Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Professor

2011-10-01T22:53:27Z

BrentH: /* Types of Professors */

A '''professor''' is an academic of the highest rank at a [[college]] or [[university]]. Professors perform [[research]] and teach courses on their area of expertise.

The highest academic rank is based on [[peer review]] of the scholar's work, and a process of election by his peers as specified by the rules of each college or university. Once elected to the rank of (associate) professor, the colleague has achieved [[tenure]] and cannot be fired or laid off from their position, except for criminal action.

Most colleges and universities require professors to have a [[PhD]], [[MD]] or [[JD]] [[degree]]. People with lower level degrees such as a [[Masters]] degree usually can only take teaching positions. In fields such as [[business]], [[public policy]], foreign languages ([[linguistics]]), and [[literature]] it is fairly common for professorships to be awarded to people without advanced degrees but who have had substantial real-world experience. Occasionally, universities will give a prominent person an honorary professorship even if that person does not have an advanced degree. Such positions are symbolic and do not carry the teaching or research responsibilities demanded of other professors.

== Types of Professors ==

*'''Professor''' ''(general)'' - A college or university teacher who ranks above an Associate Professor. Sometimes colloquially referred to as a "full Professor."

*'''Associate Professor''' - A college or university professor who ranks above an Assistant Professor and below a Professor. Assistant Professors typically gain the rank of Associate upon earning tenure.

*'''Assistant Professor''' - A college or university teacher who ranks above an instructor and below an associate professor. This is a typical entry-level position; Assistant Professor usually do not have tenure.

*'''[[Adjunct professor|Adjunct Professor]]''' - Attached to a faculty or staff in a temporary or auxiliary capacity.

*'''Visiting Professor''' - A professor on leave who is invited to serve as a member of the faculty of another college or university for a limited period of time, often an academic year.

*'''Professor Emeritus''' - Retired but retaining an honorary title corresponding to that held immediately before retirement.

==See also==

*[[Professor values]]

==References==
*''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.''

[[Category:Education]]

Professor

2011-10-01T22:53:13Z

BrentH:

A '''professor''' is an academic of the highest rank at a [[college]] or [[university]]. Professors perform [[research]] and teach courses on their area of expertise.

The highest academic rank is based on [[peer review]] of the scholar's work, and a process of election by his peers as specified by the rules of each college or university. Once elected to the rank of (associate) professor, the colleague has achieved [[tenure]] and cannot be fired or laid off from their position, except for criminal action.

Most colleges and universities require professors to have a [[PhD]], [[MD]] or [[JD]] [[degree]]. People with lower level degrees such as a [[Masters]] degree usually can only take teaching positions. In fields such as [[business]], [[public policy]], foreign languages ([[linguistics]]), and [[literature]] it is fairly common for professorships to be awarded to people without advanced degrees but who have had substantial real-world experience. Occasionally, universities will give a prominent person an honorary professorship even if that person does not have an advanced degree. Such positions are symbolic and do not carry the teaching or research responsibilities demanded of other professors.

== Types of Professors ==

*'''Professor''' ''(general)'' - A college or university teacher who ranks above an Associate Professor. Sometimes colloquially referred to as a "full Professor."

*'''Associate Professor''' - A college or university professor who ranks above an Assistant Professor and below a Professor. Assistant Professors typically gain the rank of Associate upon earning tenure.

*'''Assistant Professor''' - A college or university teacher who ranks above an instructor and below an associate professor. This is a typical entry-level position; Assistant Professor usually do not have tenure.

*'''[[Adjunct professor|Adjunct Professor]]''' - Attached to a faculty or staff in a temporary or auxiliary capacity.

*'''Visiting Professor''' - A professor on leave who is invited to serve as a member of the faculty of another college or university for a limited period of time, often an academic year.

*'''Professor Emeritus''' - Retired but retaining an honorary title corresponding to that held immediately before retirement.

==See also

*[[Professor values]]

==References==
*''The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.''

[[Category:Education]]

John L. Loos

2011-10-01T22:52:32Z

BrentH: /* Background */

'''John Louis Loos''' (March 9, 1918 - September 25, 2011) was an American historian affiliated for thirty-four years with [[Louisiana State University]], known for his research on the [[Lewis and Clark Expedition]].

==Background==

Loos was born to John George Loos and the former Katherine Pauley in Friend in Saline County in southeastern [[Nebraska]]. He graduated in 1935 from Harvard High School in Harvard in Clay County near Hastings, Nebraska. In 1939, he received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, a member of Phi Beta Kappa and a "Regent Scholar with Distinction." He was also affiliated with the Pi Mu Epsilon, a national mathematics honor fraternity. In 1940, he received his Master of Arts degree from the University of Nebraska, where he was a university fellow. Loos then served for five years in the [[United States Army]] in the South Pacific during [[World War II]]. He was an artillery officer who was promoted to major and a recipient of the [[Bronze Star]] medal for meritorious service.<ref name=obit>{{cite web|url=http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/theadvocate/obituary.aspx?n=john-louis- loos&pid=1538830166|title=John L. Loos|publisher=''Baton Rouge Morning Advocate'', October 1, 2011|accessdate=October 1, 2011}}</ref>

From 1948 to 1951, Loos was an assistant [[professor]] at Evansville College in Evansville, [[Indiana]]. He received his Ph.D. in history from [[Washington University]] in [[St. Louis]], [[Missouri]]. From 1953 to 1955, he was an instructor of United States history at the John Burroughs School in St. Louis.<ref name=obit/>

==Academic career==

In 1955, he began his professorship at LSU in [[Baton Rouge]], where he specialized in the history of the American West, with emphasis on the life of [[William Clark]], partner of [[Meriwether Lewis]] in the 1804-1806 Corps of Discovery along the [[Missouri River]] to the Pacific Coast. At LSU, Loos was a graduate advisor and taught the introductory seminar on historical methods for all first-year graduate students in history.<ref name=obit/>

For a quarter century, Loos was the chairman of the Department of History and also an interim dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. In 1983, he was named an LSU Alumni Professor in recognition of his scholarship. On retirement, he became professor emeritus. Loos spoke before various organizations, including the Louisiana Historical Association, of which he was the president in 1976,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lahistory.org/site8.php|title=Presidents of the Louisiana Historical Association|publisher=lahistory.org|accessdate=October 1, 2011}}</ref> and the Organization of American Historians.<ref name=obit/>

Loos's books include ''The American Presidents'' (1986), with co-authors Tracy Irons-Georges and Frank Northern Magill, and ''Great Events from History: North American Series, 1895-1955'', the latter also co-authored by Frank Magill.<ref>{{cite web|
url=http://www.bookfinder.com/author/john-l-loos/|title=John L. Loos|publisher=Salem Press|accessdate=October 1, 2011}}</ref>In 1964, Loos published a six-page article on Lewis and Clark, "They Opened the Door to the West", suitable as a lecture guide.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://books.google.com/books/about/They_opened_the_door_to_the_west.html?id=n-oacgAACAAJ|title="They Opened the Door to the West"|publisher=books.google.com|accessdate=October 1, 2011}}</ref>

==Family, death, and legacy==

Loos died at the age of ninety-three at a nursing home in Lafayette, Louisiana, where he had relocated in his final years. Memorial services were to be held on October 2 at University [[Presbyterian]] Church in Baton Rouge, where Loos had been an active member for more than fifty years. Interment was to follow on October 4 at Harvard Cemetery in Harvard, Nebraska. Loos was survived by his wife, the former Helen Nunn; his son and daughter-in-law, Peter J. and Elizabeth S. Loos; daughter, Katherine M. Loos, and four grandchildren.<ref name=obit/>

In 2005, LSU launched the John L. Loos Professorship in History. The first recipient was Professor David Culbert, a historian of film and media.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lsu.com/unv002.nsf/(NoteID)/F2DAD689C5F662E1862570B900546C11?OpenDocument|title=David Culbert named first John Loos Professorship in History, November 14, 2005|publisher=lsu.com|accessdate=October 1, 2011}}</ref>

==References==

{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Loos, John L.}}
[[Category:Historians]]
[[Category:Louisiana]]
[[Category:Nebraska]]
[[Category:Missouri]]

John L. Loos

2011-10-01T22:51:48Z

BrentH:

'''John Louis Loos''' (March 9, 1918 - September 25, 2011) was an American historian affiliated for thirty-four years with [[Louisiana State University]], known for his research on the [[Lewis and Clark Expedition]].

==Background==

Loos was born to John George Loos and the former Katherine Pauley in Friend in Saline County in southeastern [[Nebraska]]. He graduated in 1935 from Harvard High School in Harvard in Clay County near Hastings, Nebraska. In 1939, he received a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, a member of Phi Beta Kappa and a "Regent Scholar with Distinction." He was also affiliated with the Pi Mu Epsilon, a national mathematics honor fraternity. In 1940, he received his Master of Arts degree from the University of Nebraska, where he was a university fellow. Loos then served for five years in the [[United States Army]] in the South Pacific during [[World War II]]. He was an artillery officer who was promoted to major and a recipient of the [[Bronze Star]] medal for meritorious service.<ref name=obit>{{cite web|url=http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/theadvocate/obituary.aspx?n=john-louis- loos&pid=1538830166|title=John L. Loos|publisher=''Baton Rouge Morning Advocate'', October 1, 2011|accessdate=October 1, 2011}}</ref>

From 1948 to 1951, Loos was an assistant professor at Evansville College in Evansville, [[Indiana]]. He received his Ph.D. in history from [[Washington University]] in [[St. Louis]], [[Missouri]]. From 1953 to 1955, he was an instructor of United States history at the John Burroughs School in St. Louis.<ref name=obit/>

==Academic career==

In 1955, he began his professorship at LSU in [[Baton Rouge]], where he specialized in the history of the American West, with emphasis on the life of [[William Clark]], partner of [[Meriwether Lewis]] in the 1804-1806 Corps of Discovery along the [[Missouri River]] to the Pacific Coast. At LSU, Loos was a graduate advisor and taught the introductory seminar on historical methods for all first-year graduate students in history.<ref name=obit/>

For a quarter century, Loos was the chairman of the Department of History and also an interim dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. In 1983, he was named an LSU Alumni Professor in recognition of his scholarship. On retirement, he became professor emeritus. Loos spoke before various organizations, including the Louisiana Historical Association, of which he was the president in 1976,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lahistory.org/site8.php|title=Presidents of the Louisiana Historical Association|publisher=lahistory.org|accessdate=October 1, 2011}}</ref> and the Organization of American Historians.<ref name=obit/>

Loos's books include ''The American Presidents'' (1986), with co-authors Tracy Irons-Georges and Frank Northern Magill, and ''Great Events from History: North American Series, 1895-1955'', the latter also co-authored by Frank Magill.<ref>{{cite web|
url=http://www.bookfinder.com/author/john-l-loos/|title=John L. Loos|publisher=Salem Press|accessdate=October 1, 2011}}</ref>In 1964, Loos published a six-page article on Lewis and Clark, "They Opened the Door to the West", suitable as a lecture guide.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://books.google.com/books/about/They_opened_the_door_to_the_west.html?id=n-oacgAACAAJ|title="They Opened the Door to the West"|publisher=books.google.com|accessdate=October 1, 2011}}</ref>

==Family, death, and legacy==

Loos died at the age of ninety-three at a nursing home in Lafayette, Louisiana, where he had relocated in his final years. Memorial services were to be held on October 2 at University [[Presbyterian]] Church in Baton Rouge, where Loos had been an active member for more than fifty years. Interment was to follow on October 4 at Harvard Cemetery in Harvard, Nebraska. Loos was survived by his wife, the former Helen Nunn; his son and daughter-in-law, Peter J. and Elizabeth S. Loos; daughter, Katherine M. Loos, and four grandchildren.<ref name=obit/>

In 2005, LSU launched the John L. Loos Professorship in History. The first recipient was Professor David Culbert, a historian of film and media.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lsu.com/unv002.nsf/(NoteID)/F2DAD689C5F662E1862570B900546C11?OpenDocument|title=David Culbert named first John Loos Professorship in History, November 14, 2005|publisher=lsu.com|accessdate=October 1, 2011}}</ref>

==References==

{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Loos, John L.}}
[[Category:Historians]]
[[Category:Louisiana]]
[[Category:Nebraska]]
[[Category:Missouri]]

Winona Ryder

2011-10-01T22:28:02Z

BrentH:

'''Winona Ryder''' is an American actress. She was born Winona Laura Horowitz on October 29, 1971). She has starred in several hit movies, including [[Black Swan,]] [[Mermaids]] and [[Edward Scissorhands]]. in 2001 she was arrested for shoplifting and the following year was sentenced to probation and community service. A character that she played two years earlier in the film [[Girl, Interrupted]] had a line which read "Have you ever stolen something when you have the cash?"

[[Category: Actresses]]

Winona Ryder

2011-10-01T22:25:33Z

BrentH:

'''Winona Ryder''' is an American actress. She was born Winona Laura Horowitz on October 29, 1971). She has starred in several hit movies, including [[Black Swan,]] [[GMermaids]] and [[Edward Scissorhands]]. in 2001 she was arrested and convicted of shoplifting and sentenced to probation and community service. A character that she played two years earlier in the film [[Girl, Interrupted]] had a line which read "Have you ever stolen something when you have the cash?"

[[Category: Actresses]]

Talk:Bestiality and Sweden

2011-10-01T03:06:26Z

BrentH:

== 200 Horses ==

Do you have similar statistics from the US for comparison? [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 20:39, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Do the research. You local librarian should be able to assist you if needed (Please don't mention that I sent you). :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:13, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I'll take that as a "no" then. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:06, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Bestiality and Sweden

2011-10-01T00:39:12Z

BrentH: 200 Horses

== 200 Horses ==

Do you have similar statistics from the US for comparison? [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 20:39, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Evolutionary belief and bestiality

2011-10-01T00:38:49Z

BrentH: /* 200 horses in Sweden */ new section

== 200 horses in Sweden ==

Do you have statistics from the US for comparison? [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 20:38, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: The atheism blues

2011-09-30T13:28:35Z

BrentH: /* Something doesn't add up */

Ahem* It's atheism with an "i."--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:15, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
:Why not write a song about the non-atheists who have valid criticisms of your article who attempt to point them out only to be rebuffed and insulted? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:33, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
::Based on? [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:21, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
It's fascinating to watch other people guide your behavior, User:Conservative. --[[User:SteveK|SteveK]] 23:50, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Something doesn't add up ==

You have no time to take part in the ''The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings'', you told Rob Smith that you could talk to him at best for a couple of minutes a month, but you find six hours to ''compose'' this little ditty? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:10, 30 September 2011 (EDT)
:這是多麼用戶：保守的卷。 :) [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 09:28, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay: The atheism blues

2011-09-30T03:21:54Z

BrentH:

Talk:KAL 007: Soviet stalk, shoot down, and rescue mission orders transcripts

2011-09-29T23:30:21Z

BrentH: Problems

== Problems ==

1. The title of this article is a total grammatical mess t5hat gives the reader NO IDEA as to what even it addresses: What was attacked? What was rescued? What event was a transcript made of? 1. There are a bunch of red-linked images that need to be replaced. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 19:30, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-09-29T23:27:33Z

BrentH: Can somebody figure out the new percentage, given that the list is down to 24 now?

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 24 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 16%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]
 
 
see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>
# Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html</ref>
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.

===Maladaptation===
[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]
# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. <ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref> Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]</ref> Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.
# Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.

===Uncategorized===

# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>

== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.

{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]
*[[Answers to Question evolution!]]

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

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

[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[category:Evolution]]

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

2011-09-29T14:25:50Z

BrentH: Undo revision 922957 by Conservative (talk) That link is to the U.S. state, not the R of G.

{{Country
|name =''Союз Советских Социалистических Республик Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik''
|map =Soviet union rel 1986.jpg
|flag =600px-Flag_of_the_Soviet_Union.svg.png
|arms =Arms of the Soviet Union.png
|capital =Moscow
|government =Communist
|language =Russian (de facto)
|president =Ivan Silayev (last, 1991)
|area =8,649,538 sq. mi. (1991)
|pop =293,047,571 (1991)
|pop-basis =
}}
The '''Soviet Union''' (Russian: Советский Союз, ''Sovyetskiy Soyuz''), formally the '''Union of Soviet Socialist Republics''' (or '''USSR''') (Russian: Союз Советских Социалистических Республик, ''Soyuz Sovietskykh Sotsialisticheskykh Respublik'', abbreviated ''СССР'') existed 1917-1991, then broke into 15 separate countries, most notably [[Russia]]. It was the most powerful established [[socialist]] states in history, coming to power under [[Lenin]] in 1918 and killing millions of its peasants to establish a ruthless Communist dictatorship under [[Joseph Stalin]] in the 1930s. After cooperating with the USSR (1939-41), the Nazi Germans under [[Adolf Hitler]] invaded in a war to the death. The USSR defeated the Nazis in [[World War II]] (1941-45), and took control of most of Eastern Europe, turning formerly independent countries into Communist satellites. It was the primary antagonist of the United States during the [[Cold War]] (1947-1989); it then collapsed because of American pressure and its own internal economic and social failures. At its height the USSR covered one-sixth of the earth's land area, stretching from eastern Europe across north Asia to the Pacific Ocean.

==Geography==
Located in the middle and northern latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, the Soviet Union's 22.4 million square kilometers included one-sixth of the earth's usable land area. Its western portion, more than half of all Europe, made up 25% of its area; this, however, was where 72% of the people lived and where most industrial and agricultural activities were concentrated. The largest region was the lightly populated Siberia, a land between the Urals and the Pacific that for centuries was infamous as a place of exile, a land of endless expanses of snow and frigid temperatures.

Extending for over 60,000 kilometers, the Soviet border was the world's longest national frontier, sharing a common border with twelve countries, six on each continent. In Asia, its neighbors were the [[Democratic People's Republic of Korea]] (North Korea), [[China]], [[Mongolia]], [[Afghanistan]], [[Iran]], and [[Turkey]]; in [[Europe]], it bordered [[Romania]], [[Hungary]], [[Czechoslovakia]], [[Poland]], [[Norway]], and [[Finland]].

Approximately two-thirds of the frontier was bounded by water, forming the longest and, owing to its proximity to the North Pole, probably the most useless coastline of any country. Apart from Murmansk, which receives the warm currents of the Gulf Stream, the northern coast is locked in ice much of the year. The search for a warm water port was a central theme throughout Russian history.

A dozen seas, part of the water systems of three oceans--the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific--washed over Soviet shores.
*Size: Approximately 22,402,200 square kilometers (land area 22, 272,000 square kilometers); slightly less than 2.5 times size of United States.
*Location: Occupies eastern portion of European continent and northern portion of Asian continent. Most of country north of 50° north latitude.
*Topography: Vast steppe with low hills west of Ural Mountains; extensive coniferous forest and tundra in Siberia; deserts in Central Asia; mountains along southern boundaries.
*Climate: Generally temperate to Arctic continental. Winters vary from short and cold along Black Sea to long and frigid in Siberia. Summers vary from hot in southern deserts to cool along Arctic coast. Weather usually harsh and unpredictable. Generally dry with more than half of country receiving fewer than forty centimeters of rainfall per year, most of Soviet Central Asia northeastern Siberia receiving only half that amount.
*Land Boundaries: 19,933 kilometers total: Afghanistan 2,384 kilometers' China 7,520 kilometers; Czechoslovakia 98 kilometers; Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) 17 kilometers; Finland 1,313 kilometers, Hungary 135 kilometers; Iran 1,690 kilometers; Mongolia 3,441 kilometers; Norway 196 kilometers; Poland 1,215 kilometers; Romania 1,307 kilometers; and Turkey 617 kilometers.
*Water Boundaries: 42,777 kilometers washed by oceanic systems of Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific.
*Land Use: 11 percent of land arable; 16 percent meadows and pasture; 41 percent forest and woodland; and 32 percent other, including tundra.
*Natural Resources: Oil, natural gas, coal, iron ore, timber, gold, manganese, lead, zinc, nickel, mercury, potash, phosphates, and most strategic minerals.

===Administrative-Political-Territorial Divisions===
The USSR was divided into fifteen union republics - the largest administrative and political units - officially known as Soviet republics or union republics. Theoretically they were independent countries; in practice they were controlled by the Kremlin. Nationality, size of the population, and location were the determinants for republic status. By far the largest and most important was the Russian Republic, containing about 51% of the population. In 1989 Russians made up over 51% of the Soviet population and were politically, economically and culturally the dominant nationality, there are more than 100 other nationality groups that make up Soviet society. Fourteen other major nationalities also have their own republics: in the European part are the [[Lithuania]]n, [[Latvia]]n, [[Estonia]]n, [[Belorussia]]n, [[Ukraine|Ukrainian]], and [[Moldavia]]n republics; the [[Georgia (country)|Georgia]]n, Azerbaydzhan, and [[Armenian]] republics occupy the Caucasus; and Soviet Central Asia is home to the Kazakh, Uzbek, Turkmen, Kirgiz, and Tadzhik republics.

The Soviet republics were subdivided into administrative subdivisions called autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, autonomous okruga, kraia, or most often oblasts. These subdivisions made the country easier to manage and some served to recognize additional nationalities.

==People==
The official Soviet census of 1989 listed over 100 nationalities in the Soviet Union. Each had its own history, culture, and language. Each possessed its own sense of national identity and national consciousness. The position of each nationality in the Soviet Union depended to a large degree on its size, the percentage of the people using the national language as their first language, the degree of its integration into the Soviet society, and its territorial-administrative status. This position was also dependent on each nationality's share of membership in the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] (CPSU), the number of students in higher institutions, the number of scientific workers, and the urbanization of each nationality.

The various nationalities differed greatly in size. On the one hand, the Russians, who constituted about 50.8 percent of the population, numbered about 145 million in 1989. On the other hand, half of the nationalities listed in the census together accounted for only 0.5 percent of the total population, most of them having fewer than 100,000 people. Twenty-two nationalities had more than 1 million people each. Fifteen of the major nationalities had their own union republics, which together comprised the federation known as the Soviet Union.

The nationalities having union republic status commanded more political and economic power than other nationalities and found it easier to maintain their own language and culture. In 1989 some nationalities formed an overwhelming majority within their own republics; one nationality (the Kazakhs), however, lacked even a majority. In addition to the fifteen union republics, individual nationalities had their own territorial units, such as autonomous republics, autonomous oblasts, and autonomous okruga. The remaining nationalities did not have territorial units of their own and in most cases only constituted minorities in the Russian Republic.

The nationalities that have had a significant political and economic impact on the Soviet Union include the fifteen nationalities that have their own union republics and the non-union republic nationalities that numbered at least 1 million people in 1989. They are the Slavic nationalities, the Baltic nationalities, the nationalities of the Caucasus, the Central Asian nationalities, and a few other nationalities.
*Population: 293,047,571 (1991 estimate). Average annual growth rate 0.9 percent. Density twelve persons per square kilometer; 75 percent of people lived west of Ural Mountains.
*Nationalities: 51 percent of population Russian, 15 percent Ukrainian, 6 percent Uzbek, nearly 4 percent Belorussian, and 24 percent about 100 other nationalities.
*Religions: Religious worship was authorized by Constitution, but Marxism-Leninism, the official ideology, was militantly atheistic. Reliable statistics are unavailable, but about 18 percent was Russian Orthodox; 17 percent Muslim; and nearly 7 percent Roman Catholic, Protestant, Armenian Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, and Jewish combined. Officially, most of remainder was atheist.
*Languages: Russian was the official language. Over 200 other languages and dialects were spoken, often as the primary tongue; 18 languages were spoken by groups of more than 1 million each. About 75 percent of people spoke Slavic languages.
*Education: Highly centralized school system with standardized curriculum. Attendance was compulsory through eleventh grade. Strong emphasis on training for vocations selected by central authorities. Indoctrination in Marxist-Leninist ideology at all levels. Science and technology emphasized at secondary level and above. As of 1979 census, official literacy rate 99.8 percent for persons between nine and forty-nine years old. Over 5.3 million studied at universities and institutes, nearly 50 percent part time. All education free, and in many cases students received stipends.
*Health and Welfare: Medical care by government health institutions; free, but of poor quality for general public despite having the highest number of physicians and hospital beds per capita in world. Welfare and pension programs provided, albeit marginally, for substantial segments of population.

===Population===
Seven official censuses have been taken in the Soviet Union (1920, 1926, 1939, 1959, 1970, 1979, and 1989). Both the quality and the quantity of the data have varied: in 1972 seven volumes totaling 3,238 pages were published on the 1970 census. In contrast, the results of the 1979 census were published more than five years later in a single volume of 366 pages.

According to the census of 1989, on the day of the census, January 12, the population of the Soviet Union was estimated to be 286,717,000. This figure maintained the country's long-standing position as the world's third most populous country after China and India. In the intercensal period (1979-88), the population of the Soviet Union grew from 262.4 million to 286.7 million, a 9 percent increase.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, the Soviet Union experienced declining birth rates, increasing divorce rates, a trend toward smaller nuclear families, and increasing mobility and urbanization. Major problems associated with such factors as migration, tension among nationality groups, uneven fertility rates, and high infant and adult mortality became increasingly acute, and various social programs and incentives were introduced to deal with them.

===Religion===
Over one-third of the people in the Soviet Union, an officially atheistic state, professed religious belief. Christianity and Islam had the most believers. Christians belonged to various churches: Orthodox, which had the largest number of followers; Catholic; and Baptist and various other Protestant sects. The majority of the Islamic faithful were Sunni. Judaism also had many followers. Other religions, which were practiced by a relatively small number of believers, included Buddhism, Lamaism, and shamanism, a religion based on primitive spiritualism.

The role of religion in the daily lives of Soviet citizens varied greatly. Because Islamic religious tenets and social values of Muslims are closely interrelated, religion appeared to have a greater influence on Muslims than on either Christians or other believers. Two-thirds of the Soviet population, however, had no religious beliefs. About half the people, including members of the CPSU and high-level government officials, professed atheism. For the majority of Soviet citizens, therefore, religion seemed irrelevant.

==Government==
:''Main article: [[Soviet Union government]]''
The Soviet Union administered the country's economy and society through decisions made by the leading political institution in the country, the [[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]] (CPSU).

In the late 1980s, the government appeared to have many characteristics in common with Western, democratic political systems. For instance, a constitution established all organs of government and granted to citizens a series of political and civic rights. A legislative body, the Congress of People's Deputies, and its standing legislature, the Supreme Soviet, represented the principle of popular sovereignty. The Supreme Soviet, which had an elected chairman who functioned as head of state, oversaw the Council of Ministers, which acted as the executive branch of the government. The chairman of the Council of Ministers, whose selection was approved by the legislative branch, functioned as head of government. A constitutionally based judicial branch of government included a court system, headed by the Supreme Court, which was responsible for overseeing the observance of Soviet law by government bodies. According to the Constitution of 1977, the government had a federal structure, permitting the republics some authority over policy implementation and offering the national minorities the appearance of participation in the management of their own affairs.

In practice, however, the government differed markedly from Western systems. In the late 1980s, the CPSU performed many functions that governments of other countries usually perform. For example, the party decided on the policy alternatives that the government ultimately implemented. The government merely ratified the party's decisions to lend them an aura of legitimacy. The CPSU used a variety of mechanisms to ensure that the government adhered to its policies. The party, using its nomenklatura authority, placed its loyalists in leadership positions throughout the government, where they were subject to the norms of [[democratic centralism]]. Party bodies closely monitored the actions of government ministries, agencies, and legislative organs.

The content of the Soviet Constitution differed in many ways from typical Western constitutions. It generally described existing political relationships, as determined by the CPSU, rather than prescribing an ideal set of political relationships. The Constitution was long and detailed, giving technical specifications for individual organs of government. The Constitution included political statements, such as foreign policy goals, and provided a theoretical definition of the state within the ideological framework of Marxism-Leninism. The CPSU could radically change the constitution or remake it completely, as it has done several times in the past.

The Council of Ministers acted as the executive body of the government. Its most important duties lay in the administration of the economy. The council was thoroughly under the control of the CPSU, and its chairman - the prime minister - was always a member of the Politburo. The council, which in 1989 included more than 100 members, is too large and unwieldy to act as a unified executive body. The council's Presidium, made up of the leading economic administrators and led by the chairman, exercised dominant power within the Council of Ministers.

According to the Constitution, as amended in 1988, the highest legislative body in the Soviet Union was the Congress of People's Deputies, which convened for the first time in May 1989. The main tasks of the congress were the election of the standing legislature, the Supreme Soviet, and the election of the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, who acted as head of state. Theoretically, the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviet wielded enormous legislative power. In practice, however, the Congress of People's Deputies met only a few days in 1989 to approve decisions made by the party, the Council of Ministers, and its own Supreme Soviet. The Supreme Soviet, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, the chairman of the Supreme Soviet, and the Council of Ministers had substantial authority to enact laws, decrees, resolutions, and orders binding on the population. The Congress of People's Deputies had the authority to ratify these decisions.

The government lacked an independent judiciary. The Supreme Court supervised the lower courts and applied the law, as established by the Constitution or as interpreted by the Supreme Soviet. The Constitutional Oversight Committee reviewed the constitutionality of laws and acts. The Soviet Union lacked an [[Adversary proceeding|adversary court procedure]]. Under Soviet law, which derived from Roman law, a procurator worked together with a judge and a defense attorney to ensure that civil and criminal trials uncovered the truth of the case, rather than protecting individual rights.

The Soviet Union was a federal state made up of fifteen republics joined together in a theoretically voluntary union. In turn, a series of territorial units made up the republics. The republics also contained jurisdictions intended to protect the interests of national minorities. The republics had their own constitutions, which, along with the all-union Constitution, provide the theoretical division of power in the Soviet Union. In 1989, however, the CPSU and the central government retained all significant authority, setting policies that were executed by republic, provincial (''oblast'', ''krai'', and autonomous subdivisions), and district (''raion'') governments.

==History==
:''Main article: [[Soviet Union (history)]]''
===Lenin===
The Soviet Union was established in December 1922 by the leaders of the Russian Communist Party (Bolshevik) on territory generally corresponding to that of the old Russian Empire. A spontaneous popular uprising in Petrograd overthrew the imperial government in March 1917, leading to the formation of the Provisional Government, which intended to establish democracy in Russia. At the same time, to ensure the rights of the working class, workers' councils (''soviets'') sprang up across the country. The Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir I. Lenin, agitated for socialist revolution in the soviets and on the streets, and they seized power from the Provisional Government in November 1917. Only after the ensuing Civil War (1918-21) and foreign intervention was the new communist government secure.

From its first years, government in the Soviet Union was based on the one-party rule of the Communists, as the Bolsheviks called themselves beginning March 1918. After unsuccessfully attempting to centralize the economy during the Civil War, the Soviet government permitted some private enterprise to coexist with nationalized industry in the 1920s. Debate over the future of the economy provided the background for Soviet leaders to contend for power in the years after Lenin's death in 1924. By gradually consolidating influence and isolating his rivals within the party, Joseph V. Stalin became the sole leader of the Soviet Union by the end of the 1920s.
===Stalin===
In 1928 Stalin introduced the First Five-Year Plan for building a socialist economy. In industry, the state assumed control over all existing enterprises and undertook an intensive program of industrialization; in agriculture, the state appropriated the peasants' property to establish collective farms. These sweeping economic innovations produced widespread misery, and millions of peasants perished during forced collectivization. Social upheaval continued in the mid-1930s when Stalin began a purge of the party; out of this purge grew a campaign of terror that led to the execution or imprisonment of untold millions of people from all walks of life. Yet despite this turmoil, the Soviet Union developed a powerful industrial economy in the years before World War II.
===World War II===
Stalin tried to divide up Eastern Europe with Germany by concluding the Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Pact with Adolf Hitler in 1939. The USSR took over the Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) and the eastern half of Poland, while going to war with [Finland]]. Communists across the world ended their diatribes against fascism, while Stalin provided the German war machine with supplies of oil and grain. Europe was not big enough for two dictators, so in June 1941 Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The U.S. and Britain formed an alliance with Stalin to fight the Nazis, and poured in [[Lend Lease]] aid. After many humiliating defeats and the loss of three mission soldiers, the Red Army finally stopped the Nazi offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942-43 and then overran much of eastern Europe before Germany surrendered in 1945. Although severely ravaged in the war, the Soviet Union emerged from the conflict as one of the world's great powers.
===Cold War===
During the immediate postwar period, the Soviet Union first rebuilt and then expanded its economy, using resourcs stripped from defeated Germany. The Red Army imposed Communist political control over postwar Eastern Europe, except for Yugoslavia and Albania. The active Soviet foreign policy helped bring about the [[Cold War]], starting about 1947, which turned its wartime allies, Britain and the United States, into foes. Within the Soviet Union, repressive measures continued in force; Stalin apparently was about to launch a new purge when he died in 1953.
===Khrushchev===
see [[Nikita Khrushchev]]

After three years of a join leadership, [[Nikita Khrushchev]] seized power, denounced Stalin's use of terror and effectively reduced repressive controls over party and society. Khrushchev's reforms in agriculture and administration, however, were generally unproductive, and foreign policy toward China and the United States suffered reverses. Khrushchev's colleagues in the leadership removed him from power in 1964.
===Brezhnev ===
Following the ouster of Khrushchev, another period of rule by collective leadership ensued, which lasted until Leonid I. Brezhnev established himself in the early 1970s as the preeminent figure in Soviet political life. Brezhnev presided over a period of détente with the West while at the same time building up Soviet military strength; the arms buildup contributed to the demise of [[détente]] in the late 1970s. Also contributing to the end of détente was the [[Soviet-Afghan War|Soviet invasion of Afghanistan]] in December 1979.

After some experimentation with economic reforms in the mid-1960s, the Soviet leadership reverted to established means of economic management. Industry showed slow but steady gains during the 1970s, while agricultural development continued to lag. In contrast to the revolutionary spirit that accompanied the birth of the Soviet Union, the prevailing mood of the Soviet leadership at the time of Brezhnev's death in 1982 was one of cautious conservatism and aversion to change. Brezhnev was succeeded by former KGB head Yuri Andropov.
===Reagan challenge===
Friction with the west continued in the 1980's, especially with the United States and its new president, [[Ronald Reagan]], who saw the Soviet Union for what it was and branded it an "evil empire," partially in response to the Afghanistan occupation. Reagan negotiated with West Germany to provide sites for the basing of Pershing II medium-range ballistic missiles, which was bitterly opposed by Moscow. A short period of confrontation existed between the two superpowers during the period of late-1983 through 1984, beginning with the tragic Soviet attack on a commercial airliner, [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]], over international waters near Sakhalin Island on September 1, 1983, and killing 269 civilians, including a sitting U.S. Congressman, [[Larry McDonald]]; this was followed by events within a military exercise known as [[Able Archer]], in which a falling satellite was mistaken for an incoming ICBM and almost triggered a major war. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a space-based missile defense system critics derisively dubbed "Star Wars" as well as his expansion of the United States military, also prompted a new, expensive arms race.

Andropov and his successor, Konstantin Chernenko, kept the communist system under Brezhnev intact, but upon Chernenko's death [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] became party chairman.
===Gorbachev and the end of Communism===
see [[Mikhail Gorbachev]]

A reformer, he introduced a series of economic and political reforms known as ''[[glasnost]]'' ("openess") and ''[[perestroika]]'' ("restructuring"), which began to creak open the doors of the Soviet's closed system. A failed attempt to reign in the three [[Baltic States]] in 1989 led to a domino-effect of [[Warsaw Pact]] countries abandoning communism; a coup attempt against Gorbachev in 1991 by hard-liners trying to keep their tattering empire ended within days. The USSR was formally dissolved on Christmas day 1991 by [[Boris Yeltsin]], freeing many from its tyranny. The main successor state to the Soviet Union is [[Russia]]; the effort to form a "Commonwealth of Independent States" went nowhere, and the 15 republics of the USSR are now independent states.

