by what we call the taxing clause or perhaps the necessary and proper clause. There are many fines and penalties in federal law. Please stop and think carefully before you argue that they are all Unconstituional and that American should move to a "jail time for every violation" approach. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 08:08, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

== Brace yourself for the backlash Democrats: It's coming! ==
[[File:Obama NapoleonBellyHandCrM.jpg|75px|right]]
'''All is not quiet on the [[ObamaCare]] front. ObamaCare may ultimately prove to be''' [[Barack Obama]]'s [[Waterloo]].[http://conservativetriumphs.blogspot.com/2012/06/all-is-not-quiet-on-obamacare-front.html]

If you think the ObamaCare battle is over [[Democratic Party|Democrats]], you are sadly mistaken. [[Conservative]]s have not yet begun to fight on this political front and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling may prove to be a [[pyrrhic victory]].

:This isn't really on topic...move to the talk page perhaps? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 22:22, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
::I created this web page. This is my mic! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Fair enough [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:44, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:I would be amazed if Republicans managed to do as much as repeal a tiny portion of the ACA, even if they win control over the Senate in November. There isn't the remotest chance that they will gain a filibuster-proof majority, (not with lackluster Romney at the top of the ticket) and given the amount of stalling and blocking the Republicans have engaged in these past few years, I suspect that the Democrats will be more than ready to repay them in kind.
:The problem with government gridlock, of which many Americans seem to approve, is that it's just as difficult to repeal legislation something as it is to pass it in the first place.[[User:MarkJW|MarkJW]] 00:13, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
::Through economic necessity, every aspect of liberalism which requires public funds is going to be fair game in the USA. What is happening in Greece, Spain, Italy and Ireland will come to the USA sooner or later. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:13, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Hooray!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 05:30, 29 June 2012 (EDT)
:::I don't think this country can bear to wait any longer. The Liberals have been gutting every aspect of American life, and it's about time we changed that. [[User:RickyV|RickyV]] 09:15, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

Polling data shows that a number of aspects of the ACA are very popular: 1) allowing children up to 26 to be covered by their parents' insurance, 2) insurance without regard to preexisting conditions, 3) end to lifetime dollar caps on coverage, 4) full coverage of the cost of doctor visits for preventative care and physical exams. The ACA is not a single payer plan, it does not "socialize" medicine, and it keeps private insurance and private hospitals and medical groups. If the Republicans want to "repeal and replace" the ACA, it will be hard to find a replacement that does all of that without being very similar to the ACA. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:37, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
[[Category:Debate]]
[[Category:Obama Criticism]]

Instant messaging

2014-12-01T00:48:56Z

Bobthecob2:

'''Instant messaging''' (IM) is faster than [[emai l]] and enables text conversations in real time. Some IM applications have a voice component and are thus equivalent to an Internet phone call with a text supplement. IM very popular on the Internet, although it is normally not [[encryption|encrypted]]. If IM messages are encrypted in transit, they are decrypted when it reaches the server that is providing the messaging service. It has already been revealed by [[Edward Snowden]] and others that the [[NS A]] is recording almost all of the instant messaging traffic using [[P RISM]] and other tools. So, you can be sure that the [[N SA]] is getting all of your messages if you are using any major messaging provider such as:
* [[Fa cebook]]
* [[Goog le Talk]]
* [[Goog le]]
* AIM - [[AOL]] Instant Messenger
* [[Yaho o]]
*[[Interne t Relay Chat]] (IRC) - noncommercial

You can secure your messages by setting up an encrypted solution, of which there are many.

== Cryptocat ==
[https://crypto.cat/ Cryptocat] is an encrypted chat service that may be used to communicate with others while ensuring your conversations are kept private.

Keep in mind that Cryptocat itself has the following disclaimer:
<blockquote>Cryptocat is not a magic bullet. Even though Cryptocat provides useful [[encryption]], you should never trust any piece of software with your life, and Cryptocat is no exception.
* Cryptocat does not anonymize you: While your communications are encrypted, your identity can still be traced since Cryptocat does not mask your [[IP address]]. For anonymization, we highly recommend using [[Tor]].
* Cryptocat does not protect against [[key loggers]]: Your messages are encrypted as they go through the wire, but that doesn't mean that your keyboard is necessarily safe. Cryptocat does not protect against hardware or software [[key loggers]] which might be snooping on your keyboard strokes and sending them to an undesired third party.
* Cryptocat does not protect against untrustworthy people: Parties you're conversing with may still leak your messages without your knowledge. Cryptocat aims to make sure that only the parties you're talking to get your messages, but that doesn't mean these parties are necessarily trustworthy.<ref>https://crypto.cat/ accessed February 9th, 2014</ref></blockquote>

== Pidgin ==
[http://www.pidgin.im/ Pidgin] is a great little messaging application that can interface with most of the major messaging providers. Rather than have a separate YM app, AIM app, Facebook app, etc., you can use Pidgin to manage all your messaging services in one place.