==See Also==
*[[Communist Party of the Soviet Union]]
*[[Soviet Union government]]
*[[Nazi Germany]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]
*[[Soviet Officers of KAL 007 Shootdown]]
*[[KAL 007: Timeline of Interception and Shootdown]]
*[[Anatoly Kornukov]]
*[[The Soviet/ U.S naval confrontation]]
*[[KAL 007 and the Soviet Top Secret Memos]]

==Bibliography==
===Surveys===
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century'' (1990)
* Ingram, Philip. ''Russia and the USSR, 1905-1991'' (1997) [http://www.amazon.com/Russia-1905-1991-Cambridge-History-Programme/dp/0521568676/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232394134&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Keep, John L. H. ''Last of the Empires: A History of the Soviet Union, 1945-1991'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/read/25055927?title=Last%20of%20the%20Empires%3a%20A%20History%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union%2c%201945-1991 online edition]
* McCauley, Martin. ''The Soviet Union: 1917-1991'' (1993) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=54365219 online edition]
* McCauley, Martin. ''Who's Who in Russia since 1900,'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/read/103052094?title=Who's%20Who%20in%20Russia%20since%201900 online edition]
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396454&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993)
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]
===Lenin and Stalin===
* Bullock, Alan. ''Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives'' (1992), a double biography covering each man in separate but parallel chapters
* Lee, Stephen J. ''Stalin and the Soviet Union'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/108215209?title=Stalin%20and%20the%20Soviet%20Union online edition]
* McCauley, Martin. ''Stalin and Stalinism'' (3rd ed 2003), 172pp
* Service, Robert. ''Stalin: A Biography'' (2004), along with Tucker the standard biography
* Service, Robert. ''Lenin: A Biography'' (2002)
* Tucker, Robert C. ''Stalin as Revolutionary, 1879-1929'' (1973); ''Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1929-1941.'' (1990) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103246514 online edition] with Service, a standard biography; [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Ulam, A. B. ''Stalin'' (1973), good older biography; replaced by Tucker and Service
* Wood, Alan. ''Stalin and Stalinism'', (2004), 105pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=108863368 online edition]
===Peoples, society, culture===
* Cole, J. P. ''Geography of the Soviet Union'' (1984) [http://www.questia.com/read/7724372?title=Geography%20of%20the%20Soviet%20Union online edition]
* Davis, Nathaniel. ''A Long Walk to Church: A Contemporary History of Russian Orthodoxy'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/read/30537968?title=A%20Long%20Walk%20to%20Church%3a%20A%20Contemporary%20History%20of%20Russian%20Orthodoxy online edition]
* Denber, Rachel. ''The Soviet Nationality Reader: The Disintegration in Context'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/97474829?title=The%20Soviet%20Nationality%20Reader%3a%20The%20Disintegration%20in%20Context online edition]
* Lane, David. ''Soviet Society under Perestroika'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/read/103443652?title=Soviet%20Society%20under%20Perestroika online edition]
* Lapidus, Gail Warshofsky. ''Women, Work, and Family in the Soviet Union'' (1982) [http://www.questia.com/read/106056669?title=Women%2c%20Work%2c%20and%20Family%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union online edition]
* Lutz, Wolfgang Lutz, Sergei Scherbov, Andrei Volkov. ''Demographic Trends and Patterns in the Soviet Union before 1991'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/read/103849492?title=Demographic%20Trends%20and%20Patterns%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union%20before%201991 online edition]
* Wixman, Ronald. ''The Peoples of the USSR: An Ethnographic Handbook'' (1984) [http://www.questia.com/read/582240?title=The%20Peoples%20of%20the%20USSR%3a%20An%20Ethnographic%20Handbook online edition]

===1918-1939===
* Daniels, R. V., ed. ''The Stalin Revolution'' (1965)
* Davies, Sarah, and James Harris, eds. ''Stalin: A New History,'' (2006), 310pp, 14 specialized essays by scholars [http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-New-History-Sarah-Davies/dp/0521616530/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494353&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* De Jonge, Alex. ''Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union'' (1986)
* Fitzpatrick, Sheila, ed. ''Stalinism: New Directions,'' (1999), 396pp excerpts from many scholars on the impact of Stalinism on the people (little on Stalin himself) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=109468478 online edition]
* Hoffmann, David L. ed. ''Stalinism: The Essential Readings,'' (2002) essays by 12 scholars
* Pipes, Richard. ''A Concise History of the Russian Revolution'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Russian-Revolution/dp/0679745440/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393501&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], by a leading conservative
* Tucker, Robert. ''Stalinism: Essays in Historical Interpretation'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Stalinism-Historical-Interpretation-Robert-Tucker/dp/0765804832/ref=sr_1_12/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193876953&sr=1-12 excerpt and text search]

===[[Gulag]] and Terror===
* Applebaum, Anne. ''Gulag: A History.'' 2003. 736 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Gulag-History-ANNE-APPLEBAUM/dp/B0007NMYPY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494284&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Conquest, Robert. ''The Great Terror: A Reassessment'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/read/79044140?title=The%20Great%20Terror%3a%20A%20Reassessment online edition]
* Pohl, J. Otto. ''Ethnic Cleansing in the USSR, 1937-1949'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/9465022?title=Ethnic%20Cleansing%20in%20the%20USSR%2c%201937-1949 online edition]
* Rosefielde, Steven. "Stalinism in Post-Communist Perspective: New Evidence on Killings, Forced Labour and Economic Growth in the 1930s" ''Europe-Asia Studies,'' Vol. 48, No. 6 (Sep., 1996), pp. 959-987 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0966-8136(199609)48%3A6%3C959%3ASIPPNE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V in JSTOR]

===World War II===
* Brandon, Ray, and Wendy Lower, eds. ''The Shoah in Ukraine: History, Testimony, Memorialization.'' (2008). 378 pp. [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24078 online review], on the Holocaust
* Broekmeyer, Marius. ''Stalin, the Russians, and Their War, 1941-1945.'' 2004. 315 pp.
* Overy, Richard. ''The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia.'' 2004. 448 pp. focus on 1930-45 [http://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Hitlers-Germany-Stalins-Russia/dp/B000FTCH5W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494219&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Priestland, David. ''Stalinism and the Politics of Mobilization'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Stalinism-Politics-Mobilization-David-Priestland/dp/0199245134/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201494105&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Roberts, Geoffrey. ''Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939–1953'' (2006).

===Cold War===
* see [[Cold War]]
* Craig, Campbell, and Yuri Smirnov. ''Truman, Stalin, and the Bomb'' (2008)
* Gaddis, John. ''A New History of the Cold War'' (2006)
* Holloway, David. ''Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 1939-1956'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Bomb-Soviet-Atomic-1939-1956/dp/0300066643/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193876689&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Mastny, Vojtech. ''The Cold War and Soviet Insecurity: The Stalin Years'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98422373 online edition] [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Failed-Empire-Soviet-Gorbachev-History/dp/0807859583/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393695&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]
===Khruschev, Gorbachev===
* Brown, Archie. ''The Gorbachev Factor'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/read/109878423?title=The%20Gorbachev%20Factor online edition]
* Dallin, Alexander, and Gail W. Lapidus. ''The Soviet System: From Crisis to Collapse'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/read/100838053?title=The%20Soviet%20System%3a%20From%20Crisis%20to%20Collapse online edition]
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended'' (2005), by leading conservative [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0812974891/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393695&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search]
* Taubman, William. ''Khrushchev: The Man and His Era'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Khrushchev-Man-His-William-Taubman/dp/0393324842/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393626&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Failed-Empire-Soviet-Gorbachev-History/dp/0807859583/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232393695&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/sutoc.html Library of Congress detailed country study on the Soviet Union]
*State Defense Committee Decree No. 5859ss [http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/l2tartar.html "On the Crimean Tatars"], The Kremlin, May 11, 1944.

[[category:Russian History]]
[[Category:Former Countries]]
[[Category:Warsaw Pact Members]]
[[Category:Communist States]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:Totalitarianism]]

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-09-29T03:42:54Z

BrentH: /* Deletions will be restored */

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the "excellent evidence" for why dinosaurs and man coexisted is a link to the Conservapedia dinosaur article. I move that due to multiple issues with this picture (no purpose in this article, caption having nothing to do with article / bad sourcing) that it be removed from this page. Honestly looking at this page, it appears that this picture might have been added as parody to deface what is otherwise an excellent debunking of evolution. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:For now I have removed the photo in question, although I am willing to have a discussion on this, but please if you revert this change provide at least one reason why it should be in the article. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 16:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

== Improving article ==

Hi jcw. I'd really like to improve this article, because a lot of the arguments in it are outdated or fallacious. I think we should cut out a lot of the more silly ones and focus more on promising things like irreducible complexity. Can I give you a list (with explanations) of which examples I think should go? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:10, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:There are a couple of changes that I think would improve this, that's for sure. There are a couple of duplications, for example the flagellum is mentioned under two separate categories. I think we should remove one entry and expand the other one to include a lot more of Michael Behe's work on it and some rebuttals of Ken Miller's attack on him. Also the last one, about scientists proving that the chicken came before the egg - I think that should go, because I suspect it's a parody anyway. It certainly isn't true. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::There's always room for reasonable discussion here on CP, so please go ahead. As you've seen, it's very much advisable to discuss your ideas before wading in - it might not be obvious to a new user, but the articles are frequently targeted by vandals and trolls, so we tend to be very cautious about changes. Nevertheless, we all want to see the most effective arguments used in the article, so as long as it's clear that that's our goal we shouldn't have any problems. I recommend pairing suggestions for removal with suggestions for addition, as you've both begun to do above. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Great, thanks for the advice! I've taken out one reference to the flagellum and added some information to the remaining one (under Irreducible Complexity, where it fits better.) I've just ordered Prof Behe's book, so hopefully in a week or so I can add a bit more detail without having to rely on dubious sources. Do you think it would be OK if I removed the statement about chickens and eggs? I'm 99% sure somebody put that in as a joke, and 100% sure that it's wrong. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't know whether it's true or not, but the chicken/egg point is supported by a link to a news story. Not the best source perhaps, but before removing it I'd follow the source up and see if it's reliable. Your flagellum edit seems reasonable to me - the observation does fit better in its new place. I look forward to more progress. Thanks for taking it slowly; it makes everyone's lives easier. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:38, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I read the news story and I think it's a bit misleading. The impression I get is that the research was really about materials and the chicken and egg comments were a bit of a joke on the part of the researchers. They're mechanical engineers, not biologists, so they're not really qualified to comment. Also the story is from the Daily Mail. Their hearts are generally in the right place, but unfortunately the Mail is a bit like the National Enquirer with spellcheck. I really think this should come out. We have plenty of good refutations of evolution, and I think saying things like this has the potential to do more harm than good. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:50, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::It certainly seems like a weak and unsupported argument to me; I'd be happy to see it removed, but of course I can't speak for anyone else. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I took it out. I think we achieved a concensus on it, even if it was only a concensus of two. Nobody else seems to object so far. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:01, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) This article seems to have been pretty lively over the last few days, for all sorts of wrong reasons. I'm new here, but I have to say something pretty blunt: it's not a good article. There seems to be an emphasis on quantity over quality. A lot of the arguments presented are so weak that I have to suspect they're strawmen or parodies inserted by evolutionists. We have about ten really good arguments that are more than enough to refute evolutionism, but we have hardly any detail on them: irreducible complexity only has a few sentences, for example. On the other hand there are a lot of EXTREMELY poor arguments, such as the old chestnut about males and females of a species having to coincidentally evolve together. I'm sorry, but present that argument to any evolutionist and he's going to laugh in your face then take you to pieces. Their theory CAN explain that, and within the naturalist framework they restrict science to they can explain it extremely well. Evolution is a scientific theory and it stands or falls on the evidence. We HAVE the evidence to defeat it, so why do we need to expose ourselves to ridicule by talking unscientific rubbish about the order in which chickens return to their coops? Sorry for the rant, but the latest troll really annoyed me. Not because what he said was wrong, but because so much of it wasn't. Why do we have this compulsion to make ourselves easy targets? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:12, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
:Does anybody have a problem if I return this article to SamCoulter's last edit? I've done some reading and I think he's on the right track as far as improving it goes, even if he's sadly not able to be with us right now. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:20, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Perfect number of teeth? ==

I had my wisdom teeth out last year because teeth ''do'' get over crowded in the mouth! For many people! This obviously doesn't mean evolution is true - but the fact remains we do not have the perfect number of teeth. I won't remove it myself until there has been further commentary from the community. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, I had mine out too. There's no need to turn to evolutionism when there's a perfectly good explanation for it - degeneration since the Fall - but it's definitely not true that we have the perfect number of teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:31, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Not quite, JMairs - you're right about degeneration, but the conclusion that we don't have the perfect number of teeth isn't exactly correct - we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed. I suppose it's just a different way of looking at it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:43, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::''we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed.'' That is a rather ad hoc explanation. Fact is it is rare for anyone to not have to have any teeth removed (or braces) because teeth fit rather awkwardly into the mouth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:45, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::What else would you expect in a fallen world? The fact that in some people the teeth do fit perfectly into the mouth shows how God's plan for man works perfectly as He designed it; the widespread imperfection shows the pervasive influence of the Fall. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I think we probably have more problems with wisdom teeth now, because most people have better dental health and we tend to keep all our teeth. My guess is that a couple of hundred years ago most people had already lost some teeth by the time the wisdom teeth came in, so there was room in the jaw for them. Now we don't. This is interesting; I never really thought about it before. Maybe we do have the perfect number of teeth for a fallen race and it's going wrong because of technology? I'm no dentist, so I vote we leave this one as it is until we hear from someone who knows about teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:56, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::So we don't have the perfect number of teeth because we are fallen. which is why the example should be removed. Whether or not we used to is irrelevant because the example talks in the present tense and presently humans do not have the perfect number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:03, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I'd argue that we DO have the perfect number of teeth for the situation God left us in after the Fall. How long have we had good dentistry, maybe 100 years? That's about 1.5% of the time since the Fall. Even in the present tense most people don't have good dental care; it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan. Even now most people are going to be losing teeth quite young, and their wisdom teeth will let them keep chewing food even if they've lost some molars. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.
::::::::If we had the perfect number of teeth then wisdom teeth wouldn't impact and we wouldn't need braces. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:11, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

This discussion is veering towards argument. Max, please try to stay civil and respectful. As the possessor of a full set of wisdom teeth, I don't see what the fuss is about. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:13, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:No, it is not veering towards an argument and I have been completely civil and respectful. The article currently states ''the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.'' when in the majority of people the the teeth ''are'' over-crowded hence the prevalence of wisdom teeth removal and braces. Wisdom teeth don't need removing in every case but will still be impacted. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Max, you surely accept that we live in a fallen world in which imperfection is the norm? But imperfection implies a perfect model from which the imperfect deviates; that perfect model is God's design, a design which we can clearly infer parts of, even from our imperfect world. You're wrong to imply that all or most people need the wisdom teeth removing or to wear braces. I understand that's more common in the USA, but here in Britain it's very rare to wear braces and wisdom teeth are often left in. This clearly shows us that the pre-Fall design had a perfect number of teeth - even in a fallen world, a substantial proportion of people do have exactly the right number of teeth. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I know exactly what you're saying, but my point is that for most people in most of human history we DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw. What if God made it that way to help us survive, and now it's going wrong because of dentistry? We can't uninvent toothpaste, and if He uninvented wisdom teeth how long do you think it would be before Dawkins was yowling "There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!" My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::If we take what you have said above as read then the entry ''still'' needs editing because a) you are saying pre-fall we were perfect but the entry is in the present tense suggesting it is still perfect and b) many people do not have the perfect number of teeth and whether or not wisdom are left in doesn't mean that are not impacted - it just means they are left in. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::''e DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw.'' As to this - teeth don't move - if I lost a front a tooth my wisdom teeth would still impact at the back. It is the ''jaw'' that is too small for the number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:25, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Yes, but we can survive without front teeth as long as we can still chew food properly. The wisdom teeth would compensate for lost molars, which have a more complex shape and would be more likely to be lost without modern dentistry. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::(Edit conflict) In response to Max's comments earlier, braces are not used to alter the number of teeth, but to align them better. As to the removal of wisdom teeth, it seems likely that there are removed more often than necessary, just as tonsils were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think there's a lot of truth in that: I was in the British Army and they remove pretty much everybody's wisdom teeth as a routine, whether it's necessary or not. They can cause problems though. I had mine out before I joined, because I was in a lot of pain. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:33, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes but they are out of line in many cases because the jaw is too small. Also wisdom don't always need removing but will still grow sideways (impact). I defer to you Andy but we certainly don't have a perfect number of teeth - perhaps due to the fall as suggested above. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:32, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I have the perfect number of teeth - 28! I have never had and (I am told by my dentist) never will have the last four molars. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Raptorex ==

I've done some reading on this and it looks like Raptorex is rejected by most palaeontologists, so it's inaccurate to say that it's causing changes in evolutionary theory. Does anyone have any better information on it? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:24, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, it's pretty much rejected. It does seem to be a juvenile tyrannosaurid rather than a separate species. I think this one should come out. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 11:03, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

== Bats ==

I'm not sure about the bat example under irreducible complexity. Of the two families of bats, one doesn't echolocate at all but is still fully capable of flight (the megabats.) Given that, is it a good idea to insist that evolutionism says flight and echolocation must have evolved together? It looks like they'd be able to argue that this was a strawman and much as it pains me to say it, they'd be right. It doesn't look like an important argument, so maybe we shouldn't make it. Any thoughts? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oops, I just noticed this: "an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)" Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Several ground shrews use echolocation too. Regardless, bats don't need sonar to fly, so this isn't an example of irreducible complexity. It should really be removed. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::FYI, anyone who deletes an item needs to update the number of examples at the top of the page. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==

During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted SamCoulter's legitimate edits and blocked him. Not sure what my schedule is going to be like in the near term and I am hoping that now that this editor is unblocked that he will choose to get involved in this talk page. That may be wishful thinking, but I did undo the block one day letter. If others want to pick up where SamCoulter left off, I would not be in opposition to this. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:That's OK, I understand that there were some problems at the time. Just, you know, don't be so quick on the trigger from now on? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Other than add some pictures and a little content, I have had very limited involvement in this article. I don't have the inclination to get involved in this article due to my current priorities so I will let you work out your differences with the other editors. My apologies if you were taken out temporarily due to some "friendly blocking fire" during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm "Broken arrow"] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Artistic beauty argument ==

Personally I don't think that autumn leaves DID exist before there were men to see them. Autumn leaves are dead, and death didn't exist before the Fall. As for marine fish, there are plenty of reasons for them to have beautiful colours that don't have anything to do with how good they look to men. Fish have a wonderful ability to swim in coordinated schools, and coloured flanks can obviously help them do that. Most fish fade to grey as soon as they die - and they die when we catch them - so I doubt that God made their colours for us to look at. I think He made their colours for other fish to see, as a navigation aid. It's not that I think I can refute this argument; I just don't think it IS an argument. Sorry. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:42, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, ''"death didn't exist before the fall"''?
:So in the days, months or years before the fall not a single leaf from a single tree ''ever'' worked it's way loose from its parent and fell to the ground?
:If "death didn't exist" for plants (of all things) then all the "green things" G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook?
:You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined "life." Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that "life" is usually equated to "having the breath of life.") Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no "death" as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The argument, (such as it stands), is that there was "no death before the fall" hence no autumnal foliage. If trees weren't things that were alive to the writer(s) of the Creation texts then how could the effects have been wrought by things (G-d created things, no less) such as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (or the Tree of Life, for that matter)?
:::Nice try, Benp, but we know that we once had much more knowledge than we currently do...the writers of the Creation history knew better than us that trees are "alive".
:::No. Better that we should re-examine our dogmas than to succumb to metaphysical gymnastic logics to prop them up. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:19, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:::But were there seasons in the garden of Eden? From what I understand before the fall it was a constant, perfect temperature and climate. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:04, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::That's always been my understanding too, so I wouldn't have expected leaves to fall. The definition of life is a tricky one though. Perhaps the animals only ate enough of the plant that it could keep growing, so didn't die? I know that when cows graze they don't eat the roots of the grass, so it can grow again. Of course that argument would also apply to falling leaves, wouldn't it? The leaves die but the tree itself doesn't. OK, I'll have to rethink that one! --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Thanks for the fascinating discussion. Regardless, evolution cannot explain artistic beauty in nature, whether it existed before man or not. Indeed, most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature, which is one reason why it becomes such a dreary, negative belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::As an aside though, were there seasons in the Garden of Eden? If not there would never have been autumn leaves which means there artistic beauty comes not from Gods perfect handy work but from the flaws in the post -fall world. An interesting idea and I am sure there is much discussion to be had. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:41, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature" Andy, I can't believe you get away with bald assertions like that. It's pretty solid rhetoric, though. Just keep challenging dissenters with assumptions and dismiss counter-examples as outliers. I'm positive the statement could not be disproved to your satisfaction. Never mind that you never proved it. That's why most people have trouble taking Conservapedia seriously. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Brad, the existence of artistic beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of functional evolution. If you know of any evolutionists who accept the existence of artistic beauty in nature, then please do post some examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:00, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: Atheists like Stephen Hawking, David Attenborough and, more recently, Brian Cox go to great pains to extol the beauty and rhythm of the universe and nature. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:08, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I disagree that the existence of beauty in nature is incompatible with the theory of evolution. Many evolutionists have written about the role of beautiful plumage in birds and how evolution could produce this beauty. I think some have even proposed that we evolved to find the world beautiful because those who thought it ugly were more prone to depression and less likely to survive. We all know they're wrong, but their argument is valid if you only allow naturalistic explanations, which is what their whole model is based on. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:36, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::"Most evolutionists deny the existence of artistic beauty in nature." Well the fact is, actually they don't. For example: "After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life." - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is, to say the least, a prominent evolutionist. If you watch Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" his enthusiasm for the beauty of nature is very obvious; it's debatable whether Sagan was an atheist or not, but he was most certainly an evolutionist. Exactly the same can be said for Brian Cox's recent productions. My personal experience is that most evolutionists DO see beauty in nature; they just don't believe it was designed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:03, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your quote does not say the world is beautiful. Evolution is a theory based on ''functionality''. How would an evolutionist explain how beauty arose?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:47, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Dawkins doesn't actually use the word "beautiful" in that quote, but he uses it several times in an interview with Der Spiegel, at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,748673,00.html. Evolutionists also argue that the universe wasn't made to be beautiful so much as we evolved to find it beautiful, simply because we live in it. I don't believe that's true, but within the evolutionary framework it's a valid argument and they can ue it as an effective counter. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 09:50, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

== float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==

SamCoulter, I remember watching a PBS Nature show and the show admitted that evolutionist don't have a clue how bee social behavior evolved. Afterwards, the local PBS fundraisers were dumbfounded/shocked the show admitted this and they were like liberal evolutionists deer in the headlights. So I think you are way off base. I briefly wanted to offer [http://books.google.com/books?id=zJzC7nfAMWEC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&source=bl&ots=xAVwcJihMN&sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&hl=en&ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&source=bl&ots=XUGsWfPVCY&sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&hl=en&ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors.

Also this:

"An interesting example of the Fibonacci series in nature is regarding bees. Some unique facts about Bees are that males are produced by the queen's unfertilized eggs, so they have only a mother, no father. The females, however, have both a father and a mother. Start by imagining one male worker bee, then figure out how many parents, how many grand-parents and how many great-grand-parents he would have. Working this out you can show that the number of bees of each generation follow a Fibonacci series exactly, both for males and females. No this is not the twilight zone, this is the intellegent arranging God has done in the real world."[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Oh, no way can they explain bee social behaviour. They can explain the caste system though, as long as they accept Dawkins' gene-level selection theory (which is controversial even among evolutionists.) Ironically it comes down to what you said about male bees (drones) only having a mother. Evolutionists who follow Dawkins say that because drones share all their DNA with the queen, they can spread that DNA without reproducing as long as they serve the queen. It's actually a logically consistent argument, but bee behaviour like honey dances can't be explained by evolution. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
It's funny you should bring up [[Richard Dawkins]]. Are you interested in creating a [[Elevatorgate]] article. If you do write up an article, don't forget to mention that atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc.

Here are some sources:

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Ha ha, I hadn't heard about that! I've read some other stuff on it as well now, including PZ Myers' comments, and it seems they're all at each other's throats. That could make a pretty good article, and I might have a shot at it as soon as I work out how. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:28, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Altruism ==

I've removed the mention of Dawkins' book "The selfish gene" from the argument on altruism, because in fact Dawkins doesn't deny altruism in animals and the book has a whole chapter discussing it. Dawkins regularly makes a fool of himself talking about evolution and religion, and the reason is that he's not qualified in either subject. What he actually is, is an ethologist (studies animal behaviour) and I have to grudgingly admit that he's quite good at that, so he's not really in a position to deny altruism because it obviously exists. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Devil's Advocate ==

I'd like to spark some discussion on this article by pointing out which arguments can be easily countered by evolutionists (yes, many of them can, unfortunately) and which ones are definite refutations of evolutionary theory (yes, we have plenty of those too.) What I plan to do is list every example with its evolutionist refutation if applicable and my opinion on what we should do with it. Please contribute as much as you can. Anyway here's the list (apologies for the massive edit):

Logical examples

1. This example assumes that the rate of extinctions has remained constant. While the theory of evolution doesn't make any statements on this, it incorporates data from other sciences such as paleontology that claim there have been massive spikes in extinction rates, including one that's happening now. Weak argument - should be removed.

2. Yes it can, quite easily, for example through mating behaviour. Weak argument and should be removed.

3. Very strong argument and should be expanded.

4. Evolution can explain this and would point out that the eyes found in species they claim to be closely related tend to be similar while those found in species they claim to be distantly related are much less similar, e.g. vertebrates and cephalopods have different eye structures. They also claim that eyes have clear survival benefits and are likely to evolve. This is a dubious argument and needs discussion.

5. Fairly strong argument and should be expanded.

6. Strong argument and should be expanded.

7. Extremely weak argument, bordering on laughable, and should be removed.

8. Good argument and cannot be refuted.

9. Based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory (and, to some extent, on arguments between evolutionists.) What LEVEL are traits benefitting? Lying might not benefit the human race as a whole but it can certainly benefit the liar. Dubious and needs more discussion.

10. Based on a factual error. The dog is NOT a separate species; it's Canis lupus familiaris, a sub-species of the wolf. Dubious and needs discussed.

Lack of mechanism

1. Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and many animals have a demonstrated ability to sense imminent earthquakes. A bit dubious and needs to be expanded.

2. Mutations don't necessarily cause a loss of information; this depends on what definition of "information" you use, for a start. Entropy has nothing whatsoever to do with disorder; it refers to energy available for work. Ice is much more ordered than liquid water but has higher entropy. This is a common misunderstanding and one that evolutionists like to jump all over. The information part needs to be expanded; the entropy bit needs to go.

3. I can't really comment on cicadas but this one looks interesting. Can someone add more detail?

4. Evolution can explain migration patterns easily, and does so at some length. This seems like a weak example and should be removed.

:Evolution can explain why animals migrate but not how they are able to navigate by instinct. They can give a believable explanation for how an animal might evolve a mechanism capable of finding its way over long distances, but not how information is already loaded into that system when the animal is born. I agree it's not the strongest example in the world, but I don't think it's as weak as you seem to. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

5. Back to the definition of information. Again this needs more explanation.

6. Laughable. Should be removed.

7. Symbiosis - an excellent argument. More examples perhaps?

8. Consciousness - A moderate argument. Needs some expansion.

9. Should be merged with 8 and not emphasised so much. Evolutionists can put forward MANY explanations for why these things would be favoured, but what they can't explain is how we're able to do them in the first place.

10. I'm not sure about this one. What, in particular, makes them unfeasible? More discussion needed.

11. This is factually inaccurate. Birds don't even HAVE X and Y chromosomes (they have Z and W) and the evolutionary argument would be that if two groups evolved sexual reproduction separately there's no reason why their chromosomes should follow the same pattern. This needs to be cleaned up and focused on the fact that the alleged common ancestor of birds and mammals was ALREADY reproducing sexually, which evolutionists can't explain.

12. This one is easily answered. An evolutionist would say that the fish gradually colonised colder water as they evolved resistance to low temperatures. Weak and should be removed.

13. Potentially very strong but needs more background. Do any other species have vanadium in their blood?

14. Animals like isolated places because they tend to be safe, and lots of them can climb better than we can. Very weak and should be removed.

Maladaptation

1. This only applies to box jellyfish and the reason they come close to the beach at this time is well understood: that's when they spawn. Fallacious example and should be removed.

2. VERY strong example and should be expanded.

3. Can anyone name any benefits of the prostate surrounding the urethra? The theory of evolution actually states that there are many examples of poor design that natural selection CAN'T eliminate because it can't go back and start again. Dubious and needs discussion.

4. Evolutionists don't deny altruism and they have many plausible explanations for it, as does game theory. Weak and should be removed.

5. Strong example.

6. This assumes that HIV and other pathogens aren't evolving too. Evolutionists say that they are, and it's obvious that they do undergo adaptation. A fairly weak example that should probably be removed.

7. Does schizophrenia make people less likely to survive long enough to reproduce? If not there is no reason why natural selection would eliminate it. Potentially interesting but needs some discussion.

8. Very, very dubious. Male pattern baldness HAS been observed in other species - orangs and chimps - and does it actually make men less likely to find a mate? Does it tend to appear after the reproductive peak has already passed? This should PROBABLY go, but may benefit from more information.

9. Menopause - evolution can explain this one to some extent. Needs discussed.

Wrong predictions

1. A very good example.

2. Fairly strong.

3. Moderately strong but not concrete.

4. Again, the theory of evolution states that natural selection can't work backwards and therefore often has to make the best of a bad job rather than produce a perfect design. Weak and should be removed.

5. True, but evolutionism DOESN'T predict a contrary result. Quite the opposite really. However I think this one should stay.

6. Possibly false and certainly irrelevant; evolution doesn't necessarily predict human improvement and the short timeline claim assumes very strict uniformitarianism. Weak and should go.

7. No, it doesn't. Weak and should go.

8. True but irrelevant; evolutionary theory doesn't recognise devolution, just evolution in different directions. They will say that if an organism becomes more adapted by losing genetic information, it's evolved. Pretty weak and should perhaps go.

Missing fossils

1. Plausible ancestors have been found. Dubious.

2. A horse series has been identified but isn't very convincing. Quite strong and should be expanded.

3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected and the vast majority of fossils, even claimed transitionals, are NOT frauds. Not especially strong but should probably stay.

4. Pretty strong.

5. Very strong and should be expanded.

6. See 3. Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected. Also this is vergin on being a duplicate. Should be merged with 3.

7. There are lots of hominid fossils that are clearly genuine. Those beings existed. The big question is, were they actually human ancestors or not? Evolutionists say yes; we say no. Potentially strong but needs expansion.

Paradoxical fossils

1. Is Raptorex actually questioning any evolutionary assumptions? It seems like most palaeontologists reject the Raptorex classification and say it's a juvenile tyrannosaurid. Weak and should probably go, unless anyone can add anything.

Irreducible Complexity

1. The immune system is NOT irreducibly complex; this was painfully pointed out to Michael Behe at the Dover trial.

2. Giraffes ARE irreducibly complex. An excellent example.

3. Intermediate wings are useful and are seen in many species. An extremely bad example, and evolutionists love it when people use this one.

:Evolutionists have lots of examples for intermediate wings in mammals, such as sugar gliders, but not in birds. It looks to me like they can give an evolutionary explanation for bats but not birds. I think this example should stay if that's clarified. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:19, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Ostriches use their wings for balance when running at high speed. Obviously that's not proof of evolution, but it's a demonstrable use of wings that aren't capable of flight. I still think this one just leaves us open to attack and should be removed. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:48, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

4. The flagellum is a solid example.

5. The eye isn't. Even a non-imaging eye has lots of uses and are found in many species. If they didn't help the organism they wouldn't have been designed in. This is another example that evolutionists love.

6. Several species have blood clotting cascades that don't have one or more steps but are still functional. A bad example.

7. Ear bones; an excellent example.

8. A partial bony skeleton can have many functions. A bad example.

9. Social insects; a very good example but the argument about workers not reproducing should be removed. They share their entire genome with the queen, so by helping her reproduce they ARE reproducing their own DNA.

Uncategorized

1. This is a duplicate and should be removed.

2. Good if correct. Do we have a linguistics expert who can confirm?

3. Ties in with human consciousness. Is any other animal CAPABLE of exhibiting religion? Dubious and needs discussed.

4. Without a definition of "kind" this one is an easy target for evolutionists. It also confuses many people into inadvertently making straw man arguments. Weak and should be removed.

5. Interesting but double-edged. If we don't need two kidneys why would an intelligent designer give us two? Needs discussed.

6. I don't think a 24-hour circadian cycle defies materialistic explanations at all; in fact it makes perfect sense on a planet with a 24-hour rotation. On the other hand if someone can come up with examples of a WEEKLY cycle in non-humans that would be very strong.

7. Dawkins has already given an explanation of religion that, in a naturalistic framework, is credible. Weak and should be removed.

I realise that I'm proposing removing a majority of the examples, but the ones that I think should go are ones that I've seen evolutionists give plausible answers to in a materialist framework (which is, after all, where they're working and therefore where we need to combat them to win over their followers) and I don't think they should be used. In compensation, the remaining examples are all inarguable and many of them can be expanded, so in my opinion the article would be a lot more solid and informative. Anyway, please let me know what you think and contribute any specialist knowledge you have. Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:50, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I plan to study each of your points carefully, and will respond to the first ten now (the logical counterexamples):

:#It seems implausible that the rate of extinction would vary enormously, but even if it did, it would still exceed the rate of the generation of new species.
:#Much of the beauty in nature has nothing to do with mating, such as autumn foliage. It cannot be explained by evolution.
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#But the eye is remarkably similar across species that have no direct evolutionary connection, such as humans and cats and eagles. The human eye and and an eagle's eye have the same weight!
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#This is a valid point. Male and female versions of species must evolve separately, yet at the same time, and in a complementary manner. It's like lightening striking twice at the same place, at the same time of day, etc. Doesn't happen, and certainly not repeatedly so (for many species).
:#Agreed that this is a strong counterexample.
:#Evolution does have a problem explaining why so many self-destructive people and personalities exist. A liar typically ends up hurting himself as well as others. An addict is even worse. They should not exist under evolution.
:#You may have a valid objection to this one, depending on how one categorizes dogs with respect to wolves.

:Hope to get to your other good points in the next few days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for getting on to this so quickly. I'll give a bit more background on a couple of my points:

::4. According to evolutionary theory humans, cats and eagles actually have a very close connection: they're all vertebrates, and all vertebrates have the same basic design of eye right down to the same features that evolutionists describe as flaws, such as the inverted retina. On the other hand no NON-vertebrate has the same basic design; cephalopods have a very similar eye in almost every respect, but the retina isn't inverted. Within the naturalistic model, they can explain this very well.

::7. Evolutionists would argue that males and females aren't evolving separately, because they're all part of the same population. Changes between generations would be very small, so it's unlikely that incompatibility would emerge with such a small change. Honestly, they LIKE it when people use this as a counter-argument because they're all over it. It would be better to focus on how sexual reproduction evolved in the first place, because they can't answer that. They can explain WHY it would evolve, because it has all sorts of advantages, but not HOW. The question of males and females of a species evolving together, though, is something they see as trivial and often amusing, and anyone reading it here and using it in a debate is likely to emerge feeling quite battered.

::9. Game theory has a lot of explanations of how lying can be a benefit. Addiction is an interesting one: it's been argued that addiction to certain things - fat and sugar, mostly - was a survival benefit for early man, because these were scarce high-value foods and people who went to the effort of finding them were more likely to survive. Current obesity epidemics have been blamed on humans retaining a low-level addiction to them now that they're widely available. Addiction to things that are simply harmful is probably more difficult for them to explain though. Anyway I'll revise my position on this one and say that it's not as clear as I initially thought.

::10. Dogs are classified as a sub-species of wolf (Canis lupus,) not as a separate species. They're often referred to as Canis familiaris, but the correct names are C. lupus familiaris and C. lupus dingo, with the species remaining C. lupus.

::My experience is that of a creationist who grew up in the UK and spent most of my adult life in the British Army, which is a pretty aggressively secular environment. Evolution is much more widely believed and there are very few creationists (I don't know where the BBC got their poll figures from; every other poll puts belief in evolution at about 80% and "don't knows" as half the rest) and evolution is taught in a lot of detail in schools. I've had some fairly bruising experiences when I've used what I thought were good arguments and then promptly been beaten down. As a result I've studied evolutionary theory quite a bit, just to find out what it says; lots of creationists sadly have a pretty shallow knowledge of it, which makes it easy for them to allege straw man tactics on our part. Even Michael Behe fell victim to this at the Dover trial; he's done a lot of excellent work on something that really is irreducibly complex (the flagellum) but when he concluded that the immune system was also irreducibly complex he didn't read deeply enough, and he fell down quite badly; the evolutionists stacked up a huge pile of research showing that it isn't, and this terminally damaged his credibility with the judge. There really ARE fatal flaws in the theory of evolution, but a lot of them aren't quite what we think they are. I'm very wary of putting forward arguments that can be countered, because it may make them question the reliability of the site where they found those arguments - which is us. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 10:31, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Your observations are helpful, and perhaps it is worth considering trimming a few of the counterexamples. But note that many of the evolutionists' "explanations" are simply implausible, unproven work-arounds. That does not negate a counterexample.

::: As to the specific points:

::::4 - the point is that a very broad and diverse range of species have virtually identical eyes that could only have evolved long after the existence of their supposedly common ancestor. That's simply implausible for the same thing of enormous complexity to evolve independently in very different species.

::::7 - yes, evolutionists try to answer tough questions by saying that populations, not individuals, evolve, but that does not solve the dilemma. It reminds me of how evolutionists will inject the passage of more time to try to fix the implausibility of some of their arguments, when more time often does not help. Moreover, once evolutionists admit that Adam and Eve did not originate as individuals, but only as some type of population, then the theory directly conflicts with Christianity and is even forbidden by the Catholic Church. So evolutionists typically avoid admitting that their theory denies the existence of Adam and Eve.

::::9 - again, this is an issue of plausibility. Let evolutionists claim implausibly that addiction is part of survival of the fittest, with addicts surviving, and watch them lose any persuasive effect they had.

::::10 - I'll check with an expert on dogs and wolves. I think there may be disagreement about their classification. If so, then this could be omitted from the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:37, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::I REALLY have to disagree with you on that one! Most evolutionists don't avoid mentioning that their theory says Adam and Eve didn't exist, and the rest even use it as a joke, such as "Mitochondrial Eve." I'm not sure what the USA is like but in the UK it's quite routine to deny that Adam and Eve existed, even among most christians. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 12:52, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::The "joke" may be a way of avoiding the issue. Can you link to clear statements by evolutionists that Adam and Eve could not have existed as first humans under the [[theory of evolution]]? You might have a hard time finding such statements by leading evolutionists, because it conflicts directly with [[Christianity]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::"Adam, the supposed perpetrator of the original sin, never existed at all." - Richard Dawkins, "The root of all evil?" "There was no Adam. There was no Eve." - PZ Myers, "Pharyngula," 22 Jun 10. The fact is that no published scientific paper is even going to mention them because they're outside the naturalistic framework, but in public statements most evolutionists are quite happy to deny the existence of Adam and Eve and couldn't care less that it contradicts the bible. This even applies to theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller. Adam and Eve lived about 6,000 years ago and evolutionists claim that modern humans have existed for about 200,000 years, so the idea that they were real people and the ancestors of us all is ruled out from the start. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Do you have a quote from Miller on this too?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::I can't find a direct quote from Miller denying the existence of Adam and Eve (although I didn't have much time to search last night) but there MAY be one in his book "Finding Darwin's God." That (as well as many of his public speeches) certainly contains several denials of the literal truth of Genesis and numerous statements of his belief that humans evolved. I'll try to have another look later. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 01:14, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

This is like boxing against dough. JMairs seems to have put a lot of work in here, along the lines I was planning to do before the Fun Police stamped on me. What's the response? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It seems like nobody cares about this article until somebody has the temerity to try to improve it, at which point they'll be immediately blocked and forced to grovel and ritually humiliate themselves just to be allowed the privilege of RESTRICTED editing rights again. You know what? I'm PROUD to be a Conservative! Yes, PROUD! I actually kissed Margaret Thatcher's hand once. But trying to contribute to this site is like slamming my fists pointlessly into a sack full of wet, yeast-impregnated wet flour. It's like kicking sandbags. It's like headbutting a dead walrus. Whatever I do, I step on someone's toes and get blocked for it. Andy Schlafly has responded positively to my ideas, even if we don't agree about everything, but what do the sysadmins do? Block, revert, revert, block. Trying to achieve anything here is like suffocating inside a giant squid. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

: Sam, I responded in detail to JMairs' first ten points, and discussed them further. I plan to get to the remaining points once we're through discussing the first ten.

::No offence, but you didn't go into very much detail on any of his points and you were pretty dismissive on a couple of them where there is real grounds for debate. Separate evolution of males and females for example. Any evolutionary biologist WILL stamp all over that argument. Their theory doesn't require separate evolution at all, and insisting that it does just makes us slow fat ducks. I KNOW the theory - I studied it for four excrutiating years - and they really do not see an issue with this. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:24, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:JMairs, Christianity is based on one Adam and Eve. So I wouldn't be surprised if Miller lacks an express, public denial of their existence, because it's virtually impossible to make sense of the Gospels and the Crucifixion without the original sin by Adam and Eve. The Catholic Church expressly forbids teaching that Adam and Eve somehow did not exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vestigial organs ==

I'd like to make a small edit to the example on vestigial organs. While it is true that every organ in the human body serves a purpose, the evolutionist meaning of "vestigial" is NOT useless; it merely means no longer used for its original purpose. For example the appendix is part of the immune system in human infants; most evolutionists acknowledge this, but claim that it's still vestigial because in their opinion it used to be a caecum, used for digesting cellulose. Clearly there is no evidence for this, but the inclusion of an incorrect statement (i.e. Vestigial = Useless) in this counterexample leaves it open to attack on the grounds of creating a strawman. Unfortunately the Fun Police have told me that I'm not allowed to edit this article but I hereby ask for permission to make this change. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 18:33, 26 August 2011 (EDT)
:Don't bother, this page is so hopelessly divorced from scientific reasoning, it really can't be salvaged. Most the the examples are either completely false or hopelessly divorced from actual evolution theory. The "Fun Police" know that if they actually let people correct the counter-examples, there would be about 3 examples left. Just for example, male nipples are completely vestigial, as are your ear muscles and the plica semilunaris (third eyelid). And even though the appendix is not completely useless, it still fits within the theory of evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:21, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::This is my concern. I'm guessing that you're probably an evolutionist. Well I'm not, but I do have a BSc in evolutionary biology from Glasgow University, and I'm not so demented as to think evolution is a liberal plot aimed at turning Christians into homosexual CNN presenters. Most evolutionists are good, honest scientists who sincerely believe that their theory is correct, and within the naturalist worldview they follow they have flawed but coherent arguments. Similarly most atheists aren't maniacs who want to convert children into drug-addicted Satanist male prostitutes. Sure they want to turn people away from Jesus and his offer of salvation, but they think they're doing the right thing. I disagree with evolutionists and atheists (and yes, I know the two aren't equivalent) but I've learned to respect their sincerity. I want Conservapedia to be a resource that will convince them that we DO have a valid worldview. This article should be reduced to about a dozen good, solid examples that Neo-Darwinism really can't explain, and it should present them in depth. 80% of the examples on here now just make us look like window lickers on the Sunshine Bus. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:36, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Vestigial does mean useless supposedly due to evolution. Look it up in a good dictionary. Of course evolutionists try to change the meaning of words to avoid admitting they're wrong. That doesn't change the fact they are wrong.

:::Nobody claims that most atheists are "maniacs", but some certainly do have an agenda and they push it very aggressively.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:22, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, "vestigial" does NOT mean useless according to evolutionary theory. Yes, they have an agenda: they have a worldview that they honestly believe is correct, and they want everyone to accept what they see as the truth. To that extent, they are exactly the same as us and they are JUST AS SINCERE as we are. The way to reach them is not by calling them Neo-Stalinist queer-promoting loons who're too stupid to accept Ray Comfort's banana argument; that just provokes them into a violent defence that is winning the argument in my country and, "Question Evolution!" campaign and all, is at least holding its own in yours. We need to engage them on the level of real scientific arguments that they can't answer, of which we have a good supply. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:36, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::No, it's not symmetric. Some atheists are opposed to free speech by Christians, and even claim offense at Christian speech as a way to censor it. The converse is virtually never true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:40, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Isn't it? I hate to hear blasphemy, but how can we prevent it without censoring the free speech of atheists? There's a Commandment against blasphemy, but can we realistically demand that they follow that Commandment? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:07, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

== Vanadium and tunicates ==

While the blood of tunicates MAY contain high levels of vanadium (the only research indicating this dates back to 1911 and nobody has been able to replicate the results since) it does not replace iron as an oxygen carrier; haemovanadin does not appear to carry any oxygen at all, and it is likely (though not confirmed) that tunicate blood also contains haemoglobin and haemocyanin. Therefore this example is at best unsubstantiated and at worst wrong. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 12:50, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

:Waste of time, Sam. You SHOULD be writing hard-hitting articles on atheism and machismo, illustrated with pictures of rabbits. You're good at science: you should get out of here and start editing at http://astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page. Email me at john_mairs@hotmail.com. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 16:52, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== HIV and Evolution ==

The HIV example is terrible evidence against evolution, as HIV is a relatively new disease in humans and the genetic mutation that provides immunity is rare. Additionally, HIV affects a relatively small proportion of the population. There is no way for universal immunity to HIV to develop in a few generations. This counterexample is extremely weak, and undermines the integrity of the article.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 01:52, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

==Rate of extinction==
"The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely." 
This does not seem to be a valid argument for the majority of extinction is due to human. 
Evolutionists say that there was period of history when extinction rate was far higher than speciation (generation of species) rate and other period when it was the opposite. We are just currently in one of those times when extinction rate is higher (mostly because of human activity). 
I believe this counterexample does not prove anything.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:50, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

:Evolutionary theory speculates about many things, and much of it is implausible. Why would the extinction rate vary much over time? There is no evidence that it does, or any plausible reason to expect it to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:10, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::You'd expect more strains to go extinct in a biblical flood than on an average year I'd imagine. Why wouldn't you expect highly localized species to go extinct when weather patterns shift or similar events happen? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 02:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Why wouldn't it ? Your question is quite easy to answer if you consider that climate can change over time.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:48, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::It seems that to you, Mr Schlafly, the rates of processes are either fixed for all eternity (e.g. extinction) or are variable [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Carbon_dating#Changing_decay_rates (e.g. rate of C-14 decay)] depending upon which best supports your pre-formed conclusion. There is an absolute abundance of evidence that extinction rates vary over time (the asteroid and the dinosaurs being perhaps the most blindingly obvious example of a huge spike in the rate of extinction). [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 17:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::There is evidence of the meteor impact too, in the form of a rock layer with an relatively massive amount of iridium, the enormous crater in Mexico, and the fact that there isn't a single true dinosaur fossil found above this rock layer. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::But I though birds were supposed truly to be dinosaurs? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Birds are the only exception, although whether they are true dinosaurs is a hotly debated topic of taxonomy.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Well we're moving off topic slightly, but the point about birds is that if they did evolve from dinosaurs, as is the favoured theory among scientists, then by the time of the asteroid impact they had evolved physiological or behavioural features that enabled most of them to survive. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trilobites and Evolution ==

Saying that the lack of arthropods prior to trilobites disproves evolution forces one to make the assumption that all arthropods had chitinous exoskeletons. It is quite possible that early arthropods lacked an exoskeleton, explaining their absence in the fossil record. The development of this exoskeleton led to the explosive success of the trilobite and made it much easier for them to be fossilized compared to earlier, soft bodied arthropods, who were much less abundant. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:26, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:Isn't the DEFINITION of an arthropod an invertebrate with a segmented body, jointed legs and an exoskeleton? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:44, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::Nope, it is just the definition of modern arthropods. It is entirely possible that the ancestor of the trilobite had a much softer exoskeleton, limiting its ecological success. Whether or not it was an arthropod is literally a matter of semantics, not a matter of biology.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 18:19, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Chimpanzees and Gorillas ==

The article currently states, without a reference, that there is greater genetic similarity between gorillas and humans than between chimpanzees and humans. This is false. [http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/resources/student_papers/silver.pdf (see page 6)] [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 15:58, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

:You're right; there is NOT greater similarity between humans and gorillas than humans and chimps, and the article isn't intended to say that; the point is that there are SOME SEQUENCES that are more similar, which contradicts the evolutionary hypothesis that we have a mmore recent LCA with chimps than with gorillas. The confusion is my fault and I'll fix it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:05, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

::It still doesn't contradict evolution at all. Say we start with 4 genes, A, B, C, D. The gorilla branches off earliest and takes with it A, B but has evolved two new ones, W, X. The chimpanzee branches off from the original line later on, but takes with it A, C, D and evolves Y. Humans on the other hand branch off last taking B, C, D and evolving a new one, Z. Now, humans share only one gene with gorillas but two with chimpanzees. However, it so happens that the one they share with gorillas is not also shared with chimpanzees.

::Obviously this is a ridiculously simplistic analogy, but it demonstrates that it is perfectly possible for one species to be more closely related to humans, with a more distantly related species still sharing DNA sequences only with humans. Even if you don't accept the concept of evolution, there is no contradiction with its internal logic. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:53, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

== Declining human fertility ==

While it is true that human fertility is declining, in this context "fertility" is a measure of birthrate, and the decline is due to social factors and increased life expectancy. There is an issue of a decline in male sperm count, but this appears to be linked to water pollution and is recent; there was no evidence of a decline before 1960. The most likely culprit is residual DDT breakdown products, which have also been linked to feminisation in freshwater fish. This is not evidence for a young Earth. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:24, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:The key point here is that to be valid the counterexample presumes that the rate of the process has been consistent throughout history. However, as with this case, for all counterexamples resting upon this assumption there is no reason to believe that this is true; indeed for some it is perfectly obvious that it is not so. As such, I propose that all counterexamples that are dependent on this assumption be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:32, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::Although probably for very different reasons, I agree. Uniformitarianism is a deeply flawed assumption normally associated with evolutionism and "old Earth" geology, and CP shouldn't (and doesn't need to) use it. If you're interested I have a couple of articles (peer-reviewed, not from AiG or any Hovindite loons) questioning this assumption; email me if you want them. My address is on my user page. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:35, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::When using the term uniformitarianism it is extremely important to specify the definition being used. The idea of uniform rates of processes is one such specific definition, but one that has long since been rejected by mainstream science, including evolutionists and geologists. Take the theory of punctuated equilibrium for example, which basically argues that evolution occurred via long periods of very gradual change, punctuated by shorter periods of relatively rapid change. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:48, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If you email me I can send you the papers as pdf files. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:51, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Vestigial organs ==

There is a great deal of debate over whether certain features/organs are vestigial in certain species or whether they still retain a useful function. However, while it may be true that in the past scientists have believed certain features to be vestigial, only for it later to be discovered to have a function still, this does not provide a counterexample to evolution. Evolution merely argues that vestigial features are theoretically possible, not that they ''must'' exist for evolution to be true. To point out that incorrect predictions have been made is merely to point out that science progresses by making predictions which are then tested. This is therefore not a counterexample and I therefore believe I was justified in deleting it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:56, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:Ear muscles are completely vestigial in humans, FYI. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:58, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Ear muscles in humans have many important functions, such as providing the ability to close the ears when presented with an argument you don't like. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:01, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::This is a very controversial article and the feeling in the CP community is that editors shouldn't delete information from it without adding other information to compensate. If you would just email me I can explain this to you. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:59, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::My point also applies to the vestigial DNA point, which should also be removed. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:00, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
::::If a statement is untrue it should be removed irrespective of how many counterexamples are wanted. Perhaps we could mark any refuted counterexamples with the appropriate explanation? [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:02, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you could. Perhaps somebody would even listen. Are you going to listen to me or not? If you want to keep editing at CP it would be in your interests to do so. I can give you some advice on what provokes the sysops to use their favourite surgical implement, the banhammer. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:05, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Fossils ==

In response to the undoing of FCapra's edit, I believe FCapra is right. The article is about 'counterexamples'. The example in question merely argues that there is a lack of evidence; a counterexample must be actual evidence that contradicts the proposition, not simply a lack of evidence for it. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 16:16, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Trichinella spiralis ==

According to Dickson DePallier who made Trichinella.org, the referenced website, the immune response is driven up in the animal after the animal is infected and that this is probably to reduce competition and increase the probability that the host will meet its end in a predation situation, thus enabling Trichinella spiralis to be transferred to a new host. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 21:26, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Deletions will be restored ==

The repeated deletions will be restored unless there are well-supported, fully explained, and justified reasons for the deletions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 28 September 2011 (EDT)
:The "teeth in mouth" example: Many if not most adults need to have their wisdom teeth removed. The balding example: Baldness is not necessarily undesirable. Some women--like my wife, find it attractive. Moreover, it often manifests long after a man has reproduced, passed on the trait, and is out of the mating pool. The schizophrenia example: Schizophrenics can reproduce before they demonstrate any symptoms and become undesirable mates, thus allowing the condition to perpetuate even if it is undesirable. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:42, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-09-29T03:25:41Z

BrentH: /* Counterexamples */ Many if not most adults need to have their wisdom teeth removed.

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 29 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 16%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]
 
 
see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>
# Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html</ref>
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.

===Maladaptation===
[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]
# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
# Evolution from prehistoric forms has not been demonstrated for many species - no plausible earlier forms have been identified in the fossil record.

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. <ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref> Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]</ref> Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.
# Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.

===Uncategorized===

# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>

== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.

{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]
*[[Answers to Question evolution!]]

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

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

[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[category:Evolution]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-09-29T03:24:15Z

BrentH: Down to 29

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 29 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 16%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]
 
 
see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>
# Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html</ref>
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.

===Maladaptation===
[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]
# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
# Evolution from prehistoric forms has not been demonstrated for many species - no plausible earlier forms have been identified in the fossil record.

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. <ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref> Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]</ref> Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.
# Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.

===Uncategorized===

# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>

== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.

{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]
*[[Answers to Question evolution!]]

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

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

[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[category:Evolution]]

Michelle Obama's "These dinners" fundraising letter

2011-09-29T03:06:01Z

BrentH:

'''Michelle Obama's "These dinners" fundraising letter''' was a letter sent to potential donors from [[Michelle Obama]] on behalf of her husband's 2012 presidential campaign. Complete with the same strange personal touch that typified [[Barack Obama's "If I don’t call you" fundraising letter|Barack's letter]], Michelle Obama's letter told the reader that "Not everyone knows how to prepare for a dinner like this," and advised the reader that "if you’re selected to join him," "Just relax," before asking the reader to "send $3 dollars or more." <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/28/moochs-cult-like-advice-to-those-chosen-to-dine-with-chicago-jesus-not-everyone-knows-how-to-prepare-for-a-dinner-like-this-just-relax/ Mooch’s Cult-Like Advice To Those Chosen To Dine With Chicago Jesus, Weasel Zippers, September 28, 2011]</ref>

{{cquote|From: Michelle Obama
Subject: These dinners
Date: September 28, 2011 2:40:50 PM EDT
To: Drew

Drew —

Not everyone knows how to prepare for a dinner like this. As someone who’s eaten countless meals with my husband, I want to tell you the one thing to do if you’re selected to join him. . .

Just relax. Barack wants this dinner to be fun, and he really loves getting to know supporters like you.

I hope you’ll take him up on it before Friday’s deadline.

Will you donate $3 or more today and be entered to have dinner with Barack?

These dinners mean a lot to Barack. They’re a chance for him to talk with a few of the people who are driving the campaign — and a chance for him to say thank you.

donate.barackobama.com/Dinner

Thanks,

Michelle}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Election]]

Michelle Obama's "These dinners" fundraising letter

2011-09-29T03:05:41Z

BrentH:

'''Michelle Obama's "These dinners" fundraising letter''' was a letter sent to potential donors from [[Michelle Obama]] on behalf of her husband's 2012 presidential campaign. Complete with the same strange personal touch that typified [[Barack Obama's "If I don’t call you" fundraising letter Barack's letter]], Michelle Obama's letter told the reader that "Not everyone knows how to prepare for a dinner like this," and advised the reader that "if you’re selected to join him," "Just relax," before asking the reader to "send $3 dollars or more." <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/28/moochs-cult-like-advice-to-those-chosen-to-dine-with-chicago-jesus-not-everyone-knows-how-to-prepare-for-a-dinner-like-this-just-relax/ Mooch’s Cult-Like Advice To Those Chosen To Dine With Chicago Jesus, Weasel Zippers, September 28, 2011]</ref>

{{cquote|From: Michelle Obama
Subject: These dinners
Date: September 28, 2011 2:40:50 PM EDT
To: Drew

Drew —

Not everyone knows how to prepare for a dinner like this. As someone who’s eaten countless meals with my husband, I want to tell you the one thing to do if you’re selected to join him. . .

Just relax. Barack wants this dinner to be fun, and he really loves getting to know supporters like you.

I hope you’ll take him up on it before Friday’s deadline.

Will you donate $3 or more today and be entered to have dinner with Barack?

These dinners mean a lot to Barack. They’re a chance for him to talk with a few of the people who are driving the campaign — and a chance for him to say thank you.

donate.barackobama.com/Dinner

Thanks,

Michelle}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Election]]

Talk:Barack Obama's "If I don’t call you" fundraising letter

2011-09-29T02:57:17Z

BrentH: The article title.

== The article title. ==

Should read as follows: '''Barack Obama's "If I don’t call you" fundraising lette'''r, with quotation marks around the title given to the document in question. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 22:57, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Barack Obama's "If I don’t call you" fundraising letter

2011-09-29T02:55:13Z

BrentH:

'''Barack Obama's If I don’t call you fundraising letter''' describes a letter to potential donors from [[Barack Obama]]'s 2012 presidential campaign. The letter's tone has a strange personal touch that one would typically expect from sales pitch. Obama tells the reader that "I’ll be calling some grassroots donors like you," and that if he doesn't call, "there’s a chance I’ll see you at dinner," before asking the reader to "send $3 dollars or more." <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/27/another-creepy-email-from-obama-he-will-call-me-if-i-give-him-3/ Another Creepy Email From Obama: He Will Call Me If I Give Him $3, Weasel Zippers, September 27, 2011]</ref>

{{cquote|From: Barack Obama
Subject: If I don’t call you
Date: September 27, 2011 1:08:30 PM EDT
To: Drew

Drew —

I enjoy talking about fundraising deadlines as much as I imagine you enjoy hearing about them.

But this Friday’s deadline is important.

It’s a chance for us to prove how we’re different from any campaign in politics: We rely on ordinary Americans giving what they can — one grassroots donation at a time.

This is not just a campaign. It’s a chance for each of us as citizens to organize and change the course of history.

And before we close the books this Friday at midnight, I hope you’ll become a part of it.

Please donate $3 or more today.

I’ll be calling some grassroots donors like you by phone this week, so I can say thank you.

And if I don’t call you, there’s a chance I’ll see you at dinner with three other supporters sometime soon.

Even if I don’t get to thank you personally, every single donation counts:

donate.barackobama.com/Friday-Deadline

Thanks for doing your part,

Barack}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Barack Obama's "If I don’t call you" fundraising letter

2011-09-29T02:54:44Z

BrentH: Remove redlink category

'''Barack Obama's If I don’t call you fundraising letter''' describes a letter to potential donors from [[Barack Obama]]'s 2012 presidential campaign. The letter's tone is has a strange personal touch that one would typically expect from sales pitch. Obama tells the reader that "I’ll be calling some grassroots donors like you," and that if he doesn't call, "there’s a chance I’ll see you at dinner," before asking the reader to "send $3 dollars or more." <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/27/another-creepy-email-from-obama-he-will-call-me-if-i-give-him-3/ Another Creepy Email From Obama: He Will Call Me If I Give Him $3, Weasel Zippers, September 27, 2011]</ref>

{{cquote|From: Barack Obama
Subject: If I don’t call you
Date: September 27, 2011 1:08:30 PM EDT
To: Drew

Drew —

I enjoy talking about fundraising deadlines as much as I imagine you enjoy hearing about them.

But this Friday’s deadline is important.

It’s a chance for us to prove how we’re different from any campaign in politics: We rely on ordinary Americans giving what they can — one grassroots donation at a time.

This is not just a campaign. It’s a chance for each of us as citizens to organize and change the course of history.

And before we close the books this Friday at midnight, I hope you’ll become a part of it.

Please donate $3 or more today.

I’ll be calling some grassroots donors like you by phone this week, so I can say thank you.

And if I don’t call you, there’s a chance I’ll see you at dinner with three other supporters sometime soon.

Even if I don’t get to thank you personally, every single donation counts:

donate.barackobama.com/Friday-Deadline

Thanks for doing your part,

Barack}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Barack Obama's "If I don’t call you" fundraising letter

2011-09-29T02:54:15Z

BrentH: Sentences. I LOVE sentences!

Muslim agenda of the Obama administration

2011-09-29T02:42:25Z

BrentH: Sentences. I LOVE sentences!

[[Barack Obama]] and his administration has taken the following actions relating to ''Muslims.''

[[File:obamabow.jpg|right|thumb|200px| Barack Hussein Obama bowing to the Saudi King.]]

== Obama Presidency Year One ==

*Obama’s first interview, within days of inauguration, was with the [[Dubai]]-based Al-Arabiya Networks. In it he stressed his own Muslim ties and his hopes for a Palestinian state. His message was “U.S. is not your enemy.”

*One of Obama's first acts as president, he decided to close [[Guantanamo Bay|GITMO detention center]] and bring Muslim terrorists to mainland [[American]] soil.

*In February, Obama ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the [[Palestinian]] refugees and conflict victims in Gaza. In addition, he pledged to provide $900 million in aid for rebuilding the [[Hamas]]-controlled Gaza Strip.

*Obama sets a withdrawal date for U.S. troops in [[Iraq]] of 2010

*Obama orders additional [[U.S.]] troops to [[Afghanistan]] to fight the [[Taliban]].

*On March 19th, Obama delivered a customary speech to the Iranian people on their New Year referring to the Islamic Republic of [[Iran]] which amounted to an acceptance of the regime.

*Obama submits resolution to the U.N. Human Rights Council which would subordinate U.S. free speech rights to U.N. oversight standards. This has been a key demand by Muslims to punish others for speaking against Islam. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39266 White House at Confab with Muslim Brotherhood, Human Events, October 4, 2010]</ref>

*Obama has lifted some sanctions on Syria and intends to meet personally with [[Bashar al-Assad]]. <ref>[http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=2905 Obama administration reaches out to Syria] Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, March 18, 2009</ref>

*Obama cancels the use of the term Global [[War on Terror]] in favor of Overseas Contingency Operation, so as not to offend Muslims.

*In March, Barack Obama said he was open to the idea of reaching out to moderate elements of the [[Taliban]]. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52U2EC20090331 Clinton offers olive branch to Taliban] Reuters, March 31, 2009</ref>

*March 31st, U.S. Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] said those "who abandoned [Muslim] extremism must be granted an honorable form of reconciliation." <ref>[http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2009/03/31/hillary-offers-olive-branch-taliban Hillary offers olive branch to Taliban] The Fox Nation, March 31, 2009</ref>

*Obama arrives in [[Turkey]] to proclaim the [[U.S.]] is not at war with Islam.

*Obama signs order to release documents from President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s White House and President [[George H.W. Bush]]’s presidential library records on the topic of [[Saudi Arabia]]. <ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21121.html Obama releases Reagan records] Politico, April 10, 2009</ref>

*Obama requests emergency war funds for Afghanistan and [[Iraq]].

*Obama orders the successful rescue of American Capt. [[Richard Phillips]] from Muslim Somali pirates.

*Obama nominated Dalia Mogahed to the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. She has ties to the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. <ref>[http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.2987/pub_detail.asp Esposito Protégé Appointed To Obama Advisory Council] Family Security Matters, April 14, 2009</ref>

*April 21, Obama meets with [[Jordanian]] King Abdullah in the Oval Office.

*Obama said that despite the hate speech by [[Ahmadinejad]] at Monday's [[U.N.]] racist conference, the administration is "serious about engagement with Iran with no illusions." <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-iran-diplomacy-to-continue-despite-appalling-speech-2009-04-21.html Obama: Iran effort continues despite 'appalling' talk] TheHill.com, April 21, 2009</ref>

*The Obama administration declassifies Bush administration harsh interrogation methods used against Muslim terrorists

*Barack Obama has approved plans for the U.S. to help the [[United Arab Emirates]] become the first Arab nation with a nuclear power industry. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/20/obama-approves-plans-uae-nuclear-power-deal/?test=latestnews Obama Approves Plans for U.S.-UAE Nuclear Power Deal] Fox News, May 20, 2009</ref>

*Obama State Department issues U.S. ambassadors abroad to invite Iranian diplomats to embassy events celebrating the July 4 U.S. Independence Day. <ref>[http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-06-02-voa64.cfm US Inviting Iranians to July 4 Embassy Events] Voice of America, June 2, 2009</ref>

*The Obama administration refused to help pro-democratic protesters in Iran.<ref>http://newledger.com/2009/06/say-goodbye-to-cairo-obamas-inaction-on-iran-clashes-with-his-words/</ref>

*Obama celebrates [[Ramadan]] at the White House 09/01/09

9/09 through 6/10 content needed

==Obama Presidency Year Two==
*Obama pushes for and gets a new constitution passed for [[Kenya]]. The new constitution creates Islamic courts for 12% of the population that are Muslim. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2010/08/06/obama-congratulates-kenya-for-passing-constitution-he-bankrolled-implements-sharia-in-non-muslim-country-liberalizes-abortion/#comment-263165 Obama Congratulates Kenya for Passing Constitution He Bankrolled, Implements Sharia in Non-Muslim Country, Liberalizes Abortion, WeaselZippers.us, August 6, 2010]</ref>

*Obama hosts an Iftar dinner celebrating [[Ramadan]] in the State Dining Room 09/13/2010

*Obama endorses a [[Ground Zero Mosque|victory mosque]] to be built near Ground Zero in [[New York City]]. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/13/obama-backs-mosque-near-ground-zero/ Obama Endorses Mosque Project Near Ground Zero Site, FOXNews, August 13, 2010]</ref>

*Obama allows his supporters Muslim [[Louis Farrakhan]] and The [[New Black Panthers]] to meet in New York with rogue-state leader of Iran [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]]. <ref>[http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_212324822.shtml Ahmadinejad, Farrakhan In Sit-Down, Post Chronicle, September 28, 2010]</ref>

*Obama's [[Department of Justice]] asks for terror charges to be dropped against Islamic terrorist detainee, brother-in-Law of [[Osama Bin Laden]]'s bodyguard. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/30/feds-want-drop-charges-man-brother-law-usama-bin-ladens-bodyguard/ Feds Ask Terror Charges Be Dropped Against Brother-in-Law of Bin Laden's Bodyguard, FOXNews, September 30, 2010]</ref>

*White House appointee Dalia Mogahed attends The Organization of the Islamic Conference in Chicago. Also in attendance, Siraj Wahhaj an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39266 White House at Confab with Muslim Brotherhood, Human Events, October 4, 2010]</ref>

*A Somali-born Muslim and a naturalized Canadian citizen who trained at an [[Al Qaeda]] camp and attended lectures by [[Osama bin Laden]] has been deported to Canada. <ref>[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/08/feds-deport-al-qaeda-associate-to-canada/#ixzz11nZxEaqB Feds Deport Al Qaeda Associate To Canada, FOXNews, October 8, 2010]</ref>

*Obama announces a visit to Muslim [[Indonesia]] in early November.

*Obama administration invites diplomats from Iran to [[NATO]] talks regarding Afghanistan. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/19/iranian-weapon-shipment-afghan-taliban-raises-alarm/ Iranian Weapon Shipment to Afghan Taliban Raises Alarm, FOXNews, October 19, 2010]</ref>

*Obama administration announces a multibillion-dollar sale of fighter jets and military helicopters to Saudi Arabia. <ref>[http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5izOFXzR8BOYgLwf2lxo7i1d-8IhQ?docId=4883358 AP sources: US to notify Congress Wednesday of multibillion-dollar arms sale to Saudi Arabia, AP, October 20, 2010]</ref>

*Obama's Homeland Security Director [[Janet Napolitano]] appoints Muslim Mohamed Elibiary to the Homeland Security Advisory Council. <ref>[http://bigpeace.com/ipt/2010/10/23/new-dept-of-homeland-security-advisor-is-an-islamist/ New Dept. of Homeland Security Advisor is an Islamist, BigPeace.com, October 23, 2010]</ref>

*In a letter to Congress, Obama announced that he will allow an additional 80,000 immigrants – - mostly from Islamic countries – - to resettle in the United States during fiscal year 2011. <ref>[http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29096 Obama authorizes additional 80,000 “refugees” to entry country, Canada Free Press, October 22, 2010]</ref>

*Obama's State Department offers Iran's leader Ahmadinejad a happy birthday. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/palin-slams-u-s-state-department-for-ahmadinejad-birthday-wish/ PALIN SLAMS U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT FOR AHMADINEJAD BIRTHDAY WISH, TheBlaze, October 29, 2010]</ref>

*The Obama's paid visit to Indonesia's largest mosque, the Istiqlal Mosque. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/09/obama-first-lady-visit-indonesias-largest-mosque/ Obama, first lady visit Indonesia’s largest mosque, The Daily Caller, November 9, 2010]</ref>

*Obama announces an additional year of sanctions on Iran, first imposed by [[Jimmy Carter]]. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.6a15c993418c0f7af374e67ccc15a8fb.81&show_article=1 Obama extends freeze on Iranian assets, Breitbart.com, November 10, 2010]</ref>

*Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announces an additional $150 million to boost the Palestinian Authority. <ref>[http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WBT014236.htm U.S. gives $150 mln to Palestinian Authority, Thompson-Reuters, November 10, 2010]</reF>

*Obama defends civilian trial for Muslim terrorists after Ahmed Ghailani was convicted on one count, while 280 charges were dropped. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/18/white-house-undeterred-after-ghailani-terror-case-verdict/ White House undeterred after Ghailani terror case verdict, The Daily Caller, November 18, 2010]</ref>

*Obama takes a surprise visit to the troops in Afghanistan. A meeting with President Karzai was cancelled due to weather.

*Obama's ambassador to the United Kingdom, Louis B. Susman visited an extremist mosque in London and invited Muslim youths to travel to the United States by enrolling in the U.S. embassy's cultural and interfaith program. <ref>[http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/12/us-ambassador-t.html US Ambassador to UK Praises Terror-Tied Mosque, Offers Taxpayer Money, Moonbattery.com, December 3, 2010]</ref>

*Obama wins legal fight authorizing a targeted assassination of [[Anwar Al-Awlaki]], a Muslim American cleric and terror agent of [[Al Qaeda]]. <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-approves-obama-administrations-authority-targeted-assassination-al/story?id=12333259 Judge Throws Out Challenge to Targeted Assassination, ABC News, December 7, 2010]</ref>

*The [[Obama Administration]], by means of the Treasury Department, quietly amended a counterterrorism sanction so that accused Muslim [[terrorist]]s can pay for their defense with assets frozen by the government. <ref>[http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/dec/u-s-lets-terrorists-use-frozen-assets-hire-attorneys U.S. Lets Terrorists Use Frozen Assets To Hire Attorneys, Judicial Watch, December 12, 2010]</ref>

*[[Eric Holder]] addresses Muslim Advocates in San Fransisco to reiterate his resolve to prosecute hate crimes while standing behind the methods used in anti-terrorism cases. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/holder-reassures-muslims-of-dojs-anti-bias-focus/ HOLDER REASSURES MUSLIMS OF DOJ’S ANTI-BIAS FOCUS, TheBlaze, December 11. 2010]</ref>

*Once again, Barack Obama calls for reconciliation with those [[Taliban]] who break ties with al Qaeda. <ref>[http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/12/once-again-obama-extends-hand-to-taliban-once-again-taliban-vows-to-continue-to-fight/ Once Again, Obama Extends Hand to Taliban… Once Again, Taliban Vows to Continue to Fight, RIGHTNETWORK, December 17, 2010]</ref>

*Obama calls Saudi King Abdullah on December 26th to wish him well as he recovers from two recent back surgeries. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/ObamaAbdullah/2010/12/26/id/381045 Obama Extends Well Wishes to Saudi King, NewsMax, December 26, 2010]</ref>

*Homeland Security director [[Janet Napolitano]] arrives in Kabul, Afghanistan to discuss international and regional security.

*In a "major concession to the Syrian regime," Obama uses a recess appointment to select Robert Ford as the new ambassador to [[Syria]]. <ref>[http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/12/republicans_denounce_obama_ove.html Republicans denounce Obama over his 'recess appointments', Cleveland.com, December 30, 2010]</ref>