If you also install the [http://sourceforge.net/projects/pidgin-encrypt/ pidgin-encryption plugin] into Pidgin, you can enable encryption for your IM's. Both you and the person you want to chat with will need to install this. Once installed, turn on the plugin (it is off by default), and set the option to automatically encrypt by default. You can use this with any of the supported IM providers, for example Yahoo Messenger. When you start to IM, it'll automatically exchange public keys behind the scenes then send your encrypted message. The Yahoo Messenger server just sees garbage for a message. But, when decrypted on the other end, your friend sees the message. Because this encrypts end to end, anyone watching the traffic or the IM servers won't be able to see it. They can still tell who you are talking to, just not what you are saying.

(Please fill in with other choices, including Android options)

==See Also==
* [[VPN]]obama

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==

[[category:Communications]]
[[category:Internet]]
[[Category:Computer security]]
[[category:information technology]]

Instant messaging

2014-12-01T00:48:24Z

Bobthecob2:

'''Instant messaging''' (IM) is faster than [[email]] and enables text conversations in real time. Some IM applications have a voice component and are thus equivalent to an Internet phone call with a text supplement. IM very popular on the Internet, although it is normally not [[encryption|encrypted]]. If IM messages are encrypted in transit, they are decrypted when it reaches the server that is providing the messaging service. It has already been revealed by [[Edward Snowden]] and others that the [[NSA]] is recording almost all of the instant messaging traffic using [[PRISM]] and other tools. So, you can be sure that the [[NSA]] is getting all of your messages if you are using any major messaging provider such as:
* [[Facebook]]
* [[Google Talk]]
* [[Google]]
* AIM - [[AOL]] Instant Messenger
* [[Yahoo]]
*[[Internet Relay Chat]] (IRC) - noncommercial

You can secure your messages by setting up an encrypted solution, of which there are many.

== Cryptocat ==
[https://crypto.cat/ Cryptocat] is an encrypted chat service that may be used to communicate with others while ensuring your conversations are kept private.

Keep in mind that Cryptocat itself has the following disclaimer:
<blockquote>Cryptocat is not a magic bullet. Even though Cryptocat provides useful [[encryption]], you should never trust any piece of software with your life, and Cryptocat is no exception.
* Cryptocat does not anonymize you: While your communications are encrypted, your identity can still be traced since Cryptocat does not mask your [[IP address]]. For anonymization, we highly recommend using [[Tor]].
* Cryptocat does not protect against [[key loggers]]: Your messages are encrypted as they go through the wire, but that doesn't mean that your keyboard is necessarily safe. Cryptocat does not protect against hardware or software [[key loggers]] which might be snooping on your keyboard strokes and sending them to an undesired third party.
* Cryptocat does not protect against untrustworthy people: Parties you're conversing with may still leak your messages without your knowledge. Cryptocat aims to make sure that only the parties you're talking to get your messages, but that doesn't mean these parties are necessarily trustworthy.<ref>https://crypto.cat/ accessed February 9th, 2014</ref></blockquote>

== Pidgin ==
[http://www.pidgin.im/ Pidgin] is a great little messaging application that can interface with most of the major messaging providers. Rather than have a separate YM app, AIM app, Facebook app, etc., you can use Pidgin to manage all your messaging services in one place.

If you also install the [http://sourceforge.net/projects/pidgin-encrypt/ pidgin-encryption plugin] into Pidgin, you can enable encryption for your IM's. Both you and the person you want to chat with will need to install this. Once installed, turn on the plugin (it is off by default), and set the option to automatically encrypt by default. You can use this with any of the supported IM providers, for example Yahoo Messenger. When you start to IM, it'll automatically exchange public keys behind the scenes then send your encrypted message. The Yahoo Messenger server just sees garbage for a message. But, when decrypted on the other end, your friend sees the message. Because this encrypts end to end, anyone watching the traffic or the IM servers won't be able to see it. They can still tell who you are talking to, just not what you are saying.

(Please fill in with other choices, including Android options)

==See Also==
* [[VPN]]obama

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==

[[category:Communications]]
[[category:Internet]]
[[Category:Computer security]]
[[category:information technology]]