==Obama Presidency Year Three==
*Vice President [[Joe Biden]] will visit [[Pakistan]] in January and announce the Obama administration plans to increase financial aid. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/07/report-increase-help-pakistan/ Report: US to increase help for Pakistan, Fox News, January 7, 2011]</ref>
*Algerian national who was held at [[Guantanamo]] and cleared of terror suspicions by a US judge more than a year ago was repatriated January 6th. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.5283ba0c8f02c1d6912c2e65666fa351.bb1&show_article=1 Guantanamo detainee sent home against his will, Breitbart, January 6, 2011]</ref>
*Hillary Clinton makes a surprise visit to [[Yemen]] and meets with President Saleh. <ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0111/Why-Hillary-Clinton-made-a-surprise-stop-in-Yemen Why Hillary Clinton made a surprise stop in Yemen, Christian Science Monitor, January 11, 2011]</ref>
*Surprise, [[Joe Biden]] makes his seventh trip to Iraq since taking office. <ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47513.html Biden makes surprise visit to Iraq, Politico, January 12, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's State Department upgraded the PLO status in [[Washington, D.C.]] from a representative office to a general delegation. For the first time ever, the [[Palestinian]]s fly their flag in Washington DC. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/01/18/obama-regime-allows-palestinians-to-fly-their-flag-for-first-time-in-washington-dc/ Obama Regime Allows Palestinians to Fly Their Flag For First Time in Washington DC…, Weasel Zippers, January 18, 2011]</ref>
*Obama applauded "the courage and dignity of the Tunisian people" in their revolt against the government. <ref>[http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=54137 Obama Applauds People, Urges Calm, IPS News, January 14, 2011]</ref>
*Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is urging the Egyptian government not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications as deadly riots are held against the government. <ref>[http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20110126hillary_rodham_clinton_calls_for_calm_restraint_in_egypt/srvc=home&position=recent Hillary Rodham Clinton calls for calm, restraint in Egypt, Boston Herald, January 26, 2011]</ref>
*Obama announces at the [[State of the Union]] ''"that American Muslims are a part of our American family."''
*Barack speaks to Mubarak, tells him to allow peaceful protests and turn the internet back on in Egypt.
*[[Robert Gibbs]] said Egypt's new government will have to include a "whole host of important non-secular actors", minus the obfuscation- religious parties. <ref>[http://www.lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=593895 Obama Stands by Muslim Brotherhood Endorsement, Lucianne.com, February 2, 2011]</ref>
*February 4th, In a huge gamble affecting the peace process, our relations with [[Israel]], the stability of ally Egypt- Obama is pressuring Mubarak to step aside now. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/04/obama-calls-attacks-egypt-unacceptable-urges-transition-begin/ Obama Calls for Egypt Transition to Begin Now, Urges Mubarak to Make 'Right Decision, Fox News, February 4, 2011]</ref>
*February 5th, Obama's special envoy for Egypt, Frank Wisner says President Mubarak must stay for now. <ref>[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/02/egypt-president-mubarak-must-stay-us-envoy-says.html EGYPT: President Mubarak must stay for now, U.S. envoy says, LA Times, February 5, 2011]</ref>
*February 5th, Saturday evening the Obama Administration said Mubarak should step aside. <ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/02/obama-administration-distances-self-from-own-envoy-to-mubarak.html Obama Administration Distances Self From Own Envoy to Mubarak, ABC News, February 5, 2011]</ref>
*February 6th, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Mubarak must stay in power. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/world/middleeast/07diplo.html?_r=1 Warning Against Hasty Exit for Mubarak, NY Times, February 6, 2011]</ref>
*Bill O’Reilly interviews Obama and asks him if the [[Muslim Brotherhood]] is a threat to the [[U.S.]], Obama addressed the answer without a yes or no but with [[liberal obfuscation]] instead. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/06/oreilly-obama-interview-shows-obama-changed-course/ O'Reilly Obama Interview Shows That President Still Hasn't Changed Course, Fox News, February 6, 2011 ]</ref>
*Washington bureaucrats mandate the Mansfield Texas school district teach Arabic "language of the future," and involves embedding Arabic culture in all facets of school activities. This was made possible by a $1.3 million dollar Foreign Language Assistance Program (FLAP) federal grant. <ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Education/Default.aspx?id=1290896 Flap over feds funding Arabic culture curriculum, One News Now, February 8, 2011]</ref>
*Hillary Clinton gave tacit approval to the Muslim Brotherhood's involvement in Egyptian politics. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=261069</ref>
*Obama's State Department has begun sending [[Twitter]] messages in Arabic. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/09/state-department-begins-tweeting-in-arabic/ State Department begins tweeting in Arabic, The Daily Caller, february 9, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's National Intelligence director James Clapper said Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood is a secular organization even though their stated goal is an [[Islamic]] state and the [[CIA]] lists them as a religious organization. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/10/muslim-brotherhood-a-secular-organization-says-clapper/ Muslim Brotherhood a ’secular’ organization says Clapper, Daily Caller, February 10, 2011]</ref>
*The Obama administration, which did not openly back Iranian protesters in 2009, now tells Iran to allow protests. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/13/pressures-iran-allow-protests-prince-says-tehran-moment-coming/ U.S. Pressures Iran to Allow Protests, Former Prince Says 'Tehran Moment' Coming, Fox News, February 13, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's State Department began sending Twitter messages in [[Farsi]]. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/13/starts-farsi-twitter-account-aimed-iranians/ State Department began sending Twitter messages in Farsi, Fox News, February 13, 2011]</ref>
*Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Juliette Kayyem praises [[Al-Jazeera]] and pleads for U.S. cable providers to carry the network. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-administration-official-urges-cable-providers-to-carry-al-jazeera/ OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL URGES CABLE PROVIDERS TO CARRY AL-JAZEERA, The Blaze, February 14, 2011]</ref>
*Senator [[John Kerry]] travels to [[Pakistan]] to ease tensions over a U.S. government official, Raymond Davis, suspected of killing two Pakistani men in self-defense. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/14/sen-john-kerry-heads-to-pakistan-to-calm-diplomatic-tensions/ Sen. John Kerry heads to Pakistan to calm diplomatic tensions, Daily Caller, February 14, 2011]</ref>
*Interfering in [[France]]'s domestic policy, the Obama State Department sets up a Muslim Think Tank in [[Paris]]. <ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110217/wl_csm/364156_1 In France, US advocacy for Muslim rights raises more than a few hackles, Yahoo news, February 17, 2011]</ref>
*February 18th, the U.S. vetoes [[U.N.]] resolution supported by Muslim countries condemning Israeli settlement construction. <ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/0218/If-Obama-opposes-Israeli-settlement-activity-why-did-US-veto-UN-vote If Obama opposes Israeli settlement activity, why did US veto UN vote?, Christian Science Monitor, February 18, 2011]</ref>
*February 18th, Secretary of State Clinton condemns [[Israel]] settlement construction to appease Muslims. <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-israeli-settlements-illegitimate/story?id=12952834 Hillary Clinton: Israeli Settlements 'Illegitimate', ABC News, February 18, 2011]</ref>
*A [[White House]] official said the administration is seeking clarification from senior [[Libya | Libyan]] officials about their intentions regarding civil unrest. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/21/state-department-orders-diplomats-family-members-libya/ State Department Orders Diplomats' Family Members Out of Libya, Fox News, February 21, 2011]</ref>
*White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters the president’s [9 day] silence on Libya thus far was due to a “scheduling issue.” <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/23/obama-breaks-silence-on-libya-protests/#ixzz1Ew4t9jYr Obama breaks silence on Libya protests, The Daily Caller, February 23, 2011]</ref>
*Obama speaking out against the Libyan dictator for the first time since the uprising began, "Leave Libya now." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/26/obama-qaddafi-needs-leave/ Obama: Qaddafi Needs to Leave Now, Fox News, February 26, 2011]</ref>
*Hillary Clinton praises [[Islamic]] Al-Jazeera as "real news", [[U.S.]] news as "not particularly informative to us." <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/03/hillary-clinton-al-jazeera-offers-real-news/ Hillary Clinton: Al Jazeera offers ‘real new, The Daily Caller, March 3, 2011]</ref>
*Despite the evidence of an Islamic gunman in [[Germany]] killing two U.S. airmen, Obama and his administration refuse to call the attack terrorism. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/german-gunmans-pistol-jammed-saving-u-s-airman/ GERMAN GUNMAN’S PISTOL JAMMED, SAVING U.S. AIRMAN, The Blaze, March 4, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's State Department is using tax dollars to refurbish mosques overseas as a way to improve relations. Some extremist mosques are getting U.S. funded internet service to spread Islam.<ref>[http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/03/hundreds-of-mil.html Hundreds of $Millions of US Taxpayer Money Spent to Refurbish Foreign Mosques, Moonbattery, March 5, 2011]</ref>
*Hillary Clinton will meet with Libyan opposition leaders during a visit to the Middle East. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/hillary-clinton-plans-meet-libyan-opposi Hillary Clinton Plans to Meet With Libyan Opposition Leaders; Going to Egypt Next Week, CNS News, 10 March, 2011]. </ref>
*The State Department is sending a senior official to attend a March 15 meeting hosted by the National Iranian-American Council. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/14/state-department-senior-official-to-at tend-conference-of-org-accused-of-being-advocate-for-iranian-theocracy/ State Department senior official to attend conference of org accused of being advocate for Iranian theocracy, Daily Caller, March 14, 2011 ]</ref>
*Hillary Clinton travels to Egypt for talks with the new [[government]]. <ref>March 15, 2011</ref>
*[[White House]] officials have applauded advocacy efforts by the [[Council on American-Islamic Relations]], even though top [[FBI]] managers refuse to meet its leaders. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/18/hamas-associated-cair-applauded-by-white-house/#ixzz1Gz69NHXD Hamas-associated CAIR applauded by White House, The Daily Caller, March 18, 2011]</ref>
*The U.N. authorizes a no fly zone for Libya. March 19, Obama commits America to lead the no-fly zone and is expected to hand off the lead to [[NATO]]. Obama bypasses congress from involvement.
*Obama's Justice Department sues on behalf of a Muslim teachers fired for taking three weeks time off for [[Hajj]]. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-sues-on-behalf-of-muslim-teacher-triggering-debate/2010/07/28/ABfSPtEB_story.html Justice Department sues on behalf of Muslim teacher, triggering debate, WaPo, March 22, 2011]</ref>
*Obama to address the [[American]] people March 28 regarding the bombing of Libya, 9 days after launching [[Operation Odyssey Dawn]].
*Obama orders covert [[U.S.]] government support for rebel forces in Libya. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330 Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret support for Libya rebels, Reuters, March 30, 2011]</ref>
*[[Secretary of State]] Hillary Clinton calls Syrian President [[Bashar al-Assad]] "a reformer," says U.S. will not intervene in Syria's deadly uprising. <ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-27/u-s-won-t-intervene-in-syria-unrest-clinton-says-on-cbs.html Clinton Says U.S. Won't Intervene in Syria, Sees Progress in Libya Fight, Bloomberg, March 28, 2011]</ref>
*[[Eric Holder]] changes Islamic terrorist trials from civilian court to military tribunal. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/about-face-obama-admin-will-prosecute-911-plotters-in-military-court/ ABOUT-FACE: OBAMA ADMIN. WILL PROSECUTE 9/11 PLOTTERS IN MILITARY COURT, The Blaze, April 4, 2011]</ref>
*Obama administration envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference and advisor on Islamic "affairs", Rashad Hussain "When it comes to the problem of violent extremism, Islam is not the problem." <ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/obama_envoy_islam_is_the_solut.html Obama envoy: Islam is the Solution not the Problem, American Thinker, April 6, 2011]</ref>
*Defense Secretary [[Robert Gates]] travels to the [[Middle East]] for the third time in a month to repair relations with Saudi Arabia after Obama pushed for Mubarak's replacement against the wishes of the Saudi King. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/after-upsetting-saudis-obama-sends-defen After Upsetting Saudis, Obama Sends Defense Secretary Gates to Discuss Arab Upheaval With Saudi King, CNSNews, April 6, 2011]</ref>
*8th Annual U.S.-Islamic World Forum will feature Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as host of the three-day event in D.C. <ref>[http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/apr/clinton-hosts-islamic-world-forum-obama Clinton Hosts Islamic World Forum For Obama In D.C., Judicial Watch, April 11, 2011]</ref>
*Syria opposition groups have asked for Obama personally to condemn the Assad regime, he will not. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/14/syrian-protesters-get-muted-response-from-us/ White House rebuffs Syrian opposition, Washington Times, April 14, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's State Department’s deputy assistant secretary Dana Shell Smith talks about Al-Jazeera news channel "This administration has empowered those of us who actually do the communicating to be in a close relationship with Al-Jazeera." <ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53339.html#ixzz1JwKNN7tT Al-Jazeera has fans in Obama W.H., Politico, April 18, 2011]</ref>
*Obama heaps the praises of the Al-Jazeera as the emir of [[Qatar]] who owns the news channel visited the [[White House]]. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/04/17/obama-admin-heaps-praise-on-al-jazeera-theyre-a-really-important-media-entity-we-have-a-really-great-relationship-with-them/ Obama Admin Heaps Praise on Al-Jazeera, Weasel Zippers, April 17, 2011]</ref>
*Obama's Department of Justice decided not to prosecute [[CAIR]], its co-founder Omar Ahmad, and others of the Holy Land Foundation case regarding terror financing of [[Hamas]]. <ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/doj-source-gov%E2%80%99t-muslim-outreach-jeopardized-active-terror-investigations/ DOJ Source: Gov’t Muslim ‘Outreach’ Jeopardized Active Terror Investigations, Pajamas Media, April 18, 2011]</ref>
*Obama approves $25 million in non-lethal aid to rebels in Libya. <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42680111 US to give Libyan rebels non-lethal aid, MSNBC, April 20, 2011]</ref>
*In March, Barack Obama issued a Muslim [http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/20/president-obama-s-nowruz-message Nowruz message] and also released a version in Arabic. <ref>[http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/04/obama-white-house-releases-persian-nowruz-message-muslim-ramadan-message-skips-easter/ Change!… Obama White House Releases Nowruz Message, Muslim Ramadan Message, Muslim Hajj Message, Muslim Eid-ul-Fitr Message… Skips Easter, Gateway Pundit, April 25, 2011]</ref>
*Obama orders the U.S. military to take out [[Osama Bin Laden]], claims victory. <ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/01/obama_at_my_direction_us_carried_out_operation_against_bin_laden.html?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4dbe9ac88f6970ec%2C0 Obama: "At My Direction" U.S. Carried Out Operation Against Bin Laden, RealClearPolitics, May 1, 2011]</ref>
*White House to <s>delay,</s> <ref>[http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/05/white-house-to-delay-the-release-of-gruesome-bin-laden-death-photos-due-to-muslim-sensitivities.html White House to delay the release of "gruesome" bin Laden death photos due to Muslim "sensitivities", JihadWatch, May 3, 2011]</ref> refuse to release <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20059739-503544.html Obama: I won't release bin Laden death photos - Political Hotsheet, CBS News, May 4, 2011]</ref> [[Osama bin Laden | OBL]] death photos due to Muslim "sensitivities."
*Hillary Clinton: U.S. trying to free up $3 Billion in Libyan assets to fund rebels. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/05/clinton-trying-free-billions-libyan-assets-help-rebels/#ixzz1LW3SZaiz Hillary Clinton: U.S. trying to free up $3 Billion in Libyan assets to fund rebel, Fox News, May 5, 2011]</ref>
*May 19th Obama gives a speech telling Israeli to pull back to 1967 borders for the creation of a Palestinian state.
*Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launches ‘Muslim Civilization’ science exhibition in Los Angeles.<ref>[http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hillary-clinton-launches-muslim-civilization-science-exhibition-122602353.html Hillary Clinton launches ‘Muslim Civilization’ science exhibit, PRNewswire, May 25, 2011]</ref>
*The USA and the Group of Eight leaders approve $40 billion in aid to Arab uprising countries.
*New national rules of engagement for federal raids on Muslim arrest warrants, wait for [[Mosque]] service to complete before arresting. <ref>[http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/05/agents-followed-new-politically-correct-rules-when-arresting-florida-imam-accused-of-funding-taliban.html Agents followed new politically correct rules when arresting Florida imam accused of funding Taliban, JihadWatch.org, May 15, 2011]</ref>
*Obama administration condemns Syria for shuttering Internet but does little publicly to condemn the bloodshed by the Assad regime on the Syrian people. <ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/164769-obama-administration-condemns-syrian-regime-for-shuttering-internet Obama administration condemns Syria for shuttering Internet, The Hill, June 4, 2011]</ref>
*Obama backed Libyan rebels with ties to [[Al Qaeda]].
*Obama violates War Powers Act, argues that US military activity in the [[NATO]]-led air war over Libya does not amount to "hostilities." [http://americaswatchtower.com/2011/06/18/barack-obama-ignored-the-advice-of-two-justice-department-lawyers-on-libya/]
*The Obama administration is reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood in a “limited” effort to build ties in Egypt. No extension to Coptic Christians offered. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/clinton-admits-we-are-now-reaching-out-to-the-muslim-brotherhood/ CLINTON ADMITS WE ARE NOW REACHING OUT TO THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, The Blaze, June 30, 2011]</ref>
*Obama orders Somali terror suspect to be tried in U.S. civilian courts with all the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens. <ref>[http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/169835-mcconnell-slams-obama-decision-to-grant-terror-suspect-civil-court-trial McConnell slams decision to grant terror suspect civilian trial, The Hill, July 6, 2011]</ref>
*Obama seeks to supply 125 M1A1 Tanks and other weapons to Egypt. <ref>[http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/07/10/stop-obamas-egyptian-tank-sale/ Stop Obama’s Egyptian Tank Sale, Commentary magazine, July 10, 2011]</ref>
*A spokesperson of the U.S. State Department condemned reported plans by Iran to execute an Iranian pastor if he does not abandon his faith in [[Christ]]. <ref>[http://beforeitsnews.com/story/809/043/U.S._Condemns_Iran_For_Threatening_To_Execute_Pastor.html U.S. Condemns Iran For Threatening To Execute Pastor, Before Its News, July 12, 2011]</ref>
*The Obama administration defended [[U.S.]] aid to the Palestinian Authority despite its alliance with terrorist group [[Hamas]]. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/07/13/obama-admin-defends-u-s-aid-to-the-palestinians-after-house-passes-resolution-calling-for-suspension/#comment-230040 Obama Admin Defends U.S. Aid To The Palestinians After House Passes Resolution Calling For Suspension, Weasel Zippers, July 13, 2011]</ref>
*The United States will formally recognize the top opposition group in Libya as that nation’s government. <ref>[http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/171697-clinton-us-recognizes-top-libyan-rebel-group-as-legit-government Clinton: U.S. will recognize top Libyan rebel group as country’s government, The Hill, July 15, 2011]</ref>
*Obama tells Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down and announces a new set of sanctions. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/18/sources-us-call-for-assad-departure-imminent/?test=latestnews Obama Calls on Assad to Step Down, Imposes New Sanctions, Fox News, August 18, 2011]</ref>
*Various reports show the State Department trying to get the Muslim Brotherhood to replace Assad, just like in Egypt. <ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/274969/annals-arab-spring-obama-administration-backs-muslim-brotherhood-syria-andrew-c-mccart# Annals of the Arab Spring: Obama Administration Backs Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, NRO, August 18, 2011]</ref>
*As rebel forces descend upon [[Tripoli]], Obama calls for a peaceful transistion in Libya. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gaddafi-way-out-obama-calls-peaceful-tra Obama Calls for Peaceful Transition in Libya, CNSNews, August 22, 2011]</ref>
*Obama marks the end of the Ramadan holiday with a Muslim Eid statement. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/08/31/obama-marks-end-of-ramadan-with-eid-greeting-islamists-in-chechnya-and-pakistan-celebrate-by-blowing-themselves-up/ Obama Marks End Of Ramadan With Eid Greeting, Islamists In Chechnya And Pakistan Celebrate By Blowing Themselves Up, Weasel Zippers, August 30, 2011]</ref>
*The Obama administration is working closely with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to implement the UN resolution against religious stereotyping, specifically as applied to Islam. [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276021/administration-takes-islamophobia-nina-shea]
*The State Department restating U.S. position on [[Afghanistan]]; a call for reconciliation, negotiate with [[Taliban]] fighters to disarm. Would not confirm an office for the Taliban has been set up in [[Qatar]]. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/us-mum-over-reported-taliban-office-in-qatar/#ixzz1Xm5Ut8DO U.S. Mum Over Reported Taliban Office in Qatar, Fox News, September 12, 2011]</ref>
*[[Oman]]s mediation between [[Tehran]] and Washington, releases two American hikers from Iranian custody in a $1 million bail-for-freedom capitulation.<ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9PT5FOO0&show_article=1 Americans freed from Iran prison begin trek home, Breitbart.com, September 21, 2011]</ref>
*Obama touts "change" that has taken place in the [[Middle East]] while addressing the [[UN]]. ''"The Qaddafi regime is over. Gbagbo, Ben Ali, Mubarak are no longer in power. Osama bin Laden is gone, and the idea that change could only come through violence has been buried with him."'' <ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/23/obamateurism-of-the-day-597/ Obamateurism of the Day, HotAir.com, September 23, 2011]</ref>
*[[Secretary of State]] Hillary Clinton demands that [[Jerusalem]] cannot be referred to as the capital of Israel, for fears of offending Muslim sensitivity. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/28/hillary-clinton-warns-against-even-symbolically-recognizing-jerusalem-as-capital-of-israel/ Hillary Clinton Warns Against Even Symbolically Recognizing Jerusalem As Capital Of Israel, Weasel Zippers, September 28, 2011]</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|3}}
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Islam]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-09-29T02:32:40Z

BrentH: Baldness =/= necessarily undesirable. Some women--like my wife, find it attractive. Moreover, it often manifests long after a man has reproduced and is out of the mating pool.

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 32 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 16%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]
 
 
see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>
# Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html</ref>
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.

===Maladaptation===
[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]
# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
# Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-primate species<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20080801031525/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0857/is_n6_v12/ai_16395133 Male pattern baldness] Baldness seen in male Chimps and Orangutans</ref>.

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Many DNA sequence blocks are common to humans and gorillas, but not to humans and chimps, even though the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans was supposedly millions of years before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. While overall the human genome most closely resembles the chimp one, giving rise to the evolutionist claim that chimps are our nearest relatives, this hypothesis would predict that after the last common ancestor of humans and gorillas the two genomes would steadily diverge. Therefore following the last common ancestor between humans and chimps, these DNA sequences would still be closer between them than with a species such as the gorilla that diverged earlier. Evolution cannot explain this.
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
# Evolution from prehistoric forms has not been demonstrated for many species - no plausible earlier forms have been identified in the fossil record.

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. <ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref> Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]</ref> Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.
# Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.

===Uncategorized===

# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>

== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.

{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]
*[[Answers to Question evolution!]]

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

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

[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[category:Evolution]]

Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-09-29T02:30:48Z

BrentH: Schizophrenics can reproducbefore they demonstrate any symptoms and become undesirable mates, thus allowing the condition to perpetuate even if it is undesrireable

[[File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg|thumb|180px|Caricature of [[Charles Darwin]] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails'''. Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that<ref>Many of the counterexamples are indisputable, rendering each of their probabilities of being correct nearly 100%.</ref>), then the odds that these 32 counterexamples are ''all'' incorrect and that evolution is true is only 16%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# Lack of genetic diversity among the Homo sapiens species. Were evolution and the Old Earth theory true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have stated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this would support the idea that all chimps are descended from a relatively large initial population while all humans are descended from a much smaller initial population (two people, perhaps). 80% of all human diversity is found on the African continent, which accords with a human population growing from a small group in the post-Flood Middle East.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>[[File:Ara macao -on a small bicycle-8.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|[[Parrot]] feathers are a problem for evolutionists. For more information, please see [http://creation.com/parrot-fashion parrot feathers]
 
 
see picture source and license [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ara_macao_-on_a_small_bicycle-8.jpg here]]]
# Parsimonious repetition of design elements throughout Creation, e.g. the eye's appearance in remarkably different species. For such complex structures to [[convergent evolution|arise repeatedly via evolution]] is [[statistical_impossibility | impossible]], as evolution is an inherently random and historically contingent process.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp</ref>

===Lack of mechanism===
[[Image:Feather image.jpg|thumb|300px|right|[[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random [[mutation]]s."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>]]
# Animals flee to high ground ''before'' a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible [[materialistic]] explanation.<ref>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/600105348/Utah-scientific-Did-animals-sense--and-flee--the-tsunamis-in-S-Asia.html</ref>
# Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying [[atheistic]] explanations.<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/24/2011-08-24_monkeys_at_washingtons_national_zoo_sensed_earthquake_seconds_before_shaking_sta.html</ref>
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds, which lack any plausible materialistic explanation<ref>[[migration]]</ref>
# Evolution does not account for the immense amount of [[information]] in the genome. While there are various definitions of information, and many types have been observed to occur naturally, DNA contains information that is processed to lead to a result predetermined by the content of that information. Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to refer to DNA as a "code" or "language," as many scientists are prone to doing. In fact DNA is more like a template, which produces messenger RNA (mRNA,) a new template with more appropriate bases for protein production. The mRNA essentially acts as a scaffold to which the appropriate amino acids attach to form a protein molecule. Rather than being a language containing words which each have a meaning, DNA is more like a jig or framework which allows a specific molecule of mRNA, and subsequently a specific protein sequence, to be assembled on it. In effect the information is the sequence of chemical reactions which that length of DNA will catalyse. Given the huge number of useless protein molecules which could be formed and the complexity of even a simple protein such as haemoglobin, this sequence could not have evolved by natural selection as the odds against the initial organism having a functional protein are too great.
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles or any other known structure.<ref>http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/40/4/687.pdf</ref><ref>[http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/early-evolution-of-feathers.html]</ref>[[File:Autumn.jpg|292px|right|thumbnail|The beauty of [[God]]'s [[creation]], such as [[autumn]] foliage, cannot adequately be explained through the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. See: [[Argument from beauty]]
 
 
([http://www.flickr.com/photos/universalpops/5236103680/ Flickr] picture, see:'' [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
# Humans exhibit behaviors such as performing [[science]], creating [[art]] and [[music]], [[dance|dancing]], and a number of other intellectual and artistic behaviors which could not have been produced by random mutations. There is no known evolutionary reason why these should be favored.
# Trematode parasites, like many other kinds, lack a plausible evolutionary phylogeny, though they can easily be explained by a teleological design.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/trematodes.html</ref>
# In addition, evolution cannot explain the many complex sex-determining systems. For example, in most mammals, females have two identical sex chromosomes (XX in this case) whereas males two different ones (XY.) However in birds, reptiles, many insects, and other organisms, the situation is reversed to where the male has two identical sex chromosomes and the female has two different ones; for example male birds have a ZZ chromosome pair and females ZW. No evolutionist has proposed a mechanism by which mammals could have a different sex chromosome system from the reptile ancestors they allegedly share with birds.

===Maladaptation===
[[Image:Jellyfish.jpg|right|thumb|[[Jellyfish]] ]]
# Inability to account for widely observed altruism among animals, as it ''reduces'' an animal's ability to survive. “The existence of altruism between different species — which is not uncommon — remains an obstinate enigma.”<ref>''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'' [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html]</ref> Not surprisingly, many atheist evolutionists have done their utmost to ''deny'' animal altruism.
# Too many deleterious mutations. Each generation of humans has far more negative mutations than the posited natural selection can remove. Evolution is thus impossible as species would become nonviable long before they could diverge.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref>
# Male-pattern [[baldness]] has no evolutionary explanation. It is not observed in non-primate species<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20080801031525/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0857/is_n6_v12/ai_16395133 Male pattern baldness] Baldness seen in male Chimps and Orangutans</ref>, and because it decreases the likelihood of finding a mate, it should have been selected out a long time ago.

===Wrong predictions===
[[Image:Harvester-ants.jpg|thumb|205px|right|Ant behavior is the result of [[intelligent design]]. 19th century [[Europe|European]] naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior. The [[Bible]] was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>]]
# Many DNA sequence blocks are common to humans and gorillas, but not to humans and chimps, even though the last common ancestor of gorillas and humans was supposedly millions of years before the last common ancestor of chimps and humans. While overall the human genome most closely resembles the chimp one, giving rise to the evolutionist claim that chimps are our nearest relatives, this hypothesis would predict that after the last common ancestor of humans and gorillas the two genomes would steadily diverge. Therefore following the last common ancestor between humans and chimps, these DNA sequences would still be closer between them than with a species such as the gorilla that diverged earlier. Evolution cannot explain this.
# Lack of any demonstrable vestigial parts of the human [[genome]]. While evolutionists often claim that regions of the genome are "[[junk DNA]]" and would not have been placed there by a designer, none have actually shown this to be true, and much so-called "junk DNA" has been shown to be useful.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html</ref>
# While evolutionists argue that there are examples of "[[argument from poor design|bad design]]" in the bodies of many organisms, such as "flaws" in the human spine and sinus system, evolutionists fail to realize that, by their own theory, natural selection should have removed these things! The simpler explanation, that these represent degeneration from an original, created perfect form, is the superior one. In other word, as [[CreationWiki]] notes, such "flaws" are actually "a result of deterioration, resulting from Man's Fall."<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Functional_integration_indicates_design_(Talk.Origins) Functional integration indicates design], from [[CreationWiki]]</ref>
# We have the perfect number of [[teeth]] to fit in our [[mouth]]s. While creationism perfectly accounts for that result, evolutionism predicts a contrary result: As our [[face]]s evolved from chimpanzee-like faces to human faces, the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.

===Missing fossils===
[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|300px|thumbnail|The remarkable [[whale]], which is a [[mammal]], has no plausible evolutionary ancestor.]]
# The remarkable [[whale]] family, which are mammals, have no plausible evolutionary ancestor. It is also not credible that the very different toothed and baleen whales evolved from a common ancestor, and even less credible that they could have evolved from separate ancestors while having so many features in common.
# No transitional forms appear for horses, instead different and distinct horse-like animals appear in the fossil record<ref>[[Ray Comfort]], in the Forward to the 150th anniversary edition of "On the Origin of Species"</ref>
# The enormous gaps and lack of intermediate species in the [[fossils|fossil]] record, once all the frauds are removed.
# Mammalian fur and body hair. There is no known evolutionary pathway for the development of fur, and no fossil evidence of hair evolving from scales, even though it survives very well.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_4/Bergman.htm</ref>
# Evolution from prehistoric forms has not been demonstrated for many species - no plausible earlier forms have been identified in the fossil record.

=== Irreducible Complexity===
# The extraordinarily long neck of the [[giraffe]]. The giraffe's heart creates immense pressure to drive blood up the neck to the brain. Because of this there are valves in the neck which automatically restrict the blood flow when the giraffe lowers its head to drink. Without these valves the sudden increase in blood pressure as the heart no longer needs to overcome gravity would rupture the arteries in the brain and kill the giraffe. However the giraffe could not have evolved a long neck without the valves and had no need to evolve the valves unless it had a long neck. The okapi, which evolutionists claim is the closest relative of the giraffe, has no such valves. Evolutionary theory cannot explain this. <ref>[http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm]</ref>[[Image:BacterialFlagellum.jpg|thumb|200px|right|[[flagellum|Bacterial Flagellum]] with rotary motor, courtesy of Access Research Network (Art Battson)]]
# The development of wings in birds, as intermediary wing stubs would have no use, and be a competitive disadvantage.
# The [[flagellum]] of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of [[irreducible complexity]] as publicised by Professor [[Michael Behe]].<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html]</ref> Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the [[Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District]] trial, Professor [[Ken Miller]] attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum.
# The organ and brain development required for retinal imagery require a base level of complexity, making a primitive form useless and impossible under evolution.<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm</ref>
# The [[ear]] contains three tiny [[bone]]s that transmit sound waves from the eardrum to the cochlea.<ref>[http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bigear.html Neuroscience for Kids: The Ear]</ref> Because of the complicated arrangement of those bones, transitional forms (which have never been found) would have served no purpose. Evolutionists claim that these bones used to form part of the reptilian jaw joint, but no intermediate fossil with half jaw/half ear has ever been found, and there is no way evolutionism can explain how a jaw becomes an ear.
# Bony skeletons represent an example of irreducible complexity, since only a fully formed, complete skeleton is of any use whatsoever, while having only one or some few number of bones in an otherwise invertebrate creature is hardly advantageous. It is inconceivable to think that some random mutation could have resulted in the formation if an entire bone system in a creature which was previously invertebrate.
# "Social insects" such as bees, ants, and termites, which have extremely complex caste systems. Where an insect fits into the system is determined by its diet when young. Evolution requires that the genes for the various castes and the genes for caste-specific behavior all appeared simultaneously. Akin to the concept of [[irreducible complexity]], but on a higher (social) order, this is impossible given random chance. The complex social structure of these insects is evidence of [[intelligent design]]; also, since the overwhelming majority of individuals are workers and do not reproduce, they do not perpetuate their genetic material, as evolutionism claims all living things must do.

===Uncategorized===

# No other animal exhibits [[religion]]. A far better explanation than random mutations is that humans were given the capacity to be religious by a loving God who wants a relationship with His creations.
# Circadian phenomena -- internal 24-hour clock mechanisms of humans and other living beings -- defy material explanation. Examples include how some people are unable to change the timing of their need for sleep for each day, and how plants exhibit clock-like behavior regardless of their exposure to sunlight. In addition, there is a weekly clock cycle for many phenomena, which has a clear biblical basis but defies any materialistic explanation.<ref>http://www.biblestudy.org/godsrest/mysterious-seven-day-cycle-in-plants-animals-man-2.html</ref>

== Logical Conclusion ==
As scientific theories require that their laws be immutable, the existence of merely one counterexample disproves the truth of the rule. Thus, if evolution fails to account for any one of these items (or countless others), it must be discarded.

{{evolution}}

== See also ==

*[[Atheism]]
*[[Evolution and atheism]]
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]
*[[Answers to Question evolution!]]

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/ Creation Ministries International]

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

[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[category:Evolution]]

NATO war in Libya

2011-09-28T02:05:26Z

BrentH: /* Libya post-Gaddafi */

[[File:Gaddafi and Mandela 1.JPG|thumb|right|250px|[[Nobel Peace Prize]] winner [[Nelson Mandela]] greets an old friend and ally, Muammar Gaddafi, who supported the [[ANC]] during their struggle against [[apartheid]]. ''[[Reuters]]'' reports President Obama secretly ordered support for [[al Qaeda]] terrorists seeking Gaddafi's ouster.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umgMDJIpkn0</ref>.]]
The '''Libyan War of 2011''' started as the '''Benghazi rebellion''', a series of protests in eastern [[Libya]] on February 16, 2011 after the successful uprisings in [[Tunisia]] and [[Egypt]]. The scale of violence contrasts markedly with the more peaceful uprisings that toppled the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes. The [[Islamist]] terror group [[Al-Qaeda]] in North Africa has vowed to do everything in its power to help the uprising against the Libyan [[secular]] strongman [[Muammar Gaddafi]].<ref> [http://www.dawn.com/2011/02/24/al-qaeda-in-n-africa-backs-libya-uprising-site.html Al Qaeda in N. Africa backs Libya uprising: SITE] </ref><ref> [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/07/libya-uprising-live-updates Libya uprising.] </ref> Journalist David Wood has reported,
{{Cquote|Eastern Libya has been described by U.S. diplomats as a breeding ground for Islamist [[extremism]]. In diplomatic cables released by [[Wikileaks]], the region’s young men were said to have "nothing to lose" by resorting to violence. Sermons in the local [[mosque]]s are "laced with phraseology urging worshippers to support [[jihad]]," one diplomat reported.<ref>http://91.214.23.156/cablegate/wire.php?id=08TRIPOLI120&search=</ref>}}
Wood added,
{{Cquote|extremist elements make up only a portion of the resistance to Gaddafi and have been present in every popular uprising in the region stretching from the [[Iran]]ian revolution to the [[Egypt]]ian people’s overthrow of [[Hosni Mubarak]].<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html</ref>}}

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said [[jihad]]ists who fought against American troops in [[Iraq]] are on the front lines of the battle against Gaddafi's regime. <ref> [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links.] </ref> <ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world/guantanamo-files-libyan-detainee-now-us-ally-of-sorts.html Libyan, Once a Detainee, Is Now a U.S. Ally of Sorts.]</ref>

An international coalition intervened in what many describe as an "illegal war"<ref>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/01/obamas_illegal_war</ref> led by the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO), whose own leaders have openly questioned what the value, purpose, and reason for existence of NATO is. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/world/europe/14iht-letter14.html</ref><ref>http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_58ebd6cf-0558-5ee2-bd8d-cf27c1af7630.html</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/12/nato-usa</ref>

__TOC__
It was reported on February 24, 2011, that an emergency meeting of the [[United Nations Human Rights Council]] (UNHRC) on Libya would take no action, or make no recommendation to the [[UN General Assembly]], to remove Libya from its seat on the UN Human Rights Council, despite alleged [[human rights]] abuses.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] (UNSC) then voted on March 17, 2011, to pass Security Council resolution 1973 proposed by [[France]], along with its British and Lebanese partners, initiating the use of military force in Libya. [[China]], [[Russia]], [[India]] and [[Brazil]] (the so-called BRIC nations) all abstained from the vote. The [[Obama administration]] called for Gaddafi to step aside, and has provided assistance to the insurgent tribes. US Congressional leaders were not consulted, <ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262921/boehner-obama-libya-many-other-members-house-representatives-are-troubled-robert-costa</ref> nor has the United States Congress authorized any use of force in Libya.

Military and intelligence experts in France, [[Britain]], and the United States warned about uncertainties, but were overruled by political leaders. The result was a set of decisions focusing on short term considerations and gambling on the outcome. French, British, and US leaders did not fully coordinate, but according to Anthony Cordesman, it became clear,
{{Cquote|they sought and got international cover from the UN by claiming a no fly zone could protect civilians when their real objective was to use force as a catalyst to drive Gaddafi out of power.}}
[[Sarkozy]], [[David Cameron|Cameron]], and [[Obama]] seem to have assumed that a largely unknown, divided, and fractured group of insurgents could win through sheer political momentum, and could then be turned into a successful government. Within the first month it was obvious a "weak, divided, poorly led, and badly equipped and supplied set of rebel tribes can only hang on with the present level of air support" that was provided.

The assault on Libya set off a frenzy of speculations about the real motive behind the war in the oil-rich country, with many analysts saying that under the guise of protecting civilians, as enshrined in the UNSC Resolution 1973, Washington and its Western allies are basically after the North African country’s vast oil reserves. <ref>[http://2012indyinfo.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/presstv-germany-slams-nato-mission-in-libya/ Germany slams NATO mission in Libya.]</ref>

[[Stephen Lendman]]: Libya assault planned months ahead; See interview: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSlXO_X_fE&feature=related in Youtube.]

== Libya before the 2011 uprising ==
[[File:Libya Irrigation project.jpg|thumb|330px|Satellite view is showing irrigated farming projects at Al Khufrah Oasis in south-east Libya. Part of the "Great Man Made River Project" ($33 billion), where water is drawn from vast underground aquifers. This water is transported about 800 km (500 mi) to the coastal cities of Libya by means of the world's largest underground network of pipes.]]
In 1951 Libya was officially the poorest country in the world, <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,864742,00.html]</ref> but by the time of the 2011 uprising, Libyans' living standards were considered the highest in Africa. The GDP per Capita was more than the double of that in Egypt, and above that of Russia. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge; but more than the advances in housing, agricultural, industry, health care, education, is the advance in direct popular democracy. <ref>[http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/libfacts.htm]</ref> [[Condoleezza Rice]] praised Libya for its "excellent co-operation" in the US-led [[war on terror]]. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4773617.stm] (BBC News)</ref>.
<blockquote>
The living standards of Libyans have improved significantly since the 1970s, ranking the country among the highest in Africa. Urbanization, developmental projects, and high oil revenues have enabled the Libyan government to elevate its people's living standards. The social and economic status of women and children has particularly improved. Various subsidized or free services (health, education, housing, and basic foodstuffs) have ensured basic necessities. The low percentage of people without access to safe water (3 percent), health services (0 percent) and sanitation (2 percent), and a relatively high life expectancy (70.2 years) in 1998 indicate the improved living standards. Adequate health care and subsidized foodstuffs have sharply reduced infant mortality, from 105 per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 20 per 1,000 live births in 1998. The government also subsidizes education, which is compulsory and free between the ages of 6 and 15. The expansion of educational facilities has elevated the literacy rate (78.1 in 1998). There are universities in [[Tripoli]], Benghazi, Marsa el-Brega, Misurata, Sebha, and Tobruk. <ref>[http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Libya-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html] (SOURCE: Handbook of the Nations; CIA World Factbook.)</ref>
</blockquote>

[[Nobel Peace Prize]] recipient [[Nelson Mandela]] warned of the machinations of outside influences in a speech noting Gaddafi and leadership in Africa:
{{Cquote|In a world where the strong may seek to impose upon the more vulnerable; and where particular nations or groups of nations may still seek to decide the fate of the planet - in such a world respect for multilateralism, moderation of public discourse and a patient search for compromise become even more imperative to save the world from debilitating conflict and enduring inequality. When we dismissed criticism of our friendship with yourself, My Brother Leader, and of the relationship between [[South Africa]] and Libya, it was precisely in defence of those values.<ref>http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=222537&sn=Detail</ref>}}
[[File:Benghazi shopping center Libya.JPG|thumb|Benghazi shopping center.]]
At present Gaddafi is not well seen in the EU and USA but the Libyan people seem to be thriving with him as leader. A delegation of medical professionals from [[Russia]], [[Ukraine]] and [[Belarus]] wrote in an appeal to "Russian President [[Medvedev]] and Prime Minister [[Putin]] that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort". Libya today is not a highly polarized society divided between extremes of wealth and poverty.

On February 24, 2011, no threat was seen to Libya’s Seat on top U.N. Human Rights Body. A European Union-proposed draft resolution for a subsequent session “strongly condemns” human rights violations committed in Libya amid turmoil sparked by protesters, rather than condemning Gaddafi or the regime for committing them. [http://www.cnsnews.com/public/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human]
<blockquote>
The "United Nations Development Program (UNDP) confirms that the country had excellent prospects for achieving United Nations development goals by 2015. NATO's war will have already dashed those hopes. A collapse like the one in Iraq now threatens the country. [http://www.newsfrommiddleeast.com/?new=77210]
</blockquote>
<center>
[[File:View to Tripoli Libya.jpg|380px|thumb|center|Tripoli, 2009.]]
</center>

==Libya under Gaddafi ==
===Petrodollars and oil===
According to a Russian article titled ''Bombing of Libya - Punishment for Qaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,'' Gaddafi initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the [[Euro]] as payment for Libya's oil, and called on [[Arab]] and African nations to use a new currency, the gold dinar. Gaddafi proposed establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. The initiative was viewed negatively in the United States and the [[European Union]], with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind. But Gaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa. As early September 9, 1999, the first steps towards the formation of the [[African Union]] were taken by the Heads of State of the Organisation of African Unity.<ref>[http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/aboutau/au_in_a_nutshell_en.htm The AU in a nutshell]</ref>

In the wake of the global [[financial crisis of 2008]] forcing the United States into [[recession]], both China and Russia called for the dollar’s role in the global financial system to be diluted. Both China and the USSR abstained from UNSCR 1973.

''Bloomberg News'' reported in September 2010 that China and Russia planned to start trading in each other’s currency as the world’s second-biggest energy consumer and the largest energy supplier seek to diminish the dollar’s role in global trade. Bhanu Baweja commented {{Cquote|Given the risk to the dollar and U.S. assets from their fiscal position they want to reduce their dependence on the dollar as an invoicing currency....It makes sense for two large economies to exclude a third, overly dominant economy from their trading equation.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-08/china-russia-push-yuan-ruble-trading-to-diminish-dominance-of-u-s-dollar.html</ref>}}

===African Satellite Control Center===
An observer spelled out one of Gaddafi’s motivations for proposing an African Union:
{{Cquote|It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.

An African satellite only cost a one-time payment of $400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a $500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn't finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can [[slave]]s, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the [[World Bank]], the [[International Monetary Fund]], the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put $300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added $50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further $27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.<ref>http://www.vtcommons.org/blog/2011/04/21/ethan-allen-qaddafi</ref>}}

===Libyan Central Bank===
In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:
{{Cquote|One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned.... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a [[sovereign]] nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.<ref>Eric Encina,''[http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27208.html Globalists Target 100% State Owned Central Bank of Libya,]'' Market Oracle.</ref>}}
Ellen Brown adds,
{{Cquote|Libya not only has oil. According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS (Bank of International Settlements), the IMF and their rules.<ref>Ellen Brown, ''[http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/5625-libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking,]'' Reader Supported News, April 15, 2011.</ref>}}
Gaddafi’s proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa contravenes IMF rules and is designed to bypass them.

=== Italian Friendship treaty ===
"We signed a friendship treaty with Libya, that includes a non-aggression clause, but when the counterpart '''no longer exists''' — in this case the Libyan state — the treaty cannot be applied”, said [[Italy]]’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini on February 26, 2011, ten days after the uprising began.
{{Cquote|Italy’s treaty with Libya, signed by Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] in August 2008, calls on Italy to pay Libya $5 billion over 20 years in reparations for its colonial past there. In return, Libya pledged to help block the flow of illegal immigrants to Italy and grant favorable treatment for Italian companies seeking to do business in Libya. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/world/europe/28military.html]</ref>}}

==French intervention==

A report from Congressman [[Dennis Kucinich]] corroborated the claim of Franco Bechis<ref>''[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RkUoFsgEwm8J:www.voltairenet.org/article169069.html+French+plans+to+topple+Gaddafi+on+track+since+last+November&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com French plans to topple Gaddafi on track since last November]'', by Franco Bechis, VoltaireNet, March 26, 2011.</ref> in Italy that "plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010."<ref>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24347</ref>

On March 10, 2011, France became the first and only country to recognize the Libyan Transitional National Council “as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.”<ref> “Sarkozy’s Libyan Surprise,” ''The Economist'', March 14, 2011.</ref> "France recognizes states, not parties", said a senior official on March 9th. After a meeting arranged by [[Bernard Henri Levy|Bernard-Henri Lévy]] the next morning, on March 10th, two representatives of the Libyan opposition emerged from President Sarkozys office at the Elysée Palace to announce that "France recognizes the Libyan Transitional National Council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people". <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2</ref><ref>http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/03/france_and_libya</ref>

On March 19, two days after passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1973,<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278685</ref> French President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] convened an emergency meeting of allied and Arab leaders in [[Paris]] which endorsed the immediate deployment of military aircraft to attack Gaddafi forces defending Benghazi and establish a no-fly zone. Before the end of the meeting, French fighter planes were attacking armored vehicles and tanks outside Benghazi. Some participants at the Paris meeting were critical of the French government, both for insisting on convening the meeting before agreeing to endorse air strikes, and then for launching air strikes before the meeting was over.<ref>Allies Open Air Assault on Qaddafi’s Forces in Libya, ''New York Times'', March 19, 2011.</ref> French officials claim that meeting participants were informed of the operation beforehand. The strikes had clearly been planned and coordinated with the [[United States]] and some other NATO forces.<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service'', March 30, 2011, p. 19 pd.</ref>

[[National Public Radio]] (NPR) reported Sarkozy enjoyed a "burst of public support"<ref>http://wap.npr.org/story/134855539</ref> while the ''[[London Guardian]]'' wrote Sarkozy's actions may save him from "electoral humiliation."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/libya-crisis-nicolas-sarkozy-electoral</ref> Several analysts speculate Sarkozy used the crisis to propel France into a Superpower role, usurping the global leadership of the United States abrogated by [[President Obama]].<ref>http://www.businessandpolitics.org/?p=4651</ref> Columnist Jim Hoagland of the ''[[Washington Post]]'' observes,
{{Cquote|France is a country that has a past being involved in world affairs, wanting to count in world affairs, and being willing to pay its way for defense forces and to use those forces abroad. So, France plays a natural role in that. At a time when governments are slashing defense spending and reducing troops, France still wants to occupy an important role in world affairs....the reason you're seeing France taking on such a much larger role is that other countries, including the United States, are not willing to do it anymore. And Sarkozy is trying to fill that vacuum.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/france2_04-07.html</ref>}}

Sarkozy's approval rating stood at 30% prior to the intervention.

===Legality of French actions===
On May 29 two French lawyers, Roland Dumas and Jacques Vergès, announced plans to initiate legal proceedings against President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] for crimes against humanity over the [[NATO]] led campaign in [[Libya]]. Dumas (who also served as a foreign minister under President [[François Mitterrand]]) said that the NATO mission, which was meant to protect civilians, is in fact killing them.<ref>http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=46395</ref> On July 4 a French lawyer, Marcel Ceccaldi, called for investigation of the International Criminal Court on NATO "war crimes". [http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/07/04/libye-un-avocat-demande-une-enquete-de-la-cpi-sur-les-crimes-de-guerre-de-l-otan_1544755_1496980.html]

== National Transitional Council ==
The National Transitional Council of the Libyan Republic announced its official establishment in early March 2011 in the city of Benghazi. The stated goal was to the overthrow of Mu’ammar Gaddafi.<ref>http://ntclibya.org/english/</ref> It has been recognized by France, [[Qatar]], Italy, [[Kuwait]], [[Maldives]] and [[Gambia]]. They have proceeded to form a transitional government for the post-Gaddafi era. Before forming a government, they robbed about $505 million from the Central Bank of Libya in Benghazi.
[[File:Libya Rebels Gaining Momentum.jpg|thumb|Anti-Gaddafi tribal insurgents in March, 2011 (Photo:Reuters).]]
{{Cquote|The top leaders of the “revolutionary” masses in Benghazi are two recent defectors of what the Left dubs Gaddafi’s “murderous regime”, Mustafa Abdul Jalil a former Justice minister (who prosecuted dissenters up to the day before the armed uprising), Mahmoud Jebril a top Gaddafite neo-liberal prominent in inviting multi-nationals to take over the oil fields (FT, March 23, 2011, p. 7) and Ali Aziz al-Eisawa, Gaddafi’s former ambassador to India who jumped ship when it looked like the uprising would succeed. These self-appointed leaders of the “rebels” are staunch backers of Euro-US military intervention just as they previously were long-term backers of Gaddafi’s dictatorship and promoters of MNC takeovers of oil and gas fields. The heads of the “rebels” military council is Omar Hariri and General Abdul Fattah Younis former head of the Ministry of Interior, both with long histories (since 1969) of repressing any democratic movements.<ref>http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/euro-us-war-on-libya-official-lies-and-misconceptions-of-critics/</ref>}}
The root base of the armed uprising is Benghazi, a hotbed of tribal backers and clients of the deposed King Idris.

===Misuse of humanitarian assistance===

In May, 2011, NATO and Arab countries agreed in Rome to set up a fund to manage donations to help areas controlled by the rebels; they announced a financial mechanism to assist the opposition in Libya. This would include a partial unfreezing of Libyan assets in banks that would go into a temporary fund managed by the U.N. Sanctions Committee. And it would be intended to help the rebels with their immediate needs to cover food, medicine and hospital costs;<ref>http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/136011941/diplomats-discuss-aid-to-libyan-rebels</ref> The insurgents would gain access to a special $3 billion (£1.8 billion) trust fund established by its Western backers to finance the breakaway regions fighting against Gaddafi;<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8492745/Libyan-rebels-to-receive-1.8-billion-trust-fund.html</ref> but the Transitional National Council is planing to use money pledged for humanitarian and reconstruction purposes to buy weapons.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/amnesty-international-accuses-gaddafi-regime-of-war-crimes-in-misurata/2011/05/06/AFbPjw6F_story.html?hpid=z2</ref>
[[File:Rebel fighters hoist the former Libyan monarchy flag on the outskirts of Benghazi.jpg|thumb|Rebel fighters hoist the former Libyan monarchy flag on the outskirts of Benghazi. Modern urbanization and equipments may be clearly seen there.]]

===Insurgent Death Squads===

Insurgent tribal leaders created a wanted list and placed suspects under round-the-clock surveillance. Secret militia units raid houses without court warrants and often interrogate suspects for hours. Those released have to sign a document stating their loyalty to the revolution. As many as 30 civilians are being held at various rebel military bases around Benghazi without due process of law, said human rights activists, judges and prosecutors. In recent weeks, at least seven former members of the internal security police have turned up dead, their bodies riddled with bullets. Although it is not known who killed them, many suspect that they died at the hands of rebel-affiliated death squads. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/libyan-rebels-accused-of-reprisal-attacks/2011/05/20/AFaeAh8G_story.html?hpid=z4]

On May, 26, the deputy leader of Libya's rebel administration said it could take up to two years to organize elections, backtracking on promises of a six-month transition to democracy. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110526/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya]

==Security Council Res. 1973 and NATO==
UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 of March 17, 2011 followed on the heels of Gaddafi’s public announcement on March 2 he may throw western oil companies out of Libya, and his invitation on March 14 to Chinese, Russian, and Indian firms to produce Libyan oil in their place.<ref>''[http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/7661/Business/Economy/Gaddafi-offers-Libyan-oil-production-to-India,-Rus.aspx Gaddafi offers Libyan oil production to India, Russia, China,] Agence France-Presse, March 14, 2011.</ref> China, Russia, India and Brazil all abstained on UNSC Resolution 1973.

Despite France taking the lead role in the intervention, the Congressional Research Service reports, "Only the United States and NATO possess the command and control capabilities necessary for coalition operations enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya." France only recently rejoined the NATO alliance, in 2008, after a 40 year absence. The Congressional Research Service, which analyzes information and prepares reports for members of Congress, also states,
{{Cquote|In spite of statements underscoring NATO unity on steps announced to date, the initial planning and operational phases were also marked by significant levels of discord within Europe and [[NATO]] on the aims and future direction of the mission. A key point of contention was reportedly the amount of flexibility that NATO forces would be granted to protect civilians and civilian areas, as called for in paragraph 4 of UNSCR 1973. Reports indicate that French officials insisted on maintaining the ability to strike ground forces that threatened civilian areas, while their [[Turkish]] counterparts vocally opposed any targeting of ground forces. Adding to the strain within NATO, NATO ally [[Germany]] abstained from UNSCR 1973 and, opposed to any potential [[combat]] operation, on March 23, withdrew its naval assets in the [[Mediterranean]] from NATO command. Throughout the first week of operations, other European allies contributing to the mission, including Italy and Norway, expressed increasing frustration with the lack of agreement within NATO, with Norway refusing to deploy its fighter jets unless under they were under NATO command and control.<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya):
Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service,'' March 30, 2011, p. 20 pdf.</ref>}}

Of NATO's 28 members, 14 are said to be "actively participating," but only 6 provided military support. By June Norway announced its intention to quit the coalition<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/norway-quit-libya-operation-august</ref> and French and British leaders expressed concerns over being able to meet the costs of a war they dragged the United States into.<ref>http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/2e515285f07040df999bd6b670db791c/Article_2011-06-14-EU-NATO-Libya/id-f6d2287c00ba4816924c082ed9cc12fa</ref> Of the 22-country [[Arab League]], whose appeal prompted the United Nations to vote on intervention, only [[Qatar]] and the [[United Arab Emirates]] are involved. Of the 192 members of the [[UN General Assembly]], who all have a legal "responsibility to protect" civilians attacked by their own governments, only [[Sweden]] has responded.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref> After the authorization and commitment of NATO and U.S. forces, Secretary Gates announced,
{{Cquote|The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.}}
and warned
{{Cquote|The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the American body politic writ large—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.<ref>http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/10/robert_gates_nato_defense_secretary_questions_future_of_the_alli.html</ref>}}

===Exceeding UN mandate===
Resolution 1973 authorized strict limitations, according to international law, on NATO as the organization with responsibility for the implementation of the resolution. Particularly, it provides only for a naval blockade enforcing the arms embargo, and enforcement of a no-fly zone. On March 29, 2011, Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin commented after a meeting with NATO officials in [[Brussels, Belgium]], that Russia expressed deep concern over the interpretation of the Security Council’s resolution, as some countries have effectively turned it into an approval for ground operations.
{{Cquote|[[Moscow]] has many questions about how the UN Security Council’s resolution is being carried out...First of all, there are reports that civilians have been killed in the air strikes. This is odd if you consider the message of the resolution, which says that the foreign forces’ actions should protect civilians. So it’s hard to comprehend how you can protect civilians by killing them....we demanded that the UN Security Council be fully informed about the actions of the alliance in Libya at all times... We have reports of air strikes against convoys far from the front line. This is a far cry from the UN Security Council resolution.<ref>http://rt.com/news/coalition-libya-nato-russian-envoy/</ref>}}
[[File:Bombing Tripoli Libya.jpg|right|Bombing Tripoli, Libya.]]
NATO planes and ships have been striking cities and military installations in Libya since mid-March, 2011. Allied military officials have spoken in recent weeks of the need for escalation to help protect Libyan civilians and have called for Gaddafi to step down. Libyan officials have said that NATO is picking sides in a civil war and complained that strikes on Gaddafi’s Tripoli compound are attempts to assassinate the leader of a sovereign country. NATO launched its largest airstrike against Moammar Gaddafi’s regime on May, 24, 2011, with at least 15 massive explosions rocking the Libyan capital. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/french-officials-france-and-britain-to-use-attack-helicopters-in-libya/2011/05/23/AFTF909G_story.html?hpid=z2]
<blockquote>
On May 15, two months into the NATO bombing campaign against loyal Gaddafi’s forces, Britain’s top military commander said that the Libyan leader could remain “clinging to power” unless NATO broadened its bombing targets to include the country’s infrastructure. <ref>http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html</ref>
</blockquote>

The French and the British described plans for a wargames exercise for an attack on Libya last November, in the end they used those military assets that had been mobilized for the real thing 3 months ago. We know that NATO doesn’t just go and bomb a country over night, these things are planned far in advance, and in this case there is conclusive evidence that there have been plans for this for many many years. <ref> [https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend] June 4, 2011. </ref>
<blockquote>
On Jun 18, Prime minister of Libya Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi accused [[NATO]] of a "new level of aggression" over the past 72 hours in which he said the military alliance intentionally targeted civilian buildings, including a hotel and a university. "It has become clear to us that NATO has moved on to deliberately hitting civilian buildings. ... This is a crime against humanity," he told reporters in the capital. Libya's Health Ministry released new casualty figures that put the number of civilians killed in NATO air strikes through to June 7 at 856. <ref> [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/gaddafi-rages-at-nato-after-bombing-2299509.html Gaddafi rages at NATO after bombing.] </ref>
</blockquote>
[[File:Women with Gaddafi Libya.jpg|thumb|280px|Lizzie Cocker with mum and two daughters from Sudan who have been living in Libya for 17 years. They had to flee from Misrata to Tripoli following the vicious atrocities committed by the pro-NATO rebels against black skinned peoples. They are firmly standing behind their leader Moammar Gadaffi. The sisters have written on the poster, on the left: "King of Kings of Africa" and on the right: "Our souls are for you".]]
==== Italy - Berlusconi ====
[[Italy]] called for a suspension of hostilities in [[Libya]] on June 22 in the latest sign of dissent within [[NATO]] as the civilian death toll mounts and [[Muammar Gaddafi]] shows no signs of quitting power. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110622/ts_afp/libyaconflictnatoitalydiplomacy]

===African response to UN & NATO intervention===
NATO's Libyan intervention has proven fractious in black Africa; in March [[Nigeria]]'s Foreign Minister Odein Ajumogobia commented, "The contradictions between principle and national interest ... have enabled the international community to impose a no-fly zone over Libya ostensibly to protect innocent civilians from slaughter, but to watch seemingly helplessly (in [[Ivory Coast]]) as ...men, women and children are slaughtered in equally, even if less egregious, violence."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503543_162-503543.html?keyword=ivory+coast</ref>
<blockquote>
Amr Moussa, the outgoing head of the Arab League and a front runner to become president of a democratic Egypt, has voiced reservations about NATO's bombing campaign in Libya, calling for a ceasefire and talks on a political settlement while Muammar Gaddafi remains in power. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/21/arab-league-chief-libya-air-strikes]
</blockquote>
The Arab League, which in March asked the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians, condemned the loss of life in bombing incidents.
<blockquote>
"When the Arab League agreed on the idea of having a no-fly zone over Libya it was to protect civilians but when civilians get killed this has to be condemned with the harshest of statements," said Deputy Secretary-General Ahmed Ben Helli.
</blockquote>
The Libyan leader says the Western-led military campaign is an act of colonial aggression designed to steal Libya's oil. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110620/wl_nm/us_libya]

==United States intervention==
[[File:Treaty of Tripoli PD LC.jpg|thumb|Treaty of Tripoli, Libya was one of the first nation to recognize the US in 1796.]]
===Frozen assets===
President Obama moved swiftly to support French plans to frustrate Gaddafi’s proposal for an African Union with his unilateral declaration of a national emergency in order to freeze all of the Bank of Libya’s $30 billion of funds to which America had access. This was reported in the U.S. press as a freeze of the funds of "Colonel Qaddafi, his children and family, and senior members of the Libyan government.<ref>''New York Times'', February 27, 2011.</ref> The second section of Obama’s decree explicitly targeted "All property and interests… of the Government of Libya, its agencies, instrumentalities, and controlled entities, and the Central Bank of Libya.<ref>Executive Order of February 25, 2011, citing International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, seizes all Libyan Govt assets, February 25, 2011, link. The authority granted to the President by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act "may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose" (50 U.S.C. 1701).</ref> The consequences of the $30-billion freeze for [[Africa]], as well as for Libya, have been spelled out by an African observer:
{{Cquote|The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.}}

===War Powers Act===

Under the [[War Powers Act]] of 1973 the U.S President has limited authority to use military force without Congressional authorization when there is an imminent [[national security]] threat, however President Obama made clear that he ordered the use of force for other reasons. Members of Congress of both parties have expressed concern the President may have violated the law in doing so.<ref>http://rooney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3190:rooney-resolution-president-should-obtain-congressional-authorization-or-end-military-campaign-in-libya-&catid=48:2011-press-releases</ref> The War Powers Act specifically states that the President’s power to introduce forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities can only be exercised pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. The War Powers Act requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific Congressional authorization. None of these prerequisites have been met.

On March 21, 2011, President Obama publicly announced U.S. military forces commenced no fly-zone operations in Libya two days earlier, on March 19, "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe" and cited UN Resolutions as giving him the authority to do so. Secretary of Defense [[Robert Gates]] warned establishment of a no-fly zone meant attacking Libaya.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20038391-503544.html</ref> Officials as National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough also opposed to attacking Libya; but "[[Hillary Clinton]] won the bureaucratic battle to use DOD resources to achieve what's essentially the State Department's objective... and Obama let it happen". <ref>[http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/18/how_obama_turned_on_a_dime_toward_war How Obama turned on a dime toward war.] </ref> The Charter of the [[United Nations]], in Article 2(4), prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of a member state, and many observers have wondered whether the establishment of a no-fly zone would constitute a violation of this prohibition. The Congressional Research Services advised that a no-fly zone imposed against a state that has not carried out an attack on its neighbors may consider the imposition of a no-fly zone an “armed attack.” CRS warned that even if no-fly zone operations in a given state do not constitute an “armed attack",
{{Cquote|that state, and other members of the international community, might consider them a violation of the prohibition of the “threat or use of force,” as well as of the customary duty of non-intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states.}}

NATO's Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee days before President Obama publicly admitted to intervention that U.S. intelligence knew of [[al Qaeda]] and [[Hezbollah]] elements among the Libyan insurgents.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8414583/Libya-al-Qaeda-among-Libya-rebels-Nato-chief-fears.html</ref> A document published by the U.S. [[West Point]] Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center reveals that Libya sent more fighters to the [[Operation_Iraqi_Freedom#InsurgencyIraq|Islamic insurgency]] than any other [[Muslim]] country (from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah.).<ref>[http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf The Sinjar documents], a collection of al Qaeda computer data captured by Americans in 2007 in a predawn raid near Sinjar, Iraq, six miles from the Syrian border. The documents included background information on around 750 foreign fighters, who migrated to Iraq to kill American soldiers, many of those fighters coming from among the very people we are now pledging to protect. David Wood wrote: "Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah. On a per capita basis, that’s more than twice as many than came from any other Arabic-speaking country, amounting to what the counter terrorism center called a Libyan “surge” of young men eager to kill Americans."</ref> This set off a fierce debate in the [[Obama administration]] over the wisdom of arming terrorists.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss</ref> It is now known however, that sometime prior to March 31, 2011,<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=2&hp</ref> President Obama signed a secret Presidential Finding authorizing support for the insurgents.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref> Direct arms support would violate the arms embargo imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1970 on February 26, 2011.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref>

Public opinion initially was divided on support for President Obama's actions, within 30 days however, opposition rose 15%<ref>http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/americans-rapidly-turn-against-obama-over-handling-of-libyan-intervention.php</ref> as the reality of the intervention set in.

===Legality of U.S. military actions===
The ''[[Washington Post]]'' reported on May 20, 2011 President Obama missed the legal deadline set in the 1973 law that required him to obtain Congressional approval for U.S. military operations in Libya. Under the [[Nixon]]-era War Powers Resolution, the president must obtain Congressional authorization of military action within 60 days, or else begin withdrawing forces.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-likely-to-miss-deadline-for-congressional-approval-of-libya-operations/2011/05/19/AFFLKn7G_story.html</ref> Sen. [[Richard Lugar]] of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations warned President Obama,
[[File:NATO strike Libya.jpg|right|220px|NATO strike, Libya.]]
{{Cquote|U.S. military operations in Libya have assumed a different character than you suggested when you announced the decision to initiate them. In your March 21 letter to the Congress, you indicated that these operations would be limited in their nature, duration, and scope, and focused on protecting civilians and civilian populated areas from attack. Two months into these operations, your Administration is unable to specify what limits will apply to the duration of the operations, and the coalition in which we are participating appears to have expanded its objectives to weakening the Gaddafi regime’s hold on power through strikes on leadership targets and, potentially, infrastructure targets.<ref>http://lugar.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=332967&</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-obama-above-the-law/2011/05/26/AGL5zyCH_story.html</ref>}}

The evidence is President Obama’s war in Libya is illegal and unconstitutional. Columnist George Will laid out the case in, “Is Obama Above the Law?” The war is a violation of the War Powers Act, which says the president can go to war without Congressional approval only if there is an imminent threat to the U.S. and there is a 60-day deadline for the withdrawal of forces. [http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2467]

The law states that “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States , its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Since there was no declaration of war or statutory authorization for the Libya action, there has to be a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S. There was none in the Libya case.<ref>http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2458 Conservative Truth.</ref> A [[bipartisan]] group of legislators have begun action against what they percieve to be President Obama's unconstitutional misuse of power.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/house/166577-kucinich-jones-sue-white-house-over-libya-war</ref>

=== 10 Reasons to Oppose the War in Libya ===

According to Rep. [[Dennis Kucinich]]:

* '''It is unconstitutional''', violating Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which gives the power of declaring war to the Congress.
* '''It is illegal''', as the War Powers Resolution was exploited out of context in order to declare war.
* '''American public opinion is against it''', as 6 Americans out of 10 oppose the war.
* It '''distracts''' the President from more immediate concerns, such as the dire state of the economy.
* It '''costs''' funds that should be used for other purposes.
* Although the war was declared by Britain and France, '''America is paying more than other NATO allies'''.
* '''Civilians are being killed''' by the same powers that are supposed to protect them.
* '''The U.N. Resolution that authorized limited military action did not allow for regime change'''
* '''Public support of the war is eroding even in other allied countries.'''
* '''The situation is a stalemate''' that ought to be solved by political, not military means.

See more at: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/10-reasons-to-oppose-the_b_881554.html 10 Reasons to Oppose the War in Libya.]

=== Opposition of [[Ron Paul]] ===

<blockquote>
''"Why did the US intervene in a civil war in a country that has neither attacked us nor poses a threat? We are told this was another humanitarian intervention, like Clinton’s 1999 war against [[Serbia]]. But as civilian victims of the US-led coalition bombing continue to add up, it is getting difficult to determine whether the problem we are creating on the ground is worse than the one we were trying to solve."'' [http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-03-28/ron-paul-end-the-libyan-war/]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
''"Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, explained in a recent article that there is plausible reason to believe the rebels are current or former Islamist mujahedin, eager to engage in jihad. Indeed, Gaddafi has fought against Libyan Islamists for years and is seen by them as a bitter enemy. Astoundingly, it may well be that we are assisting al Qaeda in this new war! [[Ibidem]]"''
</blockquote>

==Role of China==
In the first decade of the Twenty-first century China quietly has overtaken the United States to become Africa's largest trading partner, particularly in oil, which accounts for 73 percent of all African exports. According to the Chinese government's first white paper on its economic and trade cooperation with Africa, China's trade with Africa has soared to $114.81 billion in the first 11 months of 2010. China uses about 8 million barrels per day (bpd), a demand that is projected to rise to 11.3 million bpd by 2015 and now receives 28 percent of its oil imports from Africa. China's top oil suppliers are [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Iran]], [[Angola]], Russia, [[Oman]] and [[Sudan]]. Saudi Arabia is China's top oil supplier (1.1 million bpd.) China is also buying oil from [[Chad]], [[Gabon]] and [[Nigeria]] as well. China's top African oil suppliers are [[Angola]], [[Sudan]] and [[Nigeria]]. The [[International Monetary Fund]] reports, oil now accounts for 99 percent of Sudanese exports, with China absorbing for 65 percent of them. Energy is Angola's sole export hard currency earner, with China now accounting for 35 percent of Angolan exports.<ref>http://mammutcapital.blogspot.com/2011/06/upcoming-us-china-struggle-for-african.html</ref>

===Competition for resources===
After hostilities began China evacuated over 36,000 of its energy and construction workers and shut down operations of Chinese companies with over $18.8 billion of Chinese investments in Libya.<ref>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/1119924/1/.html</ref> China alone is expected to invest on a scale of $50 billion a year in Libya and Africa by 2015, a figure - funded by America’s [[trade deficit]] with China - which the Western powers and NATO cannot match.<ref>Leslie Hook, ''China’s future in Africa, after Libya,'' March 4, 2011. The U.S trade deficit with China in 2010 was $273 billion.</ref> China, Libya's largest Asian oil customer, called for an immediate ceasefire.

Dr. [[Paul Craig Roberts]], former Assistant Secretary of US Treasury in the [[Reagan administration]] observed the joint French, British, and US coalition's objective is
{{Cquote|to eliminate China from the [[Mediterranean]]. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source. The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that's the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.}}
Roberts observes
{{Cquote| the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or [[Yemen]] or [[Bahrain]] or [[Tunisia]] and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion...these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is - they did not originate in the capital city. And we have heard from the beginning credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests, and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/26/111109/new-rebel-leader-spent-much-of.html</ref> to head up the Libyan rebellion... China has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya.<ref>http://www.presstv.ir/detail/175076.html</ref>}}

Whatever Washington’s ulterior motives, there is no doubt that NATO’s military operations in Libya are harming China’s fiscal interests. According to information from China’s Ministry of Trade, by March, when the military operation began, there were 75 major Chinese companies operating in Libya, and they had concluded $18 billion in contracts. Because of the NATO operations in Libya, the Chinese companies are expecting gigantic losses. <ref> [http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ Washington Using NATO For Proxy Conflict With China In Libya.] </ref>

==Mission creep==
UN Security Council Resolution 1973, passed in March 2011, does not authorise participating members to support the anti-Gaddafi tribes, to defend armed groups, or to oust Gaddafi. Nor does it authorise a ground invasion or military occupation. Strategic analyst Anthony Cordesman notes the similarities between Libya and Iraq and the loose uncoordinated coalitions "failure to plan for the decisive and lasting use of force, failure to plan for the civil side of military operations and to support stability operations, and focus on short term goals without a realistic plan for a successful strategic and post-conflict outcome." Cordesman notes,
{{Cquote|the lives and futures of some 6.6 million Libyans are at stake. The Franco-Anglo-American gamble now seems far too likely to fail at their expense. Moreover, it seems likely to drag the other nations that support the operation into their failure -- along with part of the reputation of NATO and credibility of the UN.... gambling on Qaddafi caving in has created a far more serious humanitarian crisis for the Libyan people than would ever have occurred if the Coalition had acted decisively from the start ...The humanitarian cost of humanitarian restraint is all too clear: Hundreds of Libyan and foreign workers have been killed...hundreds of thousands lack jobs, security, and safe conditions of life....an enduring war of attrition will turn a minor humanitarian crisis into a major one ...This kind of operation cannot be “surgical’ – if “surgical” now means minimizing bloodshed regardless of whether the patient dies. Hard, and sometimes brutal, choices need to be made between limited civilian casualties and collateral damage during the decisive use of force and an open-ended war of attrition that will produce far higher cumulative civilian casualties and collateral damage.<ref>http://csis.org/publication/libya-will-farce-stay-us-and-france-and-britain</ref>}}
Cordesman notes mission creep and boots on the ground ultimately lead to [[nation building]]:
{{Cquote|France, Britain, and the US now have a special obligation to both finish what they started in military terms, and deal with the aftermath. A post-conflict Libya will need extensive help in building a workable political system, in rebuilding the capability to govern, in both rebuilding the existing economy and correcting for decades of Qaddafi’s reckless and constantly shifting eccentricities.}}
On April 19, 2011, one month after Sarkozy, Cameron, and Obama asked the UN Security Council for authorization for a limited use of force, the UK ''[[Guardian (UK)|Guardian]]'' reported,
{{Cquote|Britain is now publicly doing what it expressly said it would not do when the no-fly intervention began: putting boots on the ground in Libya. France is taking similar action. Given that the rebel tribes have convincingly demonstrated their inability to win on their own, given the sizable negatives for David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy of an open-ended, inconclusive conflict, and given Barack Obama's flat refusal to do any more, the question now is: how many more British and French boots will follow, sooner or later, in the advisers' fateful footsteps?....By encouraging and assisting rebel resistance, as [[George H. W. Bush|George Bush Snr]] did with the [[Shia]]s of southern [[Iraq]] in 1991, Britain and France risk worsening the plight of the Libyan civilians they are primarily pledged to defend. The UN and concerned aid agencies all agree the humanitarian situation is growing steadily worse, the longer the conflict continues. ..<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref>}}

<blockquote>
Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, in particular, has been scathing about Western intervention in Libya, comparing the Resolution 1973 to “a medieval call to the crusades” and saying “the so-called civilized community, with all its might, pounces on a small country, and ruins infrastructure that has been built over generations.” Mr. Putin returned to the subject of Libya repeatedly, despite acknowledging that foreign policy decisions were not within his portfolio as prime minister. [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/world/europe/28russia.html?hp]
</blockquote>

===Manufacturing Consent===

"On how the western media makes the case for war. Our consent has been manufactured by the criminalization of Gaddafi and his government, and the Libyan people cannot believe it when I tell them what is said about him in the west. And if only you could see how they live, they are far more free than us in England in many ways, this does not fit in with the oppressive image of Gaddafi portrayed in the west.

So for example, I have had Libyans coming up to me asking me about a report in the popular French newspaper Le Figaro that came out about 3 days ago saying 10,000 people have been killed in Tripoli over the past 3 months by government forces. They are astonished, because this is complete and utter lies. " [https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend.]

=== Libya post-Gaddafi ===
Rebel fighters with support from NATO airstrikes, overtook the capital of Tripoli and toppled the government of Libya causing Gaddafi to flee into hiding. This victory finally peaked the interests of the liberal media, who remained silent, even as the President violated the War Powers Act.

As of September 2011, a single enclave of government/tribal resistance remains in Gaddafi's hometown of Sirt and is surrounded by rebels. The rebels have been recognized by the U.S. and the U.N. as the legitimate government. It remains to be seen how much of the billions of dollars held in foreign banks by the former regime will be released to the new government. It will be a year or longer before Libya can resume exporting oil at its pre-war capacity.

The situation in a post-Gaddafi Libya is uncertain. Likely, the nation will be end up an Islamic state. U.S. intelligence says as many as 20,000 advanced Russian surface-to-air missiles are missing and could end up in terror groups' arsenals. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/27/u-s-intelligence-now-says-up-to-20000-advanced-surface-to-air-missiles-mussing-from-libya/ U.S. Intelligence Now Says Up To 20,000 Advanced Surface-To-Air Missiles Missing From Lib, Weasel Zippers, September 27, 2011]</ref> [[Al Qaeda]] is very active in the region and the conflict. No one is sure how to rid the country of this terrorist element.

==External links==
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/in-arming-libyan-rebels-the-us-would-follow-an-old-dark-path/73019/ In Arming Libyan Rebels, the U.S. Would Follow an Old, Dark Path.]
[[File:Tripoli NATO bombing Libya.jpg|thumb|280px|Tripoli, NATO bombing.]]
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels.] ''The Independent'', UK.
*[http://www.sott.net/articles/show/225613-Operation-Libya-The-US-NATO-Attempted-Coup-d-Etat-in-Libya-and-the-Battle-for-Oil "Operation Libya": The US-NATO Attempted Coup d'Etat in Libya and the Battle for Oil.]
*[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2055251,00.html Why Libya's Uprising Is Bad for the World Economy.]
*[http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions False pretense for war in Libya?]
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-nato-civil-war-cameron These humanitarians come to Libya with missiles, and an agenda.] by [[Simon Jenkins]].
*[http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=24188 The West's War Against Gaddafi. Yet another long-lasting, tragic crime against humanity.]
*[http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama%E2%80%99s-war-in-libya-is-illegal-and-unconstitutional/ Obama’s War in Libya is Illegal and Unconstitutional.] by Cliff Kincaid.
*[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/30/us-libya-school-idUSTRE73T24620110430 Libya disabled children school hit in NATO strike.] Reuters.
*[http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/06/08/natos-alternate-universe-in-libya.html NATO's "Alternate Universe" in Libya.]
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reese-schonfeld/are-the-lessons-of-kosovo_b_868281.html Are The Lessons of Kosovo Spreading to Libya?]
*[http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/06/22/le-patron-de-la-ligue-arabe-fait-part-de-scrupules-sur-la-libye_1539111_1496980.html#ens_id=1481986 The head of the Arab League expressed "qualms" about Libya.] In French.
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx3UAWau9T8&%20NR=1 George Galloway talks about Libya war.] Youtube

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Libya]]
[[category:Africa]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:War]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

NATO war in Libya

2011-09-28T02:04:35Z

BrentH: /* Libya post-Gaddafi */

[[File:Gaddafi and Mandela 1.JPG|thumb|right|250px|[[Nobel Peace Prize]] winner [[Nelson Mandela]] greets an old friend and ally, Muammar Gaddafi, who supported the [[ANC]] during their struggle against [[apartheid]]. ''[[Reuters]]'' reports President Obama secretly ordered support for [[al Qaeda]] terrorists seeking Gaddafi's ouster.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umgMDJIpkn0</ref>.]]
The '''Libyan War of 2011''' started as the '''Benghazi rebellion''', a series of protests in eastern [[Libya]] on February 16, 2011 after the successful uprisings in [[Tunisia]] and [[Egypt]]. The scale of violence contrasts markedly with the more peaceful uprisings that toppled the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes. The [[Islamist]] terror group [[Al-Qaeda]] in North Africa has vowed to do everything in its power to help the uprising against the Libyan [[secular]] strongman [[Muammar Gaddafi]].<ref> [http://www.dawn.com/2011/02/24/al-qaeda-in-n-africa-backs-libya-uprising-site.html Al Qaeda in N. Africa backs Libya uprising: SITE] </ref><ref> [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/07/libya-uprising-live-updates Libya uprising.] </ref> Journalist David Wood has reported,
{{Cquote|Eastern Libya has been described by U.S. diplomats as a breeding ground for Islamist [[extremism]]. In diplomatic cables released by [[Wikileaks]], the region’s young men were said to have "nothing to lose" by resorting to violence. Sermons in the local [[mosque]]s are "laced with phraseology urging worshippers to support [[jihad]]," one diplomat reported.<ref>http://91.214.23.156/cablegate/wire.php?id=08TRIPOLI120&search=</ref>}}
Wood added,
{{Cquote|extremist elements make up only a portion of the resistance to Gaddafi and have been present in every popular uprising in the region stretching from the [[Iran]]ian revolution to the [[Egypt]]ian people’s overthrow of [[Hosni Mubarak]].<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html</ref>}}

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said [[jihad]]ists who fought against American troops in [[Iraq]] are on the front lines of the battle against Gaddafi's regime. <ref> [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links.] </ref> <ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world/guantanamo-files-libyan-detainee-now-us-ally-of-sorts.html Libyan, Once a Detainee, Is Now a U.S. Ally of Sorts.]</ref>

An international coalition intervened in what many describe as an "illegal war"<ref>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/01/obamas_illegal_war</ref> led by the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO), whose own leaders have openly questioned what the value, purpose, and reason for existence of NATO is. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/world/europe/14iht-letter14.html</ref><ref>http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_58ebd6cf-0558-5ee2-bd8d-cf27c1af7630.html</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/12/nato-usa</ref>

__TOC__
It was reported on February 24, 2011, that an emergency meeting of the [[United Nations Human Rights Council]] (UNHRC) on Libya would take no action, or make no recommendation to the [[UN General Assembly]], to remove Libya from its seat on the UN Human Rights Council, despite alleged [[human rights]] abuses.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] (UNSC) then voted on March 17, 2011, to pass Security Council resolution 1973 proposed by [[France]], along with its British and Lebanese partners, initiating the use of military force in Libya. [[China]], [[Russia]], [[India]] and [[Brazil]] (the so-called BRIC nations) all abstained from the vote. The [[Obama administration]] called for Gaddafi to step aside, and has provided assistance to the insurgent tribes. US Congressional leaders were not consulted, <ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262921/boehner-obama-libya-many-other-members-house-representatives-are-troubled-robert-costa</ref> nor has the United States Congress authorized any use of force in Libya.

Military and intelligence experts in France, [[Britain]], and the United States warned about uncertainties, but were overruled by political leaders. The result was a set of decisions focusing on short term considerations and gambling on the outcome. French, British, and US leaders did not fully coordinate, but according to Anthony Cordesman, it became clear,
{{Cquote|they sought and got international cover from the UN by claiming a no fly zone could protect civilians when their real objective was to use force as a catalyst to drive Gaddafi out of power.}}
[[Sarkozy]], [[David Cameron|Cameron]], and [[Obama]] seem to have assumed that a largely unknown, divided, and fractured group of insurgents could win through sheer political momentum, and could then be turned into a successful government. Within the first month it was obvious a "weak, divided, poorly led, and badly equipped and supplied set of rebel tribes can only hang on with the present level of air support" that was provided.

The assault on Libya set off a frenzy of speculations about the real motive behind the war in the oil-rich country, with many analysts saying that under the guise of protecting civilians, as enshrined in the UNSC Resolution 1973, Washington and its Western allies are basically after the North African country’s vast oil reserves. <ref>[http://2012indyinfo.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/presstv-germany-slams-nato-mission-in-libya/ Germany slams NATO mission in Libya.]</ref>

[[Stephen Lendman]]: Libya assault planned months ahead; See interview: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSlXO_X_fE&feature=related in Youtube.]

== Libya before the 2011 uprising ==
[[File:Libya Irrigation project.jpg|thumb|330px|Satellite view is showing irrigated farming projects at Al Khufrah Oasis in south-east Libya. Part of the "Great Man Made River Project" ($33 billion), where water is drawn from vast underground aquifers. This water is transported about 800 km (500 mi) to the coastal cities of Libya by means of the world's largest underground network of pipes.]]
In 1951 Libya was officially the poorest country in the world, <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,864742,00.html]</ref> but by the time of the 2011 uprising, Libyans' living standards were considered the highest in Africa. The GDP per Capita was more than the double of that in Egypt, and above that of Russia. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge; but more than the advances in housing, agricultural, industry, health care, education, is the advance in direct popular democracy. <ref>[http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/libfacts.htm]</ref> [[Condoleezza Rice]] praised Libya for its "excellent co-operation" in the US-led [[war on terror]]. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4773617.stm] (BBC News)</ref>.
<blockquote>
The living standards of Libyans have improved significantly since the 1970s, ranking the country among the highest in Africa. Urbanization, developmental projects, and high oil revenues have enabled the Libyan government to elevate its people's living standards. The social and economic status of women and children has particularly improved. Various subsidized or free services (health, education, housing, and basic foodstuffs) have ensured basic necessities. The low percentage of people without access to safe water (3 percent), health services (0 percent) and sanitation (2 percent), and a relatively high life expectancy (70.2 years) in 1998 indicate the improved living standards. Adequate health care and subsidized foodstuffs have sharply reduced infant mortality, from 105 per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 20 per 1,000 live births in 1998. The government also subsidizes education, which is compulsory and free between the ages of 6 and 15. The expansion of educational facilities has elevated the literacy rate (78.1 in 1998). There are universities in [[Tripoli]], Benghazi, Marsa el-Brega, Misurata, Sebha, and Tobruk. <ref>[http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Libya-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html] (SOURCE: Handbook of the Nations; CIA World Factbook.)</ref>
</blockquote>

[[Nobel Peace Prize]] recipient [[Nelson Mandela]] warned of the machinations of outside influences in a speech noting Gaddafi and leadership in Africa:
{{Cquote|In a world where the strong may seek to impose upon the more vulnerable; and where particular nations or groups of nations may still seek to decide the fate of the planet - in such a world respect for multilateralism, moderation of public discourse and a patient search for compromise become even more imperative to save the world from debilitating conflict and enduring inequality. When we dismissed criticism of our friendship with yourself, My Brother Leader, and of the relationship between [[South Africa]] and Libya, it was precisely in defence of those values.<ref>http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=222537&sn=Detail</ref>}}
[[File:Benghazi shopping center Libya.JPG|thumb|Benghazi shopping center.]]
At present Gaddafi is not well seen in the EU and USA but the Libyan people seem to be thriving with him as leader. A delegation of medical professionals from [[Russia]], [[Ukraine]] and [[Belarus]] wrote in an appeal to "Russian President [[Medvedev]] and Prime Minister [[Putin]] that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort". Libya today is not a highly polarized society divided between extremes of wealth and poverty.

On February 24, 2011, no threat was seen to Libya’s Seat on top U.N. Human Rights Body. A European Union-proposed draft resolution for a subsequent session “strongly condemns” human rights violations committed in Libya amid turmoil sparked by protesters, rather than condemning Gaddafi or the regime for committing them. [http://www.cnsnews.com/public/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human]
<blockquote>
The "United Nations Development Program (UNDP) confirms that the country had excellent prospects for achieving United Nations development goals by 2015. NATO's war will have already dashed those hopes. A collapse like the one in Iraq now threatens the country. [http://www.newsfrommiddleeast.com/?new=77210]
</blockquote>
<center>
[[File:View to Tripoli Libya.jpg|380px|thumb|center|Tripoli, 2009.]]
</center>

==Libya under Gaddafi ==
===Petrodollars and oil===
According to a Russian article titled ''Bombing of Libya - Punishment for Qaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,'' Gaddafi initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the [[Euro]] as payment for Libya's oil, and called on [[Arab]] and African nations to use a new currency, the gold dinar. Gaddafi proposed establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. The initiative was viewed negatively in the United States and the [[European Union]], with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind. But Gaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa. As early September 9, 1999, the first steps towards the formation of the [[African Union]] were taken by the Heads of State of the Organisation of African Unity.<ref>[http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/aboutau/au_in_a_nutshell_en.htm The AU in a nutshell]</ref>

In the wake of the global [[financial crisis of 2008]] forcing the United States into [[recession]], both China and Russia called for the dollar’s role in the global financial system to be diluted. Both China and the USSR abstained from UNSCR 1973.

''Bloomberg News'' reported in September 2010 that China and Russia planned to start trading in each other’s currency as the world’s second-biggest energy consumer and the largest energy supplier seek to diminish the dollar’s role in global trade. Bhanu Baweja commented {{Cquote|Given the risk to the dollar and U.S. assets from their fiscal position they want to reduce their dependence on the dollar as an invoicing currency....It makes sense for two large economies to exclude a third, overly dominant economy from their trading equation.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-08/china-russia-push-yuan-ruble-trading-to-diminish-dominance-of-u-s-dollar.html</ref>}}

===African Satellite Control Center===
An observer spelled out one of Gaddafi’s motivations for proposing an African Union:
{{Cquote|It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.

An African satellite only cost a one-time payment of $400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a $500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn't finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can [[slave]]s, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the [[World Bank]], the [[International Monetary Fund]], the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put $300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added $50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further $27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.<ref>http://www.vtcommons.org/blog/2011/04/21/ethan-allen-qaddafi</ref>}}

===Libyan Central Bank===
In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:
{{Cquote|One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned.... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a [[sovereign]] nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.<ref>Eric Encina,''[http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27208.html Globalists Target 100% State Owned Central Bank of Libya,]'' Market Oracle.</ref>}}
Ellen Brown adds,
{{Cquote|Libya not only has oil. According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS (Bank of International Settlements), the IMF and their rules.<ref>Ellen Brown, ''[http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/5625-libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking,]'' Reader Supported News, April 15, 2011.</ref>}}
Gaddafi’s proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa contravenes IMF rules and is designed to bypass them.

=== Italian Friendship treaty ===
"We signed a friendship treaty with Libya, that includes a non-aggression clause, but when the counterpart '''no longer exists''' — in this case the Libyan state — the treaty cannot be applied”, said [[Italy]]’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini on February 26, 2011, ten days after the uprising began.
{{Cquote|Italy’s treaty with Libya, signed by Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] in August 2008, calls on Italy to pay Libya $5 billion over 20 years in reparations for its colonial past there. In return, Libya pledged to help block the flow of illegal immigrants to Italy and grant favorable treatment for Italian companies seeking to do business in Libya. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/world/europe/28military.html]</ref>}}

==French intervention==

A report from Congressman [[Dennis Kucinich]] corroborated the claim of Franco Bechis<ref>''[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RkUoFsgEwm8J:www.voltairenet.org/article169069.html+French+plans+to+topple+Gaddafi+on+track+since+last+November&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com French plans to topple Gaddafi on track since last November]'', by Franco Bechis, VoltaireNet, March 26, 2011.</ref> in Italy that "plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010."<ref>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24347</ref>

On March 10, 2011, France became the first and only country to recognize the Libyan Transitional National Council “as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.”<ref> “Sarkozy’s Libyan Surprise,” ''The Economist'', March 14, 2011.</ref> "France recognizes states, not parties", said a senior official on March 9th. After a meeting arranged by [[Bernard Henri Levy|Bernard-Henri Lévy]] the next morning, on March 10th, two representatives of the Libyan opposition emerged from President Sarkozys office at the Elysée Palace to announce that "France recognizes the Libyan Transitional National Council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people". <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2</ref><ref>http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/03/france_and_libya</ref>

On March 19, two days after passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1973,<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278685</ref> French President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] convened an emergency meeting of allied and Arab leaders in [[Paris]] which endorsed the immediate deployment of military aircraft to attack Gaddafi forces defending Benghazi and establish a no-fly zone. Before the end of the meeting, French fighter planes were attacking armored vehicles and tanks outside Benghazi. Some participants at the Paris meeting were critical of the French government, both for insisting on convening the meeting before agreeing to endorse air strikes, and then for launching air strikes before the meeting was over.<ref>Allies Open Air Assault on Qaddafi’s Forces in Libya, ''New York Times'', March 19, 2011.</ref> French officials claim that meeting participants were informed of the operation beforehand. The strikes had clearly been planned and coordinated with the [[United States]] and some other NATO forces.<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service'', March 30, 2011, p. 19 pd.</ref>

[[National Public Radio]] (NPR) reported Sarkozy enjoyed a "burst of public support"<ref>http://wap.npr.org/story/134855539</ref> while the ''[[London Guardian]]'' wrote Sarkozy's actions may save him from "electoral humiliation."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/libya-crisis-nicolas-sarkozy-electoral</ref> Several analysts speculate Sarkozy used the crisis to propel France into a Superpower role, usurping the global leadership of the United States abrogated by [[President Obama]].<ref>http://www.businessandpolitics.org/?p=4651</ref> Columnist Jim Hoagland of the ''[[Washington Post]]'' observes,
{{Cquote|France is a country that has a past being involved in world affairs, wanting to count in world affairs, and being willing to pay its way for defense forces and to use those forces abroad. So, France plays a natural role in that. At a time when governments are slashing defense spending and reducing troops, France still wants to occupy an important role in world affairs....the reason you're seeing France taking on such a much larger role is that other countries, including the United States, are not willing to do it anymore. And Sarkozy is trying to fill that vacuum.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/france2_04-07.html</ref>}}

Sarkozy's approval rating stood at 30% prior to the intervention.

===Legality of French actions===
On May 29 two French lawyers, Roland Dumas and Jacques Vergès, announced plans to initiate legal proceedings against President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] for crimes against humanity over the [[NATO]] led campaign in [[Libya]]. Dumas (who also served as a foreign minister under President [[François Mitterrand]]) said that the NATO mission, which was meant to protect civilians, is in fact killing them.<ref>http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=46395</ref> On July 4 a French lawyer, Marcel Ceccaldi, called for investigation of the International Criminal Court on NATO "war crimes". [http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/07/04/libye-un-avocat-demande-une-enquete-de-la-cpi-sur-les-crimes-de-guerre-de-l-otan_1544755_1496980.html]

== National Transitional Council ==
The National Transitional Council of the Libyan Republic announced its official establishment in early March 2011 in the city of Benghazi. The stated goal was to the overthrow of Mu’ammar Gaddafi.<ref>http://ntclibya.org/english/</ref> It has been recognized by France, [[Qatar]], Italy, [[Kuwait]], [[Maldives]] and [[Gambia]]. They have proceeded to form a transitional government for the post-Gaddafi era. Before forming a government, they robbed about $505 million from the Central Bank of Libya in Benghazi.
[[File:Libya Rebels Gaining Momentum.jpg|thumb|Anti-Gaddafi tribal insurgents in March, 2011 (Photo:Reuters).]]
{{Cquote|The top leaders of the “revolutionary” masses in Benghazi are two recent defectors of what the Left dubs Gaddafi’s “murderous regime”, Mustafa Abdul Jalil a former Justice minister (who prosecuted dissenters up to the day before the armed uprising), Mahmoud Jebril a top Gaddafite neo-liberal prominent in inviting multi-nationals to take over the oil fields (FT, March 23, 2011, p. 7) and Ali Aziz al-Eisawa, Gaddafi’s former ambassador to India who jumped ship when it looked like the uprising would succeed. These self-appointed leaders of the “rebels” are staunch backers of Euro-US military intervention just as they previously were long-term backers of Gaddafi’s dictatorship and promoters of MNC takeovers of oil and gas fields. The heads of the “rebels” military council is Omar Hariri and General Abdul Fattah Younis former head of the Ministry of Interior, both with long histories (since 1969) of repressing any democratic movements.<ref>http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/euro-us-war-on-libya-official-lies-and-misconceptions-of-critics/</ref>}}
The root base of the armed uprising is Benghazi, a hotbed of tribal backers and clients of the deposed King Idris.

===Misuse of humanitarian assistance===

In May, 2011, NATO and Arab countries agreed in Rome to set up a fund to manage donations to help areas controlled by the rebels; they announced a financial mechanism to assist the opposition in Libya. This would include a partial unfreezing of Libyan assets in banks that would go into a temporary fund managed by the U.N. Sanctions Committee. And it would be intended to help the rebels with their immediate needs to cover food, medicine and hospital costs;<ref>http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/136011941/diplomats-discuss-aid-to-libyan-rebels</ref> The insurgents would gain access to a special $3 billion (£1.8 billion) trust fund established by its Western backers to finance the breakaway regions fighting against Gaddafi;<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8492745/Libyan-rebels-to-receive-1.8-billion-trust-fund.html</ref> but the Transitional National Council is planing to use money pledged for humanitarian and reconstruction purposes to buy weapons.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/amnesty-international-accuses-gaddafi-regime-of-war-crimes-in-misurata/2011/05/06/AFbPjw6F_story.html?hpid=z2</ref>
[[File:Rebel fighters hoist the former Libyan monarchy flag on the outskirts of Benghazi.jpg|thumb|Rebel fighters hoist the former Libyan monarchy flag on the outskirts of Benghazi. Modern urbanization and equipments may be clearly seen there.]]

===Insurgent Death Squads===

Insurgent tribal leaders created a wanted list and placed suspects under round-the-clock surveillance. Secret militia units raid houses without court warrants and often interrogate suspects for hours. Those released have to sign a document stating their loyalty to the revolution. As many as 30 civilians are being held at various rebel military bases around Benghazi without due process of law, said human rights activists, judges and prosecutors. In recent weeks, at least seven former members of the internal security police have turned up dead, their bodies riddled with bullets. Although it is not known who killed them, many suspect that they died at the hands of rebel-affiliated death squads. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/libyan-rebels-accused-of-reprisal-attacks/2011/05/20/AFaeAh8G_story.html?hpid=z4]

On May, 26, the deputy leader of Libya's rebel administration said it could take up to two years to organize elections, backtracking on promises of a six-month transition to democracy. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110526/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya]

==Security Council Res. 1973 and NATO==
UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 of March 17, 2011 followed on the heels of Gaddafi’s public announcement on March 2 he may throw western oil companies out of Libya, and his invitation on March 14 to Chinese, Russian, and Indian firms to produce Libyan oil in their place.<ref>''[http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/7661/Business/Economy/Gaddafi-offers-Libyan-oil-production-to-India,-Rus.aspx Gaddafi offers Libyan oil production to India, Russia, China,] Agence France-Presse, March 14, 2011.</ref> China, Russia, India and Brazil all abstained on UNSC Resolution 1973.

Despite France taking the lead role in the intervention, the Congressional Research Service reports, "Only the United States and NATO possess the command and control capabilities necessary for coalition operations enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya." France only recently rejoined the NATO alliance, in 2008, after a 40 year absence. The Congressional Research Service, which analyzes information and prepares reports for members of Congress, also states,
{{Cquote|In spite of statements underscoring NATO unity on steps announced to date, the initial planning and operational phases were also marked by significant levels of discord within Europe and [[NATO]] on the aims and future direction of the mission. A key point of contention was reportedly the amount of flexibility that NATO forces would be granted to protect civilians and civilian areas, as called for in paragraph 4 of UNSCR 1973. Reports indicate that French officials insisted on maintaining the ability to strike ground forces that threatened civilian areas, while their [[Turkish]] counterparts vocally opposed any targeting of ground forces. Adding to the strain within NATO, NATO ally [[Germany]] abstained from UNSCR 1973 and, opposed to any potential [[combat]] operation, on March 23, withdrew its naval assets in the [[Mediterranean]] from NATO command. Throughout the first week of operations, other European allies contributing to the mission, including Italy and Norway, expressed increasing frustration with the lack of agreement within NATO, with Norway refusing to deploy its fighter jets unless under they were under NATO command and control.<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya):
Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service,'' March 30, 2011, p. 20 pdf.</ref>}}

Of NATO's 28 members, 14 are said to be "actively participating," but only 6 provided military support. By June Norway announced its intention to quit the coalition<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/norway-quit-libya-operation-august</ref> and French and British leaders expressed concerns over being able to meet the costs of a war they dragged the United States into.<ref>http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/2e515285f07040df999bd6b670db791c/Article_2011-06-14-EU-NATO-Libya/id-f6d2287c00ba4816924c082ed9cc12fa</ref> Of the 22-country [[Arab League]], whose appeal prompted the United Nations to vote on intervention, only [[Qatar]] and the [[United Arab Emirates]] are involved. Of the 192 members of the [[UN General Assembly]], who all have a legal "responsibility to protect" civilians attacked by their own governments, only [[Sweden]] has responded.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref> After the authorization and commitment of NATO and U.S. forces, Secretary Gates announced,
{{Cquote|The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.}}
and warned
{{Cquote|The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the American body politic writ large—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.<ref>http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/10/robert_gates_nato_defense_secretary_questions_future_of_the_alli.html</ref>}}

===Exceeding UN mandate===
Resolution 1973 authorized strict limitations, according to international law, on NATO as the organization with responsibility for the implementation of the resolution. Particularly, it provides only for a naval blockade enforcing the arms embargo, and enforcement of a no-fly zone. On March 29, 2011, Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin commented after a meeting with NATO officials in [[Brussels, Belgium]], that Russia expressed deep concern over the interpretation of the Security Council’s resolution, as some countries have effectively turned it into an approval for ground operations.
{{Cquote|[[Moscow]] has many questions about how the UN Security Council’s resolution is being carried out...First of all, there are reports that civilians have been killed in the air strikes. This is odd if you consider the message of the resolution, which says that the foreign forces’ actions should protect civilians. So it’s hard to comprehend how you can protect civilians by killing them....we demanded that the UN Security Council be fully informed about the actions of the alliance in Libya at all times... We have reports of air strikes against convoys far from the front line. This is a far cry from the UN Security Council resolution.<ref>http://rt.com/news/coalition-libya-nato-russian-envoy/</ref>}}
[[File:Bombing Tripoli Libya.jpg|right|Bombing Tripoli, Libya.]]
NATO planes and ships have been striking cities and military installations in Libya since mid-March, 2011. Allied military officials have spoken in recent weeks of the need for escalation to help protect Libyan civilians and have called for Gaddafi to step down. Libyan officials have said that NATO is picking sides in a civil war and complained that strikes on Gaddafi’s Tripoli compound are attempts to assassinate the leader of a sovereign country. NATO launched its largest airstrike against Moammar Gaddafi’s regime on May, 24, 2011, with at least 15 massive explosions rocking the Libyan capital. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/french-officials-france-and-britain-to-use-attack-helicopters-in-libya/2011/05/23/AFTF909G_story.html?hpid=z2]
<blockquote>
On May 15, two months into the NATO bombing campaign against loyal Gaddafi’s forces, Britain’s top military commander said that the Libyan leader could remain “clinging to power” unless NATO broadened its bombing targets to include the country’s infrastructure. <ref>http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html</ref>
</blockquote>

The French and the British described plans for a wargames exercise for an attack on Libya last November, in the end they used those military assets that had been mobilized for the real thing 3 months ago. We know that NATO doesn’t just go and bomb a country over night, these things are planned far in advance, and in this case there is conclusive evidence that there have been plans for this for many many years. <ref> [https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend] June 4, 2011. </ref>
<blockquote>
On Jun 18, Prime minister of Libya Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi accused [[NATO]] of a "new level of aggression" over the past 72 hours in which he said the military alliance intentionally targeted civilian buildings, including a hotel and a university. "It has become clear to us that NATO has moved on to deliberately hitting civilian buildings. ... This is a crime against humanity," he told reporters in the capital. Libya's Health Ministry released new casualty figures that put the number of civilians killed in NATO air strikes through to June 7 at 856. <ref> [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/gaddafi-rages-at-nato-after-bombing-2299509.html Gaddafi rages at NATO after bombing.] </ref>
</blockquote>
[[File:Women with Gaddafi Libya.jpg|thumb|280px|Lizzie Cocker with mum and two daughters from Sudan who have been living in Libya for 17 years. They had to flee from Misrata to Tripoli following the vicious atrocities committed by the pro-NATO rebels against black skinned peoples. They are firmly standing behind their leader Moammar Gadaffi. The sisters have written on the poster, on the left: "King of Kings of Africa" and on the right: "Our souls are for you".]]
==== Italy - Berlusconi ====
[[Italy]] called for a suspension of hostilities in [[Libya]] on June 22 in the latest sign of dissent within [[NATO]] as the civilian death toll mounts and [[Muammar Gaddafi]] shows no signs of quitting power. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110622/ts_afp/libyaconflictnatoitalydiplomacy]

===African response to UN & NATO intervention===
NATO's Libyan intervention has proven fractious in black Africa; in March [[Nigeria]]'s Foreign Minister Odein Ajumogobia commented, "The contradictions between principle and national interest ... have enabled the international community to impose a no-fly zone over Libya ostensibly to protect innocent civilians from slaughter, but to watch seemingly helplessly (in [[Ivory Coast]]) as ...men, women and children are slaughtered in equally, even if less egregious, violence."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503543_162-503543.html?keyword=ivory+coast</ref>
<blockquote>
Amr Moussa, the outgoing head of the Arab League and a front runner to become president of a democratic Egypt, has voiced reservations about NATO's bombing campaign in Libya, calling for a ceasefire and talks on a political settlement while Muammar Gaddafi remains in power. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/21/arab-league-chief-libya-air-strikes]
</blockquote>
The Arab League, which in March asked the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians, condemned the loss of life in bombing incidents.
<blockquote>
"When the Arab League agreed on the idea of having a no-fly zone over Libya it was to protect civilians but when civilians get killed this has to be condemned with the harshest of statements," said Deputy Secretary-General Ahmed Ben Helli.
</blockquote>
The Libyan leader says the Western-led military campaign is an act of colonial aggression designed to steal Libya's oil. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110620/wl_nm/us_libya]

==United States intervention==
[[File:Treaty of Tripoli PD LC.jpg|thumb|Treaty of Tripoli, Libya was one of the first nation to recognize the US in 1796.]]
===Frozen assets===
President Obama moved swiftly to support French plans to frustrate Gaddafi’s proposal for an African Union with his unilateral declaration of a national emergency in order to freeze all of the Bank of Libya’s $30 billion of funds to which America had access. This was reported in the U.S. press as a freeze of the funds of "Colonel Qaddafi, his children and family, and senior members of the Libyan government.<ref>''New York Times'', February 27, 2011.</ref> The second section of Obama’s decree explicitly targeted "All property and interests… of the Government of Libya, its agencies, instrumentalities, and controlled entities, and the Central Bank of Libya.<ref>Executive Order of February 25, 2011, citing International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, seizes all Libyan Govt assets, February 25, 2011, link. The authority granted to the President by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act "may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose" (50 U.S.C. 1701).</ref> The consequences of the $30-billion freeze for [[Africa]], as well as for Libya, have been spelled out by an African observer:
{{Cquote|The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.}}

===War Powers Act===

Under the [[War Powers Act]] of 1973 the U.S President has limited authority to use military force without Congressional authorization when there is an imminent [[national security]] threat, however President Obama made clear that he ordered the use of force for other reasons. Members of Congress of both parties have expressed concern the President may have violated the law in doing so.<ref>http://rooney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3190:rooney-resolution-president-should-obtain-congressional-authorization-or-end-military-campaign-in-libya-&catid=48:2011-press-releases</ref> The War Powers Act specifically states that the President’s power to introduce forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities can only be exercised pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. The War Powers Act requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific Congressional authorization. None of these prerequisites have been met.

On March 21, 2011, President Obama publicly announced U.S. military forces commenced no fly-zone operations in Libya two days earlier, on March 19, "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe" and cited UN Resolutions as giving him the authority to do so. Secretary of Defense [[Robert Gates]] warned establishment of a no-fly zone meant attacking Libaya.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20038391-503544.html</ref> Officials as National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough also opposed to attacking Libya; but "[[Hillary Clinton]] won the bureaucratic battle to use DOD resources to achieve what's essentially the State Department's objective... and Obama let it happen". <ref>[http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/18/how_obama_turned_on_a_dime_toward_war How Obama turned on a dime toward war.] </ref> The Charter of the [[United Nations]], in Article 2(4), prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of a member state, and many observers have wondered whether the establishment of a no-fly zone would constitute a violation of this prohibition. The Congressional Research Services advised that a no-fly zone imposed against a state that has not carried out an attack on its neighbors may consider the imposition of a no-fly zone an “armed attack.” CRS warned that even if no-fly zone operations in a given state do not constitute an “armed attack",
{{Cquote|that state, and other members of the international community, might consider them a violation of the prohibition of the “threat or use of force,” as well as of the customary duty of non-intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states.}}

NATO's Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee days before President Obama publicly admitted to intervention that U.S. intelligence knew of [[al Qaeda]] and [[Hezbollah]] elements among the Libyan insurgents.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8414583/Libya-al-Qaeda-among-Libya-rebels-Nato-chief-fears.html</ref> A document published by the U.S. [[West Point]] Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center reveals that Libya sent more fighters to the [[Operation_Iraqi_Freedom#InsurgencyIraq|Islamic insurgency]] than any other [[Muslim]] country (from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah.).<ref>[http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf The Sinjar documents], a collection of al Qaeda computer data captured by Americans in 2007 in a predawn raid near Sinjar, Iraq, six miles from the Syrian border. The documents included background information on around 750 foreign fighters, who migrated to Iraq to kill American soldiers, many of those fighters coming from among the very people we are now pledging to protect. David Wood wrote: "Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah. On a per capita basis, that’s more than twice as many than came from any other Arabic-speaking country, amounting to what the counter terrorism center called a Libyan “surge” of young men eager to kill Americans."</ref> This set off a fierce debate in the [[Obama administration]] over the wisdom of arming terrorists.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss</ref> It is now known however, that sometime prior to March 31, 2011,<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=2&hp</ref> President Obama signed a secret Presidential Finding authorizing support for the insurgents.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref> Direct arms support would violate the arms embargo imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1970 on February 26, 2011.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref>

Public opinion initially was divided on support for President Obama's actions, within 30 days however, opposition rose 15%<ref>http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/americans-rapidly-turn-against-obama-over-handling-of-libyan-intervention.php</ref> as the reality of the intervention set in.

===Legality of U.S. military actions===
The ''[[Washington Post]]'' reported on May 20, 2011 President Obama missed the legal deadline set in the 1973 law that required him to obtain Congressional approval for U.S. military operations in Libya. Under the [[Nixon]]-era War Powers Resolution, the president must obtain Congressional authorization of military action within 60 days, or else begin withdrawing forces.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-likely-to-miss-deadline-for-congressional-approval-of-libya-operations/2011/05/19/AFFLKn7G_story.html</ref> Sen. [[Richard Lugar]] of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations warned President Obama,
[[File:NATO strike Libya.jpg|right|220px|NATO strike, Libya.]]
{{Cquote|U.S. military operations in Libya have assumed a different character than you suggested when you announced the decision to initiate them. In your March 21 letter to the Congress, you indicated that these operations would be limited in their nature, duration, and scope, and focused on protecting civilians and civilian populated areas from attack. Two months into these operations, your Administration is unable to specify what limits will apply to the duration of the operations, and the coalition in which we are participating appears to have expanded its objectives to weakening the Gaddafi regime’s hold on power through strikes on leadership targets and, potentially, infrastructure targets.<ref>http://lugar.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=332967&</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-obama-above-the-law/2011/05/26/AGL5zyCH_story.html</ref>}}

The evidence is President Obama’s war in Libya is illegal and unconstitutional. Columnist George Will laid out the case in, “Is Obama Above the Law?” The war is a violation of the War Powers Act, which says the president can go to war without Congressional approval only if there is an imminent threat to the U.S. and there is a 60-day deadline for the withdrawal of forces. [http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2467]

The law states that “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States , its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Since there was no declaration of war or statutory authorization for the Libya action, there has to be a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S. There was none in the Libya case.<ref>http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2458 Conservative Truth.</ref> A [[bipartisan]] group of legislators have begun action against what they percieve to be President Obama's unconstitutional misuse of power.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/house/166577-kucinich-jones-sue-white-house-over-libya-war</ref>

=== 10 Reasons to Oppose the War in Libya ===

According to Rep. [[Dennis Kucinich]]:

* '''It is unconstitutional''', violating Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which gives the power of declaring war to the Congress.
* '''It is illegal''', as the War Powers Resolution was exploited out of context in order to declare war.
* '''American public opinion is against it''', as 6 Americans out of 10 oppose the war.
* It '''distracts''' the President from more immediate concerns, such as the dire state of the economy.
* It '''costs''' funds that should be used for other purposes.
* Although the war was declared by Britain and France, '''America is paying more than other NATO allies'''.
* '''Civilians are being killed''' by the same powers that are supposed to protect them.
* '''The U.N. Resolution that authorized limited military action did not allow for regime change'''
* '''Public support of the war is eroding even in other allied countries.'''
* '''The situation is a stalemate''' that ought to be solved by political, not military means.

See more at: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/10-reasons-to-oppose-the_b_881554.html 10 Reasons to Oppose the War in Libya.]

=== Opposition of [[Ron Paul]] ===

<blockquote>
''"Why did the US intervene in a civil war in a country that has neither attacked us nor poses a threat? We are told this was another humanitarian intervention, like Clinton’s 1999 war against [[Serbia]]. But as civilian victims of the US-led coalition bombing continue to add up, it is getting difficult to determine whether the problem we are creating on the ground is worse than the one we were trying to solve."'' [http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-03-28/ron-paul-end-the-libyan-war/]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
''"Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, explained in a recent article that there is plausible reason to believe the rebels are current or former Islamist mujahedin, eager to engage in jihad. Indeed, Gaddafi has fought against Libyan Islamists for years and is seen by them as a bitter enemy. Astoundingly, it may well be that we are assisting al Qaeda in this new war! [[Ibidem]]"''
</blockquote>

==Role of China==
In the first decade of the Twenty-first century China quietly has overtaken the United States to become Africa's largest trading partner, particularly in oil, which accounts for 73 percent of all African exports. According to the Chinese government's first white paper on its economic and trade cooperation with Africa, China's trade with Africa has soared to $114.81 billion in the first 11 months of 2010. China uses about 8 million barrels per day (bpd), a demand that is projected to rise to 11.3 million bpd by 2015 and now receives 28 percent of its oil imports from Africa. China's top oil suppliers are [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Iran]], [[Angola]], Russia, [[Oman]] and [[Sudan]]. Saudi Arabia is China's top oil supplier (1.1 million bpd.) China is also buying oil from [[Chad]], [[Gabon]] and [[Nigeria]] as well. China's top African oil suppliers are [[Angola]], [[Sudan]] and [[Nigeria]]. The [[International Monetary Fund]] reports, oil now accounts for 99 percent of Sudanese exports, with China absorbing for 65 percent of them. Energy is Angola's sole export hard currency earner, with China now accounting for 35 percent of Angolan exports.<ref>http://mammutcapital.blogspot.com/2011/06/upcoming-us-china-struggle-for-african.html</ref>

===Competition for resources===
After hostilities began China evacuated over 36,000 of its energy and construction workers and shut down operations of Chinese companies with over $18.8 billion of Chinese investments in Libya.<ref>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/1119924/1/.html</ref> China alone is expected to invest on a scale of $50 billion a year in Libya and Africa by 2015, a figure - funded by America’s [[trade deficit]] with China - which the Western powers and NATO cannot match.<ref>Leslie Hook, ''China’s future in Africa, after Libya,'' March 4, 2011. The U.S trade deficit with China in 2010 was $273 billion.</ref> China, Libya's largest Asian oil customer, called for an immediate ceasefire.

Dr. [[Paul Craig Roberts]], former Assistant Secretary of US Treasury in the [[Reagan administration]] observed the joint French, British, and US coalition's objective is
{{Cquote|to eliminate China from the [[Mediterranean]]. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source. The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that's the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.}}
Roberts observes
{{Cquote| the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or [[Yemen]] or [[Bahrain]] or [[Tunisia]] and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion...these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is - they did not originate in the capital city. And we have heard from the beginning credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests, and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/26/111109/new-rebel-leader-spent-much-of.html</ref> to head up the Libyan rebellion... China has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya.<ref>http://www.presstv.ir/detail/175076.html</ref>}}

Whatever Washington’s ulterior motives, there is no doubt that NATO’s military operations in Libya are harming China’s fiscal interests. According to information from China’s Ministry of Trade, by March, when the military operation began, there were 75 major Chinese companies operating in Libya, and they had concluded $18 billion in contracts. Because of the NATO operations in Libya, the Chinese companies are expecting gigantic losses. <ref> [http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ Washington Using NATO For Proxy Conflict With China In Libya.] </ref>

==Mission creep==
UN Security Council Resolution 1973, passed in March 2011, does not authorise participating members to support the anti-Gaddafi tribes, to defend armed groups, or to oust Gaddafi. Nor does it authorise a ground invasion or military occupation. Strategic analyst Anthony Cordesman notes the similarities between Libya and Iraq and the loose uncoordinated coalitions "failure to plan for the decisive and lasting use of force, failure to plan for the civil side of military operations and to support stability operations, and focus on short term goals without a realistic plan for a successful strategic and post-conflict outcome." Cordesman notes,
{{Cquote|the lives and futures of some 6.6 million Libyans are at stake. The Franco-Anglo-American gamble now seems far too likely to fail at their expense. Moreover, it seems likely to drag the other nations that support the operation into their failure -- along with part of the reputation of NATO and credibility of the UN.... gambling on Qaddafi caving in has created a far more serious humanitarian crisis for the Libyan people than would ever have occurred if the Coalition had acted decisively from the start ...The humanitarian cost of humanitarian restraint is all too clear: Hundreds of Libyan and foreign workers have been killed...hundreds of thousands lack jobs, security, and safe conditions of life....an enduring war of attrition will turn a minor humanitarian crisis into a major one ...This kind of operation cannot be “surgical’ – if “surgical” now means minimizing bloodshed regardless of whether the patient dies. Hard, and sometimes brutal, choices need to be made between limited civilian casualties and collateral damage during the decisive use of force and an open-ended war of attrition that will produce far higher cumulative civilian casualties and collateral damage.<ref>http://csis.org/publication/libya-will-farce-stay-us-and-france-and-britain</ref>}}
Cordesman notes mission creep and boots on the ground ultimately lead to [[nation building]]:
{{Cquote|France, Britain, and the US now have a special obligation to both finish what they started in military terms, and deal with the aftermath. A post-conflict Libya will need extensive help in building a workable political system, in rebuilding the capability to govern, in both rebuilding the existing economy and correcting for decades of Qaddafi’s reckless and constantly shifting eccentricities.}}
On April 19, 2011, one month after Sarkozy, Cameron, and Obama asked the UN Security Council for authorization for a limited use of force, the UK ''[[Guardian (UK)|Guardian]]'' reported,
{{Cquote|Britain is now publicly doing what it expressly said it would not do when the no-fly intervention began: putting boots on the ground in Libya. France is taking similar action. Given that the rebel tribes have convincingly demonstrated their inability to win on their own, given the sizable negatives for David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy of an open-ended, inconclusive conflict, and given Barack Obama's flat refusal to do any more, the question now is: how many more British and French boots will follow, sooner or later, in the advisers' fateful footsteps?....By encouraging and assisting rebel resistance, as [[George H. W. Bush|George Bush Snr]] did with the [[Shia]]s of southern [[Iraq]] in 1991, Britain and France risk worsening the plight of the Libyan civilians they are primarily pledged to defend. The UN and concerned aid agencies all agree the humanitarian situation is growing steadily worse, the longer the conflict continues. ..<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref>}}

<blockquote>
Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, in particular, has been scathing about Western intervention in Libya, comparing the Resolution 1973 to “a medieval call to the crusades” and saying “the so-called civilized community, with all its might, pounces on a small country, and ruins infrastructure that has been built over generations.” Mr. Putin returned to the subject of Libya repeatedly, despite acknowledging that foreign policy decisions were not within his portfolio as prime minister. [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/world/europe/28russia.html?hp]
</blockquote>

===Manufacturing Consent===

"On how the western media makes the case for war. Our consent has been manufactured by the criminalization of Gaddafi and his government, and the Libyan people cannot believe it when I tell them what is said about him in the west. And if only you could see how they live, they are far more free than us in England in many ways, this does not fit in with the oppressive image of Gaddafi portrayed in the west.

So for example, I have had Libyans coming up to me asking me about a report in the popular French newspaper Le Figaro that came out about 3 days ago saying 10,000 people have been killed in Tripoli over the past 3 months by government forces. They are astonished, because this is complete and utter lies. " [https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend.]

=== Libya post-Gaddafi ===
Rebel fighters with support from NATO airstrikes, overtook the capital of Tripoli and toppled the government of Libya causing Gaddafi to flee into hiding. This victory finally peaked the interests of the liberal media, who remained silent, even as the President violated the War Powers Act.

As of September 2011, a single enclave of government/tribal resistance remains in Gaddafi's hometown of Sirt and is surrounded by rebels. The rebels have been recognized by the U.S. and the U.N. as the legitimate government. It remains to be seen how much of the billions of dollars held in foreign banks by the former regime will be released to the new government. It will be a year or longer before Libya can resume full capacity oil shipments.

Knowledgeable people agree, the situation in a post-Gaddafi is uncertain. Likely, the nation will be end up an Islamic state. U.S. intelligence says as many as 20,000 advanced Russian surface-to-air missiles are missing and could end up in terror groups' arsenals. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/27/u-s-intelligence-now-says-up-to-20000-advanced-surface-to-air-missiles-mussing-from-libya/ U.S. Intelligence Now Says Up To 20,000 Advanced Surface-To-Air Missiles Missing From Lib, Weasel Zippers, September 27, 2011]</ref> [[Al Qaeda]] is very active in the region and the conflict. No one is sure how to rid the country of this terrorist element.

==External links==
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/in-arming-libyan-rebels-the-us-would-follow-an-old-dark-path/73019/ In Arming Libyan Rebels, the U.S. Would Follow an Old, Dark Path.]
[[File:Tripoli NATO bombing Libya.jpg|thumb|280px|Tripoli, NATO bombing.]]
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels.] ''The Independent'', UK.
*[http://www.sott.net/articles/show/225613-Operation-Libya-The-US-NATO-Attempted-Coup-d-Etat-in-Libya-and-the-Battle-for-Oil "Operation Libya": The US-NATO Attempted Coup d'Etat in Libya and the Battle for Oil.]
*[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2055251,00.html Why Libya's Uprising Is Bad for the World Economy.]
*[http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions False pretense for war in Libya?]
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-nato-civil-war-cameron These humanitarians come to Libya with missiles, and an agenda.] by [[Simon Jenkins]].
*[http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=24188 The West's War Against Gaddafi. Yet another long-lasting, tragic crime against humanity.]
*[http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama%E2%80%99s-war-in-libya-is-illegal-and-unconstitutional/ Obama’s War in Libya is Illegal and Unconstitutional.] by Cliff Kincaid.
*[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/30/us-libya-school-idUSTRE73T24620110430 Libya disabled children school hit in NATO strike.] Reuters.
*[http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/06/08/natos-alternate-universe-in-libya.html NATO's "Alternate Universe" in Libya.]
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reese-schonfeld/are-the-lessons-of-kosovo_b_868281.html Are The Lessons of Kosovo Spreading to Libya?]
*[http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/06/22/le-patron-de-la-ligue-arabe-fait-part-de-scrupules-sur-la-libye_1539111_1496980.html#ens_id=1481986 The head of the Arab League expressed "qualms" about Libya.] In French.
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx3UAWau9T8&%20NR=1 George Galloway talks about Libya war.] Youtube

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Libya]]
[[category:Africa]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:War]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

NATO war in Libya

2011-09-28T02:03:47Z

BrentH: /* = Libya post-Gaddafi = */ why not name the town?

[[File:Gaddafi and Mandela 1.JPG|thumb|right|250px|[[Nobel Peace Prize]] winner [[Nelson Mandela]] greets an old friend and ally, Muammar Gaddafi, who supported the [[ANC]] during their struggle against [[apartheid]]. ''[[Reuters]]'' reports President Obama secretly ordered support for [[al Qaeda]] terrorists seeking Gaddafi's ouster.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umgMDJIpkn0</ref>.]]
The '''Libyan War of 2011''' started as the '''Benghazi rebellion''', a series of protests in eastern [[Libya]] on February 16, 2011 after the successful uprisings in [[Tunisia]] and [[Egypt]]. The scale of violence contrasts markedly with the more peaceful uprisings that toppled the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes. The [[Islamist]] terror group [[Al-Qaeda]] in North Africa has vowed to do everything in its power to help the uprising against the Libyan [[secular]] strongman [[Muammar Gaddafi]].<ref> [http://www.dawn.com/2011/02/24/al-qaeda-in-n-africa-backs-libya-uprising-site.html Al Qaeda in N. Africa backs Libya uprising: SITE] </ref><ref> [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/07/libya-uprising-live-updates Libya uprising.] </ref> Journalist David Wood has reported,
{{Cquote|Eastern Libya has been described by U.S. diplomats as a breeding ground for Islamist [[extremism]]. In diplomatic cables released by [[Wikileaks]], the region’s young men were said to have "nothing to lose" by resorting to violence. Sermons in the local [[mosque]]s are "laced with phraseology urging worshippers to support [[jihad]]," one diplomat reported.<ref>http://91.214.23.156/cablegate/wire.php?id=08TRIPOLI120&search=</ref>}}
Wood added,
{{Cquote|extremist elements make up only a portion of the resistance to Gaddafi and have been present in every popular uprising in the region stretching from the [[Iran]]ian revolution to the [[Egypt]]ian people’s overthrow of [[Hosni Mubarak]].<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html</ref>}}

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said [[jihad]]ists who fought against American troops in [[Iraq]] are on the front lines of the battle against Gaddafi's regime. <ref> [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links.] </ref> <ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world/guantanamo-files-libyan-detainee-now-us-ally-of-sorts.html Libyan, Once a Detainee, Is Now a U.S. Ally of Sorts.]</ref>

An international coalition intervened in what many describe as an "illegal war"<ref>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/01/obamas_illegal_war</ref> led by the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO), whose own leaders have openly questioned what the value, purpose, and reason for existence of NATO is. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/world/europe/14iht-letter14.html</ref><ref>http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_58ebd6cf-0558-5ee2-bd8d-cf27c1af7630.html</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/12/nato-usa</ref>

__TOC__
It was reported on February 24, 2011, that an emergency meeting of the [[United Nations Human Rights Council]] (UNHRC) on Libya would take no action, or make no recommendation to the [[UN General Assembly]], to remove Libya from its seat on the UN Human Rights Council, despite alleged [[human rights]] abuses.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] (UNSC) then voted on March 17, 2011, to pass Security Council resolution 1973 proposed by [[France]], along with its British and Lebanese partners, initiating the use of military force in Libya. [[China]], [[Russia]], [[India]] and [[Brazil]] (the so-called BRIC nations) all abstained from the vote. The [[Obama administration]] called for Gaddafi to step aside, and has provided assistance to the insurgent tribes. US Congressional leaders were not consulted, <ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262921/boehner-obama-libya-many-other-members-house-representatives-are-troubled-robert-costa</ref> nor has the United States Congress authorized any use of force in Libya.

Military and intelligence experts in France, [[Britain]], and the United States warned about uncertainties, but were overruled by political leaders. The result was a set of decisions focusing on short term considerations and gambling on the outcome. French, British, and US leaders did not fully coordinate, but according to Anthony Cordesman, it became clear,
{{Cquote|they sought and got international cover from the UN by claiming a no fly zone could protect civilians when their real objective was to use force as a catalyst to drive Gaddafi out of power.}}
[[Sarkozy]], [[David Cameron|Cameron]], and [[Obama]] seem to have assumed that a largely unknown, divided, and fractured group of insurgents could win through sheer political momentum, and could then be turned into a successful government. Within the first month it was obvious a "weak, divided, poorly led, and badly equipped and supplied set of rebel tribes can only hang on with the present level of air support" that was provided.

The assault on Libya set off a frenzy of speculations about the real motive behind the war in the oil-rich country, with many analysts saying that under the guise of protecting civilians, as enshrined in the UNSC Resolution 1973, Washington and its Western allies are basically after the North African country’s vast oil reserves. <ref>[http://2012indyinfo.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/presstv-germany-slams-nato-mission-in-libya/ Germany slams NATO mission in Libya.]</ref>

[[Stephen Lendman]]: Libya assault planned months ahead; See interview: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSlXO_X_fE&feature=related in Youtube.]

== Libya before the 2011 uprising ==
[[File:Libya Irrigation project.jpg|thumb|330px|Satellite view is showing irrigated farming projects at Al Khufrah Oasis in south-east Libya. Part of the "Great Man Made River Project" ($33 billion), where water is drawn from vast underground aquifers. This water is transported about 800 km (500 mi) to the coastal cities of Libya by means of the world's largest underground network of pipes.]]
In 1951 Libya was officially the poorest country in the world, <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,864742,00.html]</ref> but by the time of the 2011 uprising, Libyans' living standards were considered the highest in Africa. The GDP per Capita was more than the double of that in Egypt, and above that of Russia. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge; but more than the advances in housing, agricultural, industry, health care, education, is the advance in direct popular democracy. <ref>[http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/libfacts.htm]</ref> [[Condoleezza Rice]] praised Libya for its "excellent co-operation" in the US-led [[war on terror]]. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4773617.stm] (BBC News)</ref>.
<blockquote>
The living standards of Libyans have improved significantly since the 1970s, ranking the country among the highest in Africa. Urbanization, developmental projects, and high oil revenues have enabled the Libyan government to elevate its people's living standards. The social and economic status of women and children has particularly improved. Various subsidized or free services (health, education, housing, and basic foodstuffs) have ensured basic necessities. The low percentage of people without access to safe water (3 percent), health services (0 percent) and sanitation (2 percent), and a relatively high life expectancy (70.2 years) in 1998 indicate the improved living standards. Adequate health care and subsidized foodstuffs have sharply reduced infant mortality, from 105 per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 20 per 1,000 live births in 1998. The government also subsidizes education, which is compulsory and free between the ages of 6 and 15. The expansion of educational facilities has elevated the literacy rate (78.1 in 1998). There are universities in [[Tripoli]], Benghazi, Marsa el-Brega, Misurata, Sebha, and Tobruk. <ref>[http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Libya-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html] (SOURCE: Handbook of the Nations; CIA World Factbook.)</ref>
</blockquote>

[[Nobel Peace Prize]] recipient [[Nelson Mandela]] warned of the machinations of outside influences in a speech noting Gaddafi and leadership in Africa:
{{Cquote|In a world where the strong may seek to impose upon the more vulnerable; and where particular nations or groups of nations may still seek to decide the fate of the planet - in such a world respect for multilateralism, moderation of public discourse and a patient search for compromise become even more imperative to save the world from debilitating conflict and enduring inequality. When we dismissed criticism of our friendship with yourself, My Brother Leader, and of the relationship between [[South Africa]] and Libya, it was precisely in defence of those values.<ref>http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=222537&sn=Detail</ref>}}
[[File:Benghazi shopping center Libya.JPG|thumb|Benghazi shopping center.]]
At present Gaddafi is not well seen in the EU and USA but the Libyan people seem to be thriving with him as leader. A delegation of medical professionals from [[Russia]], [[Ukraine]] and [[Belarus]] wrote in an appeal to "Russian President [[Medvedev]] and Prime Minister [[Putin]] that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort". Libya today is not a highly polarized society divided between extremes of wealth and poverty.

On February 24, 2011, no threat was seen to Libya’s Seat on top U.N. Human Rights Body. A European Union-proposed draft resolution for a subsequent session “strongly condemns” human rights violations committed in Libya amid turmoil sparked by protesters, rather than condemning Gaddafi or the regime for committing them. [http://www.cnsnews.com/public/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human]
<blockquote>
The "United Nations Development Program (UNDP) confirms that the country had excellent prospects for achieving United Nations development goals by 2015. NATO's war will have already dashed those hopes. A collapse like the one in Iraq now threatens the country. [http://www.newsfrommiddleeast.com/?new=77210]
</blockquote>
<center>
[[File:View to Tripoli Libya.jpg|380px|thumb|center|Tripoli, 2009.]]
</center>

==Libya under Gaddafi ==
===Petrodollars and oil===
According to a Russian article titled ''Bombing of Libya - Punishment for Qaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,'' Gaddafi initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the [[Euro]] as payment for Libya's oil, and called on [[Arab]] and African nations to use a new currency, the gold dinar. Gaddafi proposed establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. The initiative was viewed negatively in the United States and the [[European Union]], with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind. But Gaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa. As early September 9, 1999, the first steps towards the formation of the [[African Union]] were taken by the Heads of State of the Organisation of African Unity.<ref>[http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/aboutau/au_in_a_nutshell_en.htm The AU in a nutshell]</ref>

In the wake of the global [[financial crisis of 2008]] forcing the United States into [[recession]], both China and Russia called for the dollar’s role in the global financial system to be diluted. Both China and the USSR abstained from UNSCR 1973.

''Bloomberg News'' reported in September 2010 that China and Russia planned to start trading in each other’s currency as the world’s second-biggest energy consumer and the largest energy supplier seek to diminish the dollar’s role in global trade. Bhanu Baweja commented {{Cquote|Given the risk to the dollar and U.S. assets from their fiscal position they want to reduce their dependence on the dollar as an invoicing currency....It makes sense for two large economies to exclude a third, overly dominant economy from their trading equation.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-08/china-russia-push-yuan-ruble-trading-to-diminish-dominance-of-u-s-dollar.html</ref>}}

===African Satellite Control Center===
An observer spelled out one of Gaddafi’s motivations for proposing an African Union:
{{Cquote|It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.

An African satellite only cost a one-time payment of $400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a $500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn't finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can [[slave]]s, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the [[World Bank]], the [[International Monetary Fund]], the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put $300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added $50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further $27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.<ref>http://www.vtcommons.org/blog/2011/04/21/ethan-allen-qaddafi</ref>}}

===Libyan Central Bank===
In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:
{{Cquote|One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned.... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a [[sovereign]] nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.<ref>Eric Encina,''[http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27208.html Globalists Target 100% State Owned Central Bank of Libya,]'' Market Oracle.</ref>}}
Ellen Brown adds,
{{Cquote|Libya not only has oil. According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS (Bank of International Settlements), the IMF and their rules.<ref>Ellen Brown, ''[http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/5625-libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking,]'' Reader Supported News, April 15, 2011.</ref>}}
Gaddafi’s proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa contravenes IMF rules and is designed to bypass them.

=== Italian Friendship treaty ===
"We signed a friendship treaty with Libya, that includes a non-aggression clause, but when the counterpart '''no longer exists''' — in this case the Libyan state — the treaty cannot be applied”, said [[Italy]]’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini on February 26, 2011, ten days after the uprising began.
{{Cquote|Italy’s treaty with Libya, signed by Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] in August 2008, calls on Italy to pay Libya $5 billion over 20 years in reparations for its colonial past there. In return, Libya pledged to help block the flow of illegal immigrants to Italy and grant favorable treatment for Italian companies seeking to do business in Libya. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/world/europe/28military.html]</ref>}}

==French intervention==

A report from Congressman [[Dennis Kucinich]] corroborated the claim of Franco Bechis<ref>''[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RkUoFsgEwm8J:www.voltairenet.org/article169069.html+French+plans+to+topple+Gaddafi+on+track+since+last+November&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com French plans to topple Gaddafi on track since last November]'', by Franco Bechis, VoltaireNet, March 26, 2011.</ref> in Italy that "plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010."<ref>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24347</ref>

On March 10, 2011, France became the first and only country to recognize the Libyan Transitional National Council “as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.”<ref> “Sarkozy’s Libyan Surprise,” ''The Economist'', March 14, 2011.</ref> "France recognizes states, not parties", said a senior official on March 9th. After a meeting arranged by [[Bernard Henri Levy|Bernard-Henri Lévy]] the next morning, on March 10th, two representatives of the Libyan opposition emerged from President Sarkozys office at the Elysée Palace to announce that "France recognizes the Libyan Transitional National Council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people". <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2</ref><ref>http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/03/france_and_libya</ref>

On March 19, two days after passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1973,<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278685</ref> French President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] convened an emergency meeting of allied and Arab leaders in [[Paris]] which endorsed the immediate deployment of military aircraft to attack Gaddafi forces defending Benghazi and establish a no-fly zone. Before the end of the meeting, French fighter planes were attacking armored vehicles and tanks outside Benghazi. Some participants at the Paris meeting were critical of the French government, both for insisting on convening the meeting before agreeing to endorse air strikes, and then for launching air strikes before the meeting was over.<ref>Allies Open Air Assault on Qaddafi’s Forces in Libya, ''New York Times'', March 19, 2011.</ref> French officials claim that meeting participants were informed of the operation beforehand. The strikes had clearly been planned and coordinated with the [[United States]] and some other NATO forces.<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service'', March 30, 2011, p. 19 pd.</ref>

[[National Public Radio]] (NPR) reported Sarkozy enjoyed a "burst of public support"<ref>http://wap.npr.org/story/134855539</ref> while the ''[[London Guardian]]'' wrote Sarkozy's actions may save him from "electoral humiliation."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/libya-crisis-nicolas-sarkozy-electoral</ref> Several analysts speculate Sarkozy used the crisis to propel France into a Superpower role, usurping the global leadership of the United States abrogated by [[President Obama]].<ref>http://www.businessandpolitics.org/?p=4651</ref> Columnist Jim Hoagland of the ''[[Washington Post]]'' observes,
{{Cquote|France is a country that has a past being involved in world affairs, wanting to count in world affairs, and being willing to pay its way for defense forces and to use those forces abroad. So, France plays a natural role in that. At a time when governments are slashing defense spending and reducing troops, France still wants to occupy an important role in world affairs....the reason you're seeing France taking on such a much larger role is that other countries, including the United States, are not willing to do it anymore. And Sarkozy is trying to fill that vacuum.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/france2_04-07.html</ref>}}

Sarkozy's approval rating stood at 30% prior to the intervention.

===Legality of French actions===
On May 29 two French lawyers, Roland Dumas and Jacques Vergès, announced plans to initiate legal proceedings against President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] for crimes against humanity over the [[NATO]] led campaign in [[Libya]]. Dumas (who also served as a foreign minister under President [[François Mitterrand]]) said that the NATO mission, which was meant to protect civilians, is in fact killing them.<ref>http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=46395</ref> On July 4 a French lawyer, Marcel Ceccaldi, called for investigation of the International Criminal Court on NATO "war crimes". [http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/07/04/libye-un-avocat-demande-une-enquete-de-la-cpi-sur-les-crimes-de-guerre-de-l-otan_1544755_1496980.html]

== National Transitional Council ==
The National Transitional Council of the Libyan Republic announced its official establishment in early March 2011 in the city of Benghazi. The stated goal was to the overthrow of Mu’ammar Gaddafi.<ref>http://ntclibya.org/english/</ref> It has been recognized by France, [[Qatar]], Italy, [[Kuwait]], [[Maldives]] and [[Gambia]]. They have proceeded to form a transitional government for the post-Gaddafi era. Before forming a government, they robbed about $505 million from the Central Bank of Libya in Benghazi.
[[File:Libya Rebels Gaining Momentum.jpg|thumb|Anti-Gaddafi tribal insurgents in March, 2011 (Photo:Reuters).]]
{{Cquote|The top leaders of the “revolutionary” masses in Benghazi are two recent defectors of what the Left dubs Gaddafi’s “murderous regime”, Mustafa Abdul Jalil a former Justice minister (who prosecuted dissenters up to the day before the armed uprising), Mahmoud Jebril a top Gaddafite neo-liberal prominent in inviting multi-nationals to take over the oil fields (FT, March 23, 2011, p. 7) and Ali Aziz al-Eisawa, Gaddafi’s former ambassador to India who jumped ship when it looked like the uprising would succeed. These self-appointed leaders of the “rebels” are staunch backers of Euro-US military intervention just as they previously were long-term backers of Gaddafi’s dictatorship and promoters of MNC takeovers of oil and gas fields. The heads of the “rebels” military council is Omar Hariri and General Abdul Fattah Younis former head of the Ministry of Interior, both with long histories (since 1969) of repressing any democratic movements.<ref>http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/euro-us-war-on-libya-official-lies-and-misconceptions-of-critics/</ref>}}
The root base of the armed uprising is Benghazi, a hotbed of tribal backers and clients of the deposed King Idris.

===Misuse of humanitarian assistance===

In May, 2011, NATO and Arab countries agreed in Rome to set up a fund to manage donations to help areas controlled by the rebels; they announced a financial mechanism to assist the opposition in Libya. This would include a partial unfreezing of Libyan assets in banks that would go into a temporary fund managed by the U.N. Sanctions Committee. And it would be intended to help the rebels with their immediate needs to cover food, medicine and hospital costs;<ref>http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/136011941/diplomats-discuss-aid-to-libyan-rebels</ref> The insurgents would gain access to a special $3 billion (£1.8 billion) trust fund established by its Western backers to finance the breakaway regions fighting against Gaddafi;<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8492745/Libyan-rebels-to-receive-1.8-billion-trust-fund.html</ref> but the Transitional National Council is planing to use money pledged for humanitarian and reconstruction purposes to buy weapons.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/amnesty-international-accuses-gaddafi-regime-of-war-crimes-in-misurata/2011/05/06/AFbPjw6F_story.html?hpid=z2</ref>
[[File:Rebel fighters hoist the former Libyan monarchy flag on the outskirts of Benghazi.jpg|thumb|Rebel fighters hoist the former Libyan monarchy flag on the outskirts of Benghazi. Modern urbanization and equipments may be clearly seen there.]]

===Insurgent Death Squads===

Insurgent tribal leaders created a wanted list and placed suspects under round-the-clock surveillance. Secret militia units raid houses without court warrants and often interrogate suspects for hours. Those released have to sign a document stating their loyalty to the revolution. As many as 30 civilians are being held at various rebel military bases around Benghazi without due process of law, said human rights activists, judges and prosecutors. In recent weeks, at least seven former members of the internal security police have turned up dead, their bodies riddled with bullets. Although it is not known who killed them, many suspect that they died at the hands of rebel-affiliated death squads. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/libyan-rebels-accused-of-reprisal-attacks/2011/05/20/AFaeAh8G_story.html?hpid=z4]

On May, 26, the deputy leader of Libya's rebel administration said it could take up to two years to organize elections, backtracking on promises of a six-month transition to democracy. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110526/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya]

==Security Council Res. 1973 and NATO==
UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 of March 17, 2011 followed on the heels of Gaddafi’s public announcement on March 2 he may throw western oil companies out of Libya, and his invitation on March 14 to Chinese, Russian, and Indian firms to produce Libyan oil in their place.<ref>''[http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/7661/Business/Economy/Gaddafi-offers-Libyan-oil-production-to-India,-Rus.aspx Gaddafi offers Libyan oil production to India, Russia, China,] Agence France-Presse, March 14, 2011.</ref> China, Russia, India and Brazil all abstained on UNSC Resolution 1973.

Despite France taking the lead role in the intervention, the Congressional Research Service reports, "Only the United States and NATO possess the command and control capabilities necessary for coalition operations enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya." France only recently rejoined the NATO alliance, in 2008, after a 40 year absence. The Congressional Research Service, which analyzes information and prepares reports for members of Congress, also states,
{{Cquote|In spite of statements underscoring NATO unity on steps announced to date, the initial planning and operational phases were also marked by significant levels of discord within Europe and [[NATO]] on the aims and future direction of the mission. A key point of contention was reportedly the amount of flexibility that NATO forces would be granted to protect civilians and civilian areas, as called for in paragraph 4 of UNSCR 1973. Reports indicate that French officials insisted on maintaining the ability to strike ground forces that threatened civilian areas, while their [[Turkish]] counterparts vocally opposed any targeting of ground forces. Adding to the strain within NATO, NATO ally [[Germany]] abstained from UNSCR 1973 and, opposed to any potential [[combat]] operation, on March 23, withdrew its naval assets in the [[Mediterranean]] from NATO command. Throughout the first week of operations, other European allies contributing to the mission, including Italy and Norway, expressed increasing frustration with the lack of agreement within NATO, with Norway refusing to deploy its fighter jets unless under they were under NATO command and control.<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya):
Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service,'' March 30, 2011, p. 20 pdf.</ref>}}

Of NATO's 28 members, 14 are said to be "actively participating," but only 6 provided military support. By June Norway announced its intention to quit the coalition<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/norway-quit-libya-operation-august</ref> and French and British leaders expressed concerns over being able to meet the costs of a war they dragged the United States into.<ref>http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/2e515285f07040df999bd6b670db791c/Article_2011-06-14-EU-NATO-Libya/id-f6d2287c00ba4816924c082ed9cc12fa</ref> Of the 22-country [[Arab League]], whose appeal prompted the United Nations to vote on intervention, only [[Qatar]] and the [[United Arab Emirates]] are involved. Of the 192 members of the [[UN General Assembly]], who all have a legal "responsibility to protect" civilians attacked by their own governments, only [[Sweden]] has responded.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref> After the authorization and commitment of NATO and U.S. forces, Secretary Gates announced,
{{Cquote|The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.}}
and warned
{{Cquote|The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the American body politic writ large—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.<ref>http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/10/robert_gates_nato_defense_secretary_questions_future_of_the_alli.html</ref>}}

===Exceeding UN mandate===
Resolution 1973 authorized strict limitations, according to international law, on NATO as the organization with responsibility for the implementation of the resolution. Particularly, it provides only for a naval blockade enforcing the arms embargo, and enforcement of a no-fly zone. On March 29, 2011, Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin commented after a meeting with NATO officials in [[Brussels, Belgium]], that Russia expressed deep concern over the interpretation of the Security Council’s resolution, as some countries have effectively turned it into an approval for ground operations.
{{Cquote|[[Moscow]] has many questions about how the UN Security Council’s resolution is being carried out...First of all, there are reports that civilians have been killed in the air strikes. This is odd if you consider the message of the resolution, which says that the foreign forces’ actions should protect civilians. So it’s hard to comprehend how you can protect civilians by killing them....we demanded that the UN Security Council be fully informed about the actions of the alliance in Libya at all times... We have reports of air strikes against convoys far from the front line. This is a far cry from the UN Security Council resolution.<ref>http://rt.com/news/coalition-libya-nato-russian-envoy/</ref>}}
[[File:Bombing Tripoli Libya.jpg|right|Bombing Tripoli, Libya.]]
NATO planes and ships have been striking cities and military installations in Libya since mid-March, 2011. Allied military officials have spoken in recent weeks of the need for escalation to help protect Libyan civilians and have called for Gaddafi to step down. Libyan officials have said that NATO is picking sides in a civil war and complained that strikes on Gaddafi’s Tripoli compound are attempts to assassinate the leader of a sovereign country. NATO launched its largest airstrike against Moammar Gaddafi’s regime on May, 24, 2011, with at least 15 massive explosions rocking the Libyan capital. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/french-officials-france-and-britain-to-use-attack-helicopters-in-libya/2011/05/23/AFTF909G_story.html?hpid=z2]
<blockquote>
On May 15, two months into the NATO bombing campaign against loyal Gaddafi’s forces, Britain’s top military commander said that the Libyan leader could remain “clinging to power” unless NATO broadened its bombing targets to include the country’s infrastructure. <ref>http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html</ref>
</blockquote>

The French and the British described plans for a wargames exercise for an attack on Libya last November, in the end they used those military assets that had been mobilized for the real thing 3 months ago. We know that NATO doesn’t just go and bomb a country over night, these things are planned far in advance, and in this case there is conclusive evidence that there have been plans for this for many many years. <ref> [https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend] June 4, 2011. </ref>
<blockquote>
On Jun 18, Prime minister of Libya Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi accused [[NATO]] of a "new level of aggression" over the past 72 hours in which he said the military alliance intentionally targeted civilian buildings, including a hotel and a university. "It has become clear to us that NATO has moved on to deliberately hitting civilian buildings. ... This is a crime against humanity," he told reporters in the capital. Libya's Health Ministry released new casualty figures that put the number of civilians killed in NATO air strikes through to June 7 at 856. <ref> [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/gaddafi-rages-at-nato-after-bombing-2299509.html Gaddafi rages at NATO after bombing.] </ref>
</blockquote>
[[File:Women with Gaddafi Libya.jpg|thumb|280px|Lizzie Cocker with mum and two daughters from Sudan who have been living in Libya for 17 years. They had to flee from Misrata to Tripoli following the vicious atrocities committed by the pro-NATO rebels against black skinned peoples. They are firmly standing behind their leader Moammar Gadaffi. The sisters have written on the poster, on the left: "King of Kings of Africa" and on the right: "Our souls are for you".]]
==== Italy - Berlusconi ====
[[Italy]] called for a suspension of hostilities in [[Libya]] on June 22 in the latest sign of dissent within [[NATO]] as the civilian death toll mounts and [[Muammar Gaddafi]] shows no signs of quitting power. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110622/ts_afp/libyaconflictnatoitalydiplomacy]

===African response to UN & NATO intervention===
NATO's Libyan intervention has proven fractious in black Africa; in March [[Nigeria]]'s Foreign Minister Odein Ajumogobia commented, "The contradictions between principle and national interest ... have enabled the international community to impose a no-fly zone over Libya ostensibly to protect innocent civilians from slaughter, but to watch seemingly helplessly (in [[Ivory Coast]]) as ...men, women and children are slaughtered in equally, even if less egregious, violence."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503543_162-503543.html?keyword=ivory+coast</ref>
<blockquote>
Amr Moussa, the outgoing head of the Arab League and a front runner to become president of a democratic Egypt, has voiced reservations about NATO's bombing campaign in Libya, calling for a ceasefire and talks on a political settlement while Muammar Gaddafi remains in power. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/21/arab-league-chief-libya-air-strikes]
</blockquote>
The Arab League, which in March asked the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians, condemned the loss of life in bombing incidents.
<blockquote>
"When the Arab League agreed on the idea of having a no-fly zone over Libya it was to protect civilians but when civilians get killed this has to be condemned with the harshest of statements," said Deputy Secretary-General Ahmed Ben Helli.
</blockquote>
The Libyan leader says the Western-led military campaign is an act of colonial aggression designed to steal Libya's oil. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110620/wl_nm/us_libya]

==United States intervention==
[[File:Treaty of Tripoli PD LC.jpg|thumb|Treaty of Tripoli, Libya was one of the first nation to recognize the US in 1796.]]
===Frozen assets===
President Obama moved swiftly to support French plans to frustrate Gaddafi’s proposal for an African Union with his unilateral declaration of a national emergency in order to freeze all of the Bank of Libya’s $30 billion of funds to which America had access. This was reported in the U.S. press as a freeze of the funds of "Colonel Qaddafi, his children and family, and senior members of the Libyan government.<ref>''New York Times'', February 27, 2011.</ref> The second section of Obama’s decree explicitly targeted "All property and interests… of the Government of Libya, its agencies, instrumentalities, and controlled entities, and the Central Bank of Libya.<ref>Executive Order of February 25, 2011, citing International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, seizes all Libyan Govt assets, February 25, 2011, link. The authority granted to the President by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act "may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose" (50 U.S.C. 1701).</ref> The consequences of the $30-billion freeze for [[Africa]], as well as for Libya, have been spelled out by an African observer:
{{Cquote|The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.}}

===War Powers Act===

Under the [[War Powers Act]] of 1973 the U.S President has limited authority to use military force without Congressional authorization when there is an imminent [[national security]] threat, however President Obama made clear that he ordered the use of force for other reasons. Members of Congress of both parties have expressed concern the President may have violated the law in doing so.<ref>http://rooney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3190:rooney-resolution-president-should-obtain-congressional-authorization-or-end-military-campaign-in-libya-&catid=48:2011-press-releases</ref> The War Powers Act specifically states that the President’s power to introduce forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities can only be exercised pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. The War Powers Act requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific Congressional authorization. None of these prerequisites have been met.

On March 21, 2011, President Obama publicly announced U.S. military forces commenced no fly-zone operations in Libya two days earlier, on March 19, "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe" and cited UN Resolutions as giving him the authority to do so. Secretary of Defense [[Robert Gates]] warned establishment of a no-fly zone meant attacking Libaya.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20038391-503544.html</ref> Officials as National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough also opposed to attacking Libya; but "[[Hillary Clinton]] won the bureaucratic battle to use DOD resources to achieve what's essentially the State Department's objective... and Obama let it happen". <ref>[http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/18/how_obama_turned_on_a_dime_toward_war How Obama turned on a dime toward war.] </ref> The Charter of the [[United Nations]], in Article 2(4), prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of a member state, and many observers have wondered whether the establishment of a no-fly zone would constitute a violation of this prohibition. The Congressional Research Services advised that a no-fly zone imposed against a state that has not carried out an attack on its neighbors may consider the imposition of a no-fly zone an “armed attack.” CRS warned that even if no-fly zone operations in a given state do not constitute an “armed attack",
{{Cquote|that state, and other members of the international community, might consider them a violation of the prohibition of the “threat or use of force,” as well as of the customary duty of non-intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states.}}

NATO's Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee days before President Obama publicly admitted to intervention that U.S. intelligence knew of [[al Qaeda]] and [[Hezbollah]] elements among the Libyan insurgents.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8414583/Libya-al-Qaeda-among-Libya-rebels-Nato-chief-fears.html</ref> A document published by the U.S. [[West Point]] Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center reveals that Libya sent more fighters to the [[Operation_Iraqi_Freedom#InsurgencyIraq|Islamic insurgency]] than any other [[Muslim]] country (from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah.).<ref>[http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf The Sinjar documents], a collection of al Qaeda computer data captured by Americans in 2007 in a predawn raid near Sinjar, Iraq, six miles from the Syrian border. The documents included background information on around 750 foreign fighters, who migrated to Iraq to kill American soldiers, many of those fighters coming from among the very people we are now pledging to protect. David Wood wrote: "Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah. On a per capita basis, that’s more than twice as many than came from any other Arabic-speaking country, amounting to what the counter terrorism center called a Libyan “surge” of young men eager to kill Americans."</ref> This set off a fierce debate in the [[Obama administration]] over the wisdom of arming terrorists.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss</ref> It is now known however, that sometime prior to March 31, 2011,<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=2&hp</ref> President Obama signed a secret Presidential Finding authorizing support for the insurgents.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref> Direct arms support would violate the arms embargo imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1970 on February 26, 2011.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref>

Public opinion initially was divided on support for President Obama's actions, within 30 days however, opposition rose 15%<ref>http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/americans-rapidly-turn-against-obama-over-handling-of-libyan-intervention.php</ref> as the reality of the intervention set in.

===Legality of U.S. military actions===
The ''[[Washington Post]]'' reported on May 20, 2011 President Obama missed the legal deadline set in the 1973 law that required him to obtain Congressional approval for U.S. military operations in Libya. Under the [[Nixon]]-era War Powers Resolution, the president must obtain Congressional authorization of military action within 60 days, or else begin withdrawing forces.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-likely-to-miss-deadline-for-congressional-approval-of-libya-operations/2011/05/19/AFFLKn7G_story.html</ref> Sen. [[Richard Lugar]] of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations warned President Obama,
[[File:NATO strike Libya.jpg|right|220px|NATO strike, Libya.]]
{{Cquote|U.S. military operations in Libya have assumed a different character than you suggested when you announced the decision to initiate them. In your March 21 letter to the Congress, you indicated that these operations would be limited in their nature, duration, and scope, and focused on protecting civilians and civilian populated areas from attack. Two months into these operations, your Administration is unable to specify what limits will apply to the duration of the operations, and the coalition in which we are participating appears to have expanded its objectives to weakening the Gaddafi regime’s hold on power through strikes on leadership targets and, potentially, infrastructure targets.<ref>http://lugar.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=332967&</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-obama-above-the-law/2011/05/26/AGL5zyCH_story.html</ref>}}

The evidence is President Obama’s war in Libya is illegal and unconstitutional. Columnist George Will laid out the case in, “Is Obama Above the Law?” The war is a violation of the War Powers Act, which says the president can go to war without Congressional approval only if there is an imminent threat to the U.S. and there is a 60-day deadline for the withdrawal of forces. [http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2467]

The law states that “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States , its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Since there was no declaration of war or statutory authorization for the Libya action, there has to be a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S. There was none in the Libya case.<ref>http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2458 Conservative Truth.</ref> A [[bipartisan]] group of legislators have begun action against what they percieve to be President Obama's unconstitutional misuse of power.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/house/166577-kucinich-jones-sue-white-house-over-libya-war</ref>

=== 10 Reasons to Oppose the War in Libya ===

According to Rep. [[Dennis Kucinich]]:

* '''It is unconstitutional''', violating Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which gives the power of declaring war to the Congress.
* '''It is illegal''', as the War Powers Resolution was exploited out of context in order to declare war.
* '''American public opinion is against it''', as 6 Americans out of 10 oppose the war.
* It '''distracts''' the President from more immediate concerns, such as the dire state of the economy.
* It '''costs''' funds that should be used for other purposes.
* Although the war was declared by Britain and France, '''America is paying more than other NATO allies'''.
* '''Civilians are being killed''' by the same powers that are supposed to protect them.
* '''The U.N. Resolution that authorized limited military action did not allow for regime change'''
* '''Public support of the war is eroding even in other allied countries.'''
* '''The situation is a stalemate''' that ought to be solved by political, not military means.

See more at: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/10-reasons-to-oppose-the_b_881554.html 10 Reasons to Oppose the War in Libya.]

=== Opposition of [[Ron Paul]] ===

<blockquote>
''"Why did the US intervene in a civil war in a country that has neither attacked us nor poses a threat? We are told this was another humanitarian intervention, like Clinton’s 1999 war against [[Serbia]]. But as civilian victims of the US-led coalition bombing continue to add up, it is getting difficult to determine whether the problem we are creating on the ground is worse than the one we were trying to solve."'' [http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-03-28/ron-paul-end-the-libyan-war/]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
''"Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, explained in a recent article that there is plausible reason to believe the rebels are current or former Islamist mujahedin, eager to engage in jihad. Indeed, Gaddafi has fought against Libyan Islamists for years and is seen by them as a bitter enemy. Astoundingly, it may well be that we are assisting al Qaeda in this new war! [[Ibidem]]"''
</blockquote>

==Role of China==
In the first decade of the Twenty-first century China quietly has overtaken the United States to become Africa's largest trading partner, particularly in oil, which accounts for 73 percent of all African exports. According to the Chinese government's first white paper on its economic and trade cooperation with Africa, China's trade with Africa has soared to $114.81 billion in the first 11 months of 2010. China uses about 8 million barrels per day (bpd), a demand that is projected to rise to 11.3 million bpd by 2015 and now receives 28 percent of its oil imports from Africa. China's top oil suppliers are [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Iran]], [[Angola]], Russia, [[Oman]] and [[Sudan]]. Saudi Arabia is China's top oil supplier (1.1 million bpd.) China is also buying oil from [[Chad]], [[Gabon]] and [[Nigeria]] as well. China's top African oil suppliers are [[Angola]], [[Sudan]] and [[Nigeria]]. The [[International Monetary Fund]] reports, oil now accounts for 99 percent of Sudanese exports, with China absorbing for 65 percent of them. Energy is Angola's sole export hard currency earner, with China now accounting for 35 percent of Angolan exports.<ref>http://mammutcapital.blogspot.com/2011/06/upcoming-us-china-struggle-for-african.html</ref>

===Competition for resources===
After hostilities began China evacuated over 36,000 of its energy and construction workers and shut down operations of Chinese companies with over $18.8 billion of Chinese investments in Libya.<ref>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/1119924/1/.html</ref> China alone is expected to invest on a scale of $50 billion a year in Libya and Africa by 2015, a figure - funded by America’s [[trade deficit]] with China - which the Western powers and NATO cannot match.<ref>Leslie Hook, ''China’s future in Africa, after Libya,'' March 4, 2011. The U.S trade deficit with China in 2010 was $273 billion.</ref> China, Libya's largest Asian oil customer, called for an immediate ceasefire.

Dr. [[Paul Craig Roberts]], former Assistant Secretary of US Treasury in the [[Reagan administration]] observed the joint French, British, and US coalition's objective is
{{Cquote|to eliminate China from the [[Mediterranean]]. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source. The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that's the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.}}
Roberts observes
{{Cquote| the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or [[Yemen]] or [[Bahrain]] or [[Tunisia]] and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion...these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is - they did not originate in the capital city. And we have heard from the beginning credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests, and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/26/111109/new-rebel-leader-spent-much-of.html</ref> to head up the Libyan rebellion... China has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya.<ref>http://www.presstv.ir/detail/175076.html</ref>}}

Whatever Washington’s ulterior motives, there is no doubt that NATO’s military operations in Libya are harming China’s fiscal interests. According to information from China’s Ministry of Trade, by March, when the military operation began, there were 75 major Chinese companies operating in Libya, and they had concluded $18 billion in contracts. Because of the NATO operations in Libya, the Chinese companies are expecting gigantic losses. <ref> [http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ Washington Using NATO For Proxy Conflict With China In Libya.] </ref>

==Mission creep==
UN Security Council Resolution 1973, passed in March 2011, does not authorise participating members to support the anti-Gaddafi tribes, to defend armed groups, or to oust Gaddafi. Nor does it authorise a ground invasion or military occupation. Strategic analyst Anthony Cordesman notes the similarities between Libya and Iraq and the loose uncoordinated coalitions "failure to plan for the decisive and lasting use of force, failure to plan for the civil side of military operations and to support stability operations, and focus on short term goals without a realistic plan for a successful strategic and post-conflict outcome." Cordesman notes,
{{Cquote|the lives and futures of some 6.6 million Libyans are at stake. The Franco-Anglo-American gamble now seems far too likely to fail at their expense. Moreover, it seems likely to drag the other nations that support the operation into their failure -- along with part of the reputation of NATO and credibility of the UN.... gambling on Qaddafi caving in has created a far more serious humanitarian crisis for the Libyan people than would ever have occurred if the Coalition had acted decisively from the start ...The humanitarian cost of humanitarian restraint is all too clear: Hundreds of Libyan and foreign workers have been killed...hundreds of thousands lack jobs, security, and safe conditions of life....an enduring war of attrition will turn a minor humanitarian crisis into a major one ...This kind of operation cannot be “surgical’ – if “surgical” now means minimizing bloodshed regardless of whether the patient dies. Hard, and sometimes brutal, choices need to be made between limited civilian casualties and collateral damage during the decisive use of force and an open-ended war of attrition that will produce far higher cumulative civilian casualties and collateral damage.<ref>http://csis.org/publication/libya-will-farce-stay-us-and-france-and-britain</ref>}}
Cordesman notes mission creep and boots on the ground ultimately lead to [[nation building]]:
{{Cquote|France, Britain, and the US now have a special obligation to both finish what they started in military terms, and deal with the aftermath. A post-conflict Libya will need extensive help in building a workable political system, in rebuilding the capability to govern, in both rebuilding the existing economy and correcting for decades of Qaddafi’s reckless and constantly shifting eccentricities.}}
On April 19, 2011, one month after Sarkozy, Cameron, and Obama asked the UN Security Council for authorization for a limited use of force, the UK ''[[Guardian (UK)|Guardian]]'' reported,
{{Cquote|Britain is now publicly doing what it expressly said it would not do when the no-fly intervention began: putting boots on the ground in Libya. France is taking similar action. Given that the rebel tribes have convincingly demonstrated their inability to win on their own, given the sizable negatives for David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy of an open-ended, inconclusive conflict, and given Barack Obama's flat refusal to do any more, the question now is: how many more British and French boots will follow, sooner or later, in the advisers' fateful footsteps?....By encouraging and assisting rebel resistance, as [[George H. W. Bush|George Bush Snr]] did with the [[Shia]]s of southern [[Iraq]] in 1991, Britain and France risk worsening the plight of the Libyan civilians they are primarily pledged to defend. The UN and concerned aid agencies all agree the humanitarian situation is growing steadily worse, the longer the conflict continues. ..<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref>}}

<blockquote>
Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, in particular, has been scathing about Western intervention in Libya, comparing the Resolution 1973 to “a medieval call to the crusades” and saying “the so-called civilized community, with all its might, pounces on a small country, and ruins infrastructure that has been built over generations.” Mr. Putin returned to the subject of Libya repeatedly, despite acknowledging that foreign policy decisions were not within his portfolio as prime minister. [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/world/europe/28russia.html?hp]
</blockquote>

===Manufacturing Consent===

"On how the western media makes the case for war. Our consent has been manufactured by the criminalization of Gaddafi and his government, and the Libyan people cannot believe it when I tell them what is said about him in the west. And if only you could see how they live, they are far more free than us in England in many ways, this does not fit in with the oppressive image of Gaddafi portrayed in the west.

So for example, I have had Libyans coming up to me asking me about a report in the popular French newspaper Le Figaro that came out about 3 days ago saying 10,000 people have been killed in Tripoli over the past 3 months by government forces. They are astonished, because this is complete and utter lies. " [https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend.]

=== Libya post-Gaddafi ===
Rebel fighters with support from NATO airstrikes, overtook the capital of Tripoli and toppled the government of Libya causing Gaddafi to flee into hiding. This victory finally peaked the interests of the liberal media, who remained silent, even as the President violated the War Powers Act.

As of September 2011, a single enclave of government/tribal resistance remains in Gaddafi's hometown of Sirt and is surrounded by rebels. The rebels have been recognized by the U.S. and the U.N. as the legitimate government. It remains to be seen how much money of the former regime will be released to the new government, estimated in the multi-billions. It will be a year or longer before Libya can resume full capacity oil shipments.

Knowledgeable people agree, the situation in a post-Gaddafi is uncertain. Likely, the nation will be end up an Islamic state. U.S. intelligence says as many as 20,000 advanced Russian surface-to-air missiles are missing and could end up in terror groups' arsenals. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/27/u-s-intelligence-now-says-up-to-20000-advanced-surface-to-air-missiles-mussing-from-libya/ U.S. Intelligence Now Says Up To 20,000 Advanced Surface-To-Air Missiles Missing From Lib, Weasel Zippers, September 27, 2011]</ref> [[Al Qaeda]] is very active in the region and the conflict. No one is sure how to rid the country of this terrorist element.

==External links==
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/in-arming-libyan-rebels-the-us-would-follow-an-old-dark-path/73019/ In Arming Libyan Rebels, the U.S. Would Follow an Old, Dark Path.]
[[File:Tripoli NATO bombing Libya.jpg|thumb|280px|Tripoli, NATO bombing.]]
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels.] ''The Independent'', UK.
*[http://www.sott.net/articles/show/225613-Operation-Libya-The-US-NATO-Attempted-Coup-d-Etat-in-Libya-and-the-Battle-for-Oil "Operation Libya": The US-NATO Attempted Coup d'Etat in Libya and the Battle for Oil.]
*[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2055251,00.html Why Libya's Uprising Is Bad for the World Economy.]
*[http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions False pretense for war in Libya?]
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-nato-civil-war-cameron These humanitarians come to Libya with missiles, and an agenda.] by [[Simon Jenkins]].
*[http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=24188 The West's War Against Gaddafi. Yet another long-lasting, tragic crime against humanity.]
*[http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama%E2%80%99s-war-in-libya-is-illegal-and-unconstitutional/ Obama’s War in Libya is Illegal and Unconstitutional.] by Cliff Kincaid.
*[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/30/us-libya-school-idUSTRE73T24620110430 Libya disabled children school hit in NATO strike.] Reuters.
*[http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/06/08/natos-alternate-universe-in-libya.html NATO's "Alternate Universe" in Libya.]
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reese-schonfeld/are-the-lessons-of-kosovo_b_868281.html Are The Lessons of Kosovo Spreading to Libya?]
*[http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/06/22/le-patron-de-la-ligue-arabe-fait-part-de-scrupules-sur-la-libye_1539111_1496980.html#ens_id=1481986 The head of the Arab League expressed "qualms" about Libya.] In French.
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx3UAWau9T8&%20NR=1 George Galloway talks about Libya war.] Youtube

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Libya]]
[[category:Africa]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:War]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

NATO war in Libya

2011-09-28T02:02:45Z

BrentH: /* Mission creep */ end of the story, end of the article

[[File:Gaddafi and Mandela 1.JPG|thumb|right|250px|[[Nobel Peace Prize]] winner [[Nelson Mandela]] greets an old friend and ally, Muammar Gaddafi, who supported the [[ANC]] during their struggle against [[apartheid]]. ''[[Reuters]]'' reports President Obama secretly ordered support for [[al Qaeda]] terrorists seeking Gaddafi's ouster.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umgMDJIpkn0</ref>.]]
The '''Libyan War of 2011''' started as the '''Benghazi rebellion''', a series of protests in eastern [[Libya]] on February 16, 2011 after the successful uprisings in [[Tunisia]] and [[Egypt]]. The scale of violence contrasts markedly with the more peaceful uprisings that toppled the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes. The [[Islamist]] terror group [[Al-Qaeda]] in North Africa has vowed to do everything in its power to help the uprising against the Libyan [[secular]] strongman [[Muammar Gaddafi]].<ref> [http://www.dawn.com/2011/02/24/al-qaeda-in-n-africa-backs-libya-uprising-site.html Al Qaeda in N. Africa backs Libya uprising: SITE] </ref><ref> [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/07/libya-uprising-live-updates Libya uprising.] </ref> Journalist David Wood has reported,
{{Cquote|Eastern Libya has been described by U.S. diplomats as a breeding ground for Islamist [[extremism]]. In diplomatic cables released by [[Wikileaks]], the region’s young men were said to have "nothing to lose" by resorting to violence. Sermons in the local [[mosque]]s are "laced with phraseology urging worshippers to support [[jihad]]," one diplomat reported.<ref>http://91.214.23.156/cablegate/wire.php?id=08TRIPOLI120&search=</ref>}}
Wood added,
{{Cquote|extremist elements make up only a portion of the resistance to Gaddafi and have been present in every popular uprising in the region stretching from the [[Iran]]ian revolution to the [[Egypt]]ian people’s overthrow of [[Hosni Mubarak]].<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html</ref>}}

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said [[jihad]]ists who fought against American troops in [[Iraq]] are on the front lines of the battle against Gaddafi's regime. <ref> [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links.] </ref> <ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world/guantanamo-files-libyan-detainee-now-us-ally-of-sorts.html Libyan, Once a Detainee, Is Now a U.S. Ally of Sorts.]</ref>

An international coalition intervened in what many describe as an "illegal war"<ref>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/01/obamas_illegal_war</ref> led by the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO), whose own leaders have openly questioned what the value, purpose, and reason for existence of NATO is. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/world/europe/14iht-letter14.html</ref><ref>http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_58ebd6cf-0558-5ee2-bd8d-cf27c1af7630.html</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/12/nato-usa</ref>

__TOC__
It was reported on February 24, 2011, that an emergency meeting of the [[United Nations Human Rights Council]] (UNHRC) on Libya would take no action, or make no recommendation to the [[UN General Assembly]], to remove Libya from its seat on the UN Human Rights Council, despite alleged [[human rights]] abuses.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] (UNSC) then voted on March 17, 2011, to pass Security Council resolution 1973 proposed by [[France]], along with its British and Lebanese partners, initiating the use of military force in Libya. [[China]], [[Russia]], [[India]] and [[Brazil]] (the so-called BRIC nations) all abstained from the vote. The [[Obama administration]] called for Gaddafi to step aside, and has provided assistance to the insurgent tribes. US Congressional leaders were not consulted, <ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262921/boehner-obama-libya-many-other-members-house-representatives-are-troubled-robert-costa</ref> nor has the United States Congress authorized any use of force in Libya.

Military and intelligence experts in France, [[Britain]], and the United States warned about uncertainties, but were overruled by political leaders. The result was a set of decisions focusing on short term considerations and gambling on the outcome. French, British, and US leaders did not fully coordinate, but according to Anthony Cordesman, it became clear,
{{Cquote|they sought and got international cover from the UN by claiming a no fly zone could protect civilians when their real objective was to use force as a catalyst to drive Gaddafi out of power.}}
[[Sarkozy]], [[David Cameron|Cameron]], and [[Obama]] seem to have assumed that a largely unknown, divided, and fractured group of insurgents could win through sheer political momentum, and could then be turned into a successful government. Within the first month it was obvious a "weak, divided, poorly led, and badly equipped and supplied set of rebel tribes can only hang on with the present level of air support" that was provided.

The assault on Libya set off a frenzy of speculations about the real motive behind the war in the oil-rich country, with many analysts saying that under the guise of protecting civilians, as enshrined in the UNSC Resolution 1973, Washington and its Western allies are basically after the North African country’s vast oil reserves. <ref>[http://2012indyinfo.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/presstv-germany-slams-nato-mission-in-libya/ Germany slams NATO mission in Libya.]</ref>

[[Stephen Lendman]]: Libya assault planned months ahead; See interview: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSlXO_X_fE&feature=related in Youtube.]

== Libya before the 2011 uprising ==
[[File:Libya Irrigation project.jpg|thumb|330px|Satellite view is showing irrigated farming projects at Al Khufrah Oasis in south-east Libya. Part of the "Great Man Made River Project" ($33 billion), where water is drawn from vast underground aquifers. This water is transported about 800 km (500 mi) to the coastal cities of Libya by means of the world's largest underground network of pipes.]]
In 1951 Libya was officially the poorest country in the world, <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,864742,00.html]</ref> but by the time of the 2011 uprising, Libyans' living standards were considered the highest in Africa. The GDP per Capita was more than the double of that in Egypt, and above that of Russia. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge; but more than the advances in housing, agricultural, industry, health care, education, is the advance in direct popular democracy. <ref>[http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/libfacts.htm]</ref> [[Condoleezza Rice]] praised Libya for its "excellent co-operation" in the US-led [[war on terror]]. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4773617.stm] (BBC News)</ref>.
<blockquote>
The living standards of Libyans have improved significantly since the 1970s, ranking the country among the highest in Africa. Urbanization, developmental projects, and high oil revenues have enabled the Libyan government to elevate its people's living standards. The social and economic status of women and children has particularly improved. Various subsidized or free services (health, education, housing, and basic foodstuffs) have ensured basic necessities. The low percentage of people without access to safe water (3 percent), health services (0 percent) and sanitation (2 percent), and a relatively high life expectancy (70.2 years) in 1998 indicate the improved living standards. Adequate health care and subsidized foodstuffs have sharply reduced infant mortality, from 105 per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 20 per 1,000 live births in 1998. The government also subsidizes education, which is compulsory and free between the ages of 6 and 15. The expansion of educational facilities has elevated the literacy rate (78.1 in 1998). There are universities in [[Tripoli]], Benghazi, Marsa el-Brega, Misurata, Sebha, and Tobruk. <ref>[http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Libya-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html] (SOURCE: Handbook of the Nations; CIA World Factbook.)</ref>
</blockquote>

[[Nobel Peace Prize]] recipient [[Nelson Mandela]] warned of the machinations of outside influences in a speech noting Gaddafi and leadership in Africa:
{{Cquote|In a world where the strong may seek to impose upon the more vulnerable; and where particular nations or groups of nations may still seek to decide the fate of the planet - in such a world respect for multilateralism, moderation of public discourse and a patient search for compromise become even more imperative to save the world from debilitating conflict and enduring inequality. When we dismissed criticism of our friendship with yourself, My Brother Leader, and of the relationship between [[South Africa]] and Libya, it was precisely in defence of those values.<ref>http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=222537&sn=Detail</ref>}}
[[File:Benghazi shopping center Libya.JPG|thumb|Benghazi shopping center.]]
At present Gaddafi is not well seen in the EU and USA but the Libyan people seem to be thriving with him as leader. A delegation of medical professionals from [[Russia]], [[Ukraine]] and [[Belarus]] wrote in an appeal to "Russian President [[Medvedev]] and Prime Minister [[Putin]] that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort". Libya today is not a highly polarized society divided between extremes of wealth and poverty.

On February 24, 2011, no threat was seen to Libya’s Seat on top U.N. Human Rights Body. A European Union-proposed draft resolution for a subsequent session “strongly condemns” human rights violations committed in Libya amid turmoil sparked by protesters, rather than condemning Gaddafi or the regime for committing them. [http://www.cnsnews.com/public/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human]
<blockquote>
The "United Nations Development Program (UNDP) confirms that the country had excellent prospects for achieving United Nations development goals by 2015. NATO's war will have already dashed those hopes. A collapse like the one in Iraq now threatens the country. [http://www.newsfrommiddleeast.com/?new=77210]
</blockquote>
<center>
[[File:View to Tripoli Libya.jpg|380px|thumb|center|Tripoli, 2009.]]
</center>

==Libya under Gaddafi ==
===Petrodollars and oil===
According to a Russian article titled ''Bombing of Libya - Punishment for Qaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,'' Gaddafi initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the [[Euro]] as payment for Libya's oil, and called on [[Arab]] and African nations to use a new currency, the gold dinar. Gaddafi proposed establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. The initiative was viewed negatively in the United States and the [[European Union]], with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind. But Gaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa. As early September 9, 1999, the first steps towards the formation of the [[African Union]] were taken by the Heads of State of the Organisation of African Unity.<ref>[http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/aboutau/au_in_a_nutshell_en.htm The AU in a nutshell]</ref>

In the wake of the global [[financial crisis of 2008]] forcing the United States into [[recession]], both China and Russia called for the dollar’s role in the global financial system to be diluted. Both China and the USSR abstained from UNSCR 1973.

''Bloomberg News'' reported in September 2010 that China and Russia planned to start trading in each other’s currency as the world’s second-biggest energy consumer and the largest energy supplier seek to diminish the dollar’s role in global trade. Bhanu Baweja commented {{Cquote|Given the risk to the dollar and U.S. assets from their fiscal position they want to reduce their dependence on the dollar as an invoicing currency....It makes sense for two large economies to exclude a third, overly dominant economy from their trading equation.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-08/china-russia-push-yuan-ruble-trading-to-diminish-dominance-of-u-s-dollar.html</ref>}}

===African Satellite Control Center===
An observer spelled out one of Gaddafi’s motivations for proposing an African Union:
{{Cquote|It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.

An African satellite only cost a one-time payment of $400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a $500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn't finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can [[slave]]s, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the [[World Bank]], the [[International Monetary Fund]], the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put $300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added $50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further $27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.<ref>http://www.vtcommons.org/blog/2011/04/21/ethan-allen-qaddafi</ref>}}

===Libyan Central Bank===
In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:
{{Cquote|One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned.... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a [[sovereign]] nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.<ref>Eric Encina,''[http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27208.html Globalists Target 100% State Owned Central Bank of Libya,]'' Market Oracle.</ref>}}
Ellen Brown adds,
{{Cquote|Libya not only has oil. According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS (Bank of International Settlements), the IMF and their rules.<ref>Ellen Brown, ''[http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/5625-libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking,]'' Reader Supported News, April 15, 2011.</ref>}}
Gaddafi’s proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa contravenes IMF rules and is designed to bypass them.

=== Italian Friendship treaty ===
"We signed a friendship treaty with Libya, that includes a non-aggression clause, but when the counterpart '''no longer exists''' — in this case the Libyan state — the treaty cannot be applied”, said [[Italy]]’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini on February 26, 2011, ten days after the uprising began.
{{Cquote|Italy’s treaty with Libya, signed by Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] in August 2008, calls on Italy to pay Libya $5 billion over 20 years in reparations for its colonial past there. In return, Libya pledged to help block the flow of illegal immigrants to Italy and grant favorable treatment for Italian companies seeking to do business in Libya. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/world/europe/28military.html]</ref>}}

==French intervention==

A report from Congressman [[Dennis Kucinich]] corroborated the claim of Franco Bechis<ref>''[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RkUoFsgEwm8J:www.voltairenet.org/article169069.html+French+plans+to+topple+Gaddafi+on+track+since+last+November&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com French plans to topple Gaddafi on track since last November]'', by Franco Bechis, VoltaireNet, March 26, 2011.</ref> in Italy that "plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010."<ref>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24347</ref>

On March 10, 2011, France became the first and only country to recognize the Libyan Transitional National Council “as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.”<ref> “Sarkozy’s Libyan Surprise,” ''The Economist'', March 14, 2011.</ref> "France recognizes states, not parties", said a senior official on March 9th. After a meeting arranged by [[Bernard Henri Levy|Bernard-Henri Lévy]] the next morning, on March 10th, two representatives of the Libyan opposition emerged from President Sarkozys office at the Elysée Palace to announce that "France recognizes the Libyan Transitional National Council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people". <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2</ref><ref>http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/03/france_and_libya</ref>

On March 19, two days after passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1973,<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278685</ref> French President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] convened an emergency meeting of allied and Arab leaders in [[Paris]] which endorsed the immediate deployment of military aircraft to attack Gaddafi forces defending Benghazi and establish a no-fly zone. Before the end of the meeting, French fighter planes were attacking armored vehicles and tanks outside Benghazi. Some participants at the Paris meeting were critical of the French government, both for insisting on convening the meeting before agreeing to endorse air strikes, and then for launching air strikes before the meeting was over.<ref>Allies Open Air Assault on Qaddafi’s Forces in Libya, ''New York Times'', March 19, 2011.</ref> French officials claim that meeting participants were informed of the operation beforehand. The strikes had clearly been planned and coordinated with the [[United States]] and some other NATO forces.<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service'', March 30, 2011, p. 19 pd.</ref>

[[National Public Radio]] (NPR) reported Sarkozy enjoyed a "burst of public support"<ref>http://wap.npr.org/story/134855539</ref> while the ''[[London Guardian]]'' wrote Sarkozy's actions may save him from "electoral humiliation."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/libya-crisis-nicolas-sarkozy-electoral</ref> Several analysts speculate Sarkozy used the crisis to propel France into a Superpower role, usurping the global leadership of the United States abrogated by [[President Obama]].<ref>http://www.businessandpolitics.org/?p=4651</ref> Columnist Jim Hoagland of the ''[[Washington Post]]'' observes,
{{Cquote|France is a country that has a past being involved in world affairs, wanting to count in world affairs, and being willing to pay its way for defense forces and to use those forces abroad. So, France plays a natural role in that. At a time when governments are slashing defense spending and reducing troops, France still wants to occupy an important role in world affairs....the reason you're seeing France taking on such a much larger role is that other countries, including the United States, are not willing to do it anymore. And Sarkozy is trying to fill that vacuum.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/france2_04-07.html</ref>}}

Sarkozy's approval rating stood at 30% prior to the intervention.

===Legality of French actions===
On May 29 two French lawyers, Roland Dumas and Jacques Vergès, announced plans to initiate legal proceedings against President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] for crimes against humanity over the [[NATO]] led campaign in [[Libya]]. Dumas (who also served as a foreign minister under President [[François Mitterrand]]) said that the NATO mission, which was meant to protect civilians, is in fact killing them.<ref>http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=46395</ref> On July 4 a French lawyer, Marcel Ceccaldi, called for investigation of the International Criminal Court on NATO "war crimes". [http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/07/04/libye-un-avocat-demande-une-enquete-de-la-cpi-sur-les-crimes-de-guerre-de-l-otan_1544755_1496980.html]

== National Transitional Council ==
The National Transitional Council of the Libyan Republic announced its official establishment in early March 2011 in the city of Benghazi. The stated goal was to the overthrow of Mu’ammar Gaddafi.<ref>http://ntclibya.org/english/</ref> It has been recognized by France, [[Qatar]], Italy, [[Kuwait]], [[Maldives]] and [[Gambia]]. They have proceeded to form a transitional government for the post-Gaddafi era. Before forming a government, they robbed about $505 million from the Central Bank of Libya in Benghazi.
[[File:Libya Rebels Gaining Momentum.jpg|thumb|Anti-Gaddafi tribal insurgents in March, 2011 (Photo:Reuters).]]
{{Cquote|The top leaders of the “revolutionary” masses in Benghazi are two recent defectors of what the Left dubs Gaddafi’s “murderous regime”, Mustafa Abdul Jalil a former Justice minister (who prosecuted dissenters up to the day before the armed uprising), Mahmoud Jebril a top Gaddafite neo-liberal prominent in inviting multi-nationals to take over the oil fields (FT, March 23, 2011, p. 7) and Ali Aziz al-Eisawa, Gaddafi’s former ambassador to India who jumped ship when it looked like the uprising would succeed. These self-appointed leaders of the “rebels” are staunch backers of Euro-US military intervention just as they previously were long-term backers of Gaddafi’s dictatorship and promoters of MNC takeovers of oil and gas fields. The heads of the “rebels” military council is Omar Hariri and General Abdul Fattah Younis former head of the Ministry of Interior, both with long histories (since 1969) of repressing any democratic movements.<ref>http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/euro-us-war-on-libya-official-lies-and-misconceptions-of-critics/</ref>}}
The root base of the armed uprising is Benghazi, a hotbed of tribal backers and clients of the deposed King Idris.

===Misuse of humanitarian assistance===

In May, 2011, NATO and Arab countries agreed in Rome to set up a fund to manage donations to help areas controlled by the rebels; they announced a financial mechanism to assist the opposition in Libya. This would include a partial unfreezing of Libyan assets in banks that would go into a temporary fund managed by the U.N. Sanctions Committee. And it would be intended to help the rebels with their immediate needs to cover food, medicine and hospital costs;<ref>http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/136011941/diplomats-discuss-aid-to-libyan-rebels</ref> The insurgents would gain access to a special $3 billion (£1.8 billion) trust fund established by its Western backers to finance the breakaway regions fighting against Gaddafi;<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8492745/Libyan-rebels-to-receive-1.8-billion-trust-fund.html</ref> but the Transitional National Council is planing to use money pledged for humanitarian and reconstruction purposes to buy weapons.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/amnesty-international-accuses-gaddafi-regime-of-war-crimes-in-misurata/2011/05/06/AFbPjw6F_story.html?hpid=z2</ref>
[[File:Rebel fighters hoist the former Libyan monarchy flag on the outskirts of Benghazi.jpg|thumb|Rebel fighters hoist the former Libyan monarchy flag on the outskirts of Benghazi. Modern urbanization and equipments may be clearly seen there.]]

===Insurgent Death Squads===

Insurgent tribal leaders created a wanted list and placed suspects under round-the-clock surveillance. Secret militia units raid houses without court warrants and often interrogate suspects for hours. Those released have to sign a document stating their loyalty to the revolution. As many as 30 civilians are being held at various rebel military bases around Benghazi without due process of law, said human rights activists, judges and prosecutors. In recent weeks, at least seven former members of the internal security police have turned up dead, their bodies riddled with bullets. Although it is not known who killed them, many suspect that they died at the hands of rebel-affiliated death squads. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/libyan-rebels-accused-of-reprisal-attacks/2011/05/20/AFaeAh8G_story.html?hpid=z4]

On May, 26, the deputy leader of Libya's rebel administration said it could take up to two years to organize elections, backtracking on promises of a six-month transition to democracy. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110526/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya]

==Security Council Res. 1973 and NATO==
UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 of March 17, 2011 followed on the heels of Gaddafi’s public announcement on March 2 he may throw western oil companies out of Libya, and his invitation on March 14 to Chinese, Russian, and Indian firms to produce Libyan oil in their place.<ref>''[http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/7661/Business/Economy/Gaddafi-offers-Libyan-oil-production-to-India,-Rus.aspx Gaddafi offers Libyan oil production to India, Russia, China,] Agence France-Presse, March 14, 2011.</ref> China, Russia, India and Brazil all abstained on UNSC Resolution 1973.

Despite France taking the lead role in the intervention, the Congressional Research Service reports, "Only the United States and NATO possess the command and control capabilities necessary for coalition operations enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya." France only recently rejoined the NATO alliance, in 2008, after a 40 year absence. The Congressional Research Service, which analyzes information and prepares reports for members of Congress, also states,
{{Cquote|In spite of statements underscoring NATO unity on steps announced to date, the initial planning and operational phases were also marked by significant levels of discord within Europe and [[NATO]] on the aims and future direction of the mission. A key point of contention was reportedly the amount of flexibility that NATO forces would be granted to protect civilians and civilian areas, as called for in paragraph 4 of UNSCR 1973. Reports indicate that French officials insisted on maintaining the ability to strike ground forces that threatened civilian areas, while their [[Turkish]] counterparts vocally opposed any targeting of ground forces. Adding to the strain within NATO, NATO ally [[Germany]] abstained from UNSCR 1973 and, opposed to any potential [[combat]] operation, on March 23, withdrew its naval assets in the [[Mediterranean]] from NATO command. Throughout the first week of operations, other European allies contributing to the mission, including Italy and Norway, expressed increasing frustration with the lack of agreement within NATO, with Norway refusing to deploy its fighter jets unless under they were under NATO command and control.<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya):
Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service,'' March 30, 2011, p. 20 pdf.</ref>}}

Of NATO's 28 members, 14 are said to be "actively participating," but only 6 provided military support. By June Norway announced its intention to quit the coalition<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/norway-quit-libya-operation-august</ref> and French and British leaders expressed concerns over being able to meet the costs of a war they dragged the United States into.<ref>http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/2e515285f07040df999bd6b670db791c/Article_2011-06-14-EU-NATO-Libya/id-f6d2287c00ba4816924c082ed9cc12fa</ref> Of the 22-country [[Arab League]], whose appeal prompted the United Nations to vote on intervention, only [[Qatar]] and the [[United Arab Emirates]] are involved. Of the 192 members of the [[UN General Assembly]], who all have a legal "responsibility to protect" civilians attacked by their own governments, only [[Sweden]] has responded.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref> After the authorization and commitment of NATO and U.S. forces, Secretary Gates announced,
{{Cquote|The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.}}
and warned
{{Cquote|The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the American body politic writ large—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.<ref>http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/10/robert_gates_nato_defense_secretary_questions_future_of_the_alli.html</ref>}}

===Exceeding UN mandate===
Resolution 1973 authorized strict limitations, according to international law, on NATO as the organization with responsibility for the implementation of the resolution. Particularly, it provides only for a naval blockade enforcing the arms embargo, and enforcement of a no-fly zone. On March 29, 2011, Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin commented after a meeting with NATO officials in [[Brussels, Belgium]], that Russia expressed deep concern over the interpretation of the Security Council’s resolution, as some countries have effectively turned it into an approval for ground operations.
{{Cquote|[[Moscow]] has many questions about how the UN Security Council’s resolution is being carried out...First of all, there are reports that civilians have been killed in the air strikes. This is odd if you consider the message of the resolution, which says that the foreign forces’ actions should protect civilians. So it’s hard to comprehend how you can protect civilians by killing them....we demanded that the UN Security Council be fully informed about the actions of the alliance in Libya at all times... We have reports of air strikes against convoys far from the front line. This is a far cry from the UN Security Council resolution.<ref>http://rt.com/news/coalition-libya-nato-russian-envoy/</ref>}}
[[File:Bombing Tripoli Libya.jpg|right|Bombing Tripoli, Libya.]]
NATO planes and ships have been striking cities and military installations in Libya since mid-March, 2011. Allied military officials have spoken in recent weeks of the need for escalation to help protect Libyan civilians and have called for Gaddafi to step down. Libyan officials have said that NATO is picking sides in a civil war and complained that strikes on Gaddafi’s Tripoli compound are attempts to assassinate the leader of a sovereign country. NATO launched its largest airstrike against Moammar Gaddafi’s regime on May, 24, 2011, with at least 15 massive explosions rocking the Libyan capital. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/french-officials-france-and-britain-to-use-attack-helicopters-in-libya/2011/05/23/AFTF909G_story.html?hpid=z2]
<blockquote>
On May 15, two months into the NATO bombing campaign against loyal Gaddafi’s forces, Britain’s top military commander said that the Libyan leader could remain “clinging to power” unless NATO broadened its bombing targets to include the country’s infrastructure. <ref>http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html</ref>
</blockquote>

The French and the British described plans for a wargames exercise for an attack on Libya last November, in the end they used those military assets that had been mobilized for the real thing 3 months ago. We know that NATO doesn’t just go and bomb a country over night, these things are planned far in advance, and in this case there is conclusive evidence that there have been plans for this for many many years. <ref> [https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend] June 4, 2011. </ref>
<blockquote>
On Jun 18, Prime minister of Libya Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi accused [[NATO]] of a "new level of aggression" over the past 72 hours in which he said the military alliance intentionally targeted civilian buildings, including a hotel and a university. "It has become clear to us that NATO has moved on to deliberately hitting civilian buildings. ... This is a crime against humanity," he told reporters in the capital. Libya's Health Ministry released new casualty figures that put the number of civilians killed in NATO air strikes through to June 7 at 856. <ref> [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/gaddafi-rages-at-nato-after-bombing-2299509.html Gaddafi rages at NATO after bombing.] </ref>
</blockquote>
[[File:Women with Gaddafi Libya.jpg|thumb|280px|Lizzie Cocker with mum and two daughters from Sudan who have been living in Libya for 17 years. They had to flee from Misrata to Tripoli following the vicious atrocities committed by the pro-NATO rebels against black skinned peoples. They are firmly standing behind their leader Moammar Gadaffi. The sisters have written on the poster, on the left: "King of Kings of Africa" and on the right: "Our souls are for you".]]
==== Italy - Berlusconi ====
[[Italy]] called for a suspension of hostilities in [[Libya]] on June 22 in the latest sign of dissent within [[NATO]] as the civilian death toll mounts and [[Muammar Gaddafi]] shows no signs of quitting power. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110622/ts_afp/libyaconflictnatoitalydiplomacy]

===African response to UN & NATO intervention===
NATO's Libyan intervention has proven fractious in black Africa; in March [[Nigeria]]'s Foreign Minister Odein Ajumogobia commented, "The contradictions between principle and national interest ... have enabled the international community to impose a no-fly zone over Libya ostensibly to protect innocent civilians from slaughter, but to watch seemingly helplessly (in [[Ivory Coast]]) as ...men, women and children are slaughtered in equally, even if less egregious, violence."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503543_162-503543.html?keyword=ivory+coast</ref>
<blockquote>
Amr Moussa, the outgoing head of the Arab League and a front runner to become president of a democratic Egypt, has voiced reservations about NATO's bombing campaign in Libya, calling for a ceasefire and talks on a political settlement while Muammar Gaddafi remains in power. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/21/arab-league-chief-libya-air-strikes]
</blockquote>
The Arab League, which in March asked the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians, condemned the loss of life in bombing incidents.
<blockquote>
"When the Arab League agreed on the idea of having a no-fly zone over Libya it was to protect civilians but when civilians get killed this has to be condemned with the harshest of statements," said Deputy Secretary-General Ahmed Ben Helli.
</blockquote>
The Libyan leader says the Western-led military campaign is an act of colonial aggression designed to steal Libya's oil. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110620/wl_nm/us_libya]

==United States intervention==
[[File:Treaty of Tripoli PD LC.jpg|thumb|Treaty of Tripoli, Libya was one of the first nation to recognize the US in 1796.]]
===Frozen assets===
President Obama moved swiftly to support French plans to frustrate Gaddafi’s proposal for an African Union with his unilateral declaration of a national emergency in order to freeze all of the Bank of Libya’s $30 billion of funds to which America had access. This was reported in the U.S. press as a freeze of the funds of "Colonel Qaddafi, his children and family, and senior members of the Libyan government.<ref>''New York Times'', February 27, 2011.</ref> The second section of Obama’s decree explicitly targeted "All property and interests… of the Government of Libya, its agencies, instrumentalities, and controlled entities, and the Central Bank of Libya.<ref>Executive Order of February 25, 2011, citing International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, seizes all Libyan Govt assets, February 25, 2011, link. The authority granted to the President by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act "may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose" (50 U.S.C. 1701).</ref> The consequences of the $30-billion freeze for [[Africa]], as well as for Libya, have been spelled out by an African observer:
{{Cquote|The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.}}

===War Powers Act===

Under the [[War Powers Act]] of 1973 the U.S President has limited authority to use military force without Congressional authorization when there is an imminent [[national security]] threat, however President Obama made clear that he ordered the use of force for other reasons. Members of Congress of both parties have expressed concern the President may have violated the law in doing so.<ref>http://rooney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3190:rooney-resolution-president-should-obtain-congressional-authorization-or-end-military-campaign-in-libya-&catid=48:2011-press-releases</ref> The War Powers Act specifically states that the President’s power to introduce forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities can only be exercised pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. The War Powers Act requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific Congressional authorization. None of these prerequisites have been met.

On March 21, 2011, President Obama publicly announced U.S. military forces commenced no fly-zone operations in Libya two days earlier, on March 19, "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe" and cited UN Resolutions as giving him the authority to do so. Secretary of Defense [[Robert Gates]] warned establishment of a no-fly zone meant attacking Libaya.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20038391-503544.html</ref> Officials as National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough also opposed to attacking Libya; but "[[Hillary Clinton]] won the bureaucratic battle to use DOD resources to achieve what's essentially the State Department's objective... and Obama let it happen". <ref>[http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/18/how_obama_turned_on_a_dime_toward_war How Obama turned on a dime toward war.] </ref> The Charter of the [[United Nations]], in Article 2(4), prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of a member state, and many observers have wondered whether the establishment of a no-fly zone would constitute a violation of this prohibition. The Congressional Research Services advised that a no-fly zone imposed against a state that has not carried out an attack on its neighbors may consider the imposition of a no-fly zone an “armed attack.” CRS warned that even if no-fly zone operations in a given state do not constitute an “armed attack",
{{Cquote|that state, and other members of the international community, might consider them a violation of the prohibition of the “threat or use of force,” as well as of the customary duty of non-intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states.}}

NATO's Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee days before President Obama publicly admitted to intervention that U.S. intelligence knew of [[al Qaeda]] and [[Hezbollah]] elements among the Libyan insurgents.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8414583/Libya-al-Qaeda-among-Libya-rebels-Nato-chief-fears.html</ref> A document published by the U.S. [[West Point]] Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center reveals that Libya sent more fighters to the [[Operation_Iraqi_Freedom#InsurgencyIraq|Islamic insurgency]] than any other [[Muslim]] country (from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah.).<ref>[http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf The Sinjar documents], a collection of al Qaeda computer data captured by Americans in 2007 in a predawn raid near Sinjar, Iraq, six miles from the Syrian border. The documents included background information on around 750 foreign fighters, who migrated to Iraq to kill American soldiers, many of those fighters coming from among the very people we are now pledging to protect. David Wood wrote: "Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah. On a per capita basis, that’s more than twice as many than came from any other Arabic-speaking country, amounting to what the counter terrorism center called a Libyan “surge” of young men eager to kill Americans."</ref> This set off a fierce debate in the [[Obama administration]] over the wisdom of arming terrorists.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss</ref> It is now known however, that sometime prior to March 31, 2011,<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=2&hp</ref> President Obama signed a secret Presidential Finding authorizing support for the insurgents.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref> Direct arms support would violate the arms embargo imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1970 on February 26, 2011.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref>

Public opinion initially was divided on support for President Obama's actions, within 30 days however, opposition rose 15%<ref>http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/americans-rapidly-turn-against-obama-over-handling-of-libyan-intervention.php</ref> as the reality of the intervention set in.

===Legality of U.S. military actions===
The ''[[Washington Post]]'' reported on May 20, 2011 President Obama missed the legal deadline set in the 1973 law that required him to obtain Congressional approval for U.S. military operations in Libya. Under the [[Nixon]]-era War Powers Resolution, the president must obtain Congressional authorization of military action within 60 days, or else begin withdrawing forces.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-likely-to-miss-deadline-for-congressional-approval-of-libya-operations/2011/05/19/AFFLKn7G_story.html</ref> Sen. [[Richard Lugar]] of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations warned President Obama,
[[File:NATO strike Libya.jpg|right|220px|NATO strike, Libya.]]
{{Cquote|U.S. military operations in Libya have assumed a different character than you suggested when you announced the decision to initiate them. In your March 21 letter to the Congress, you indicated that these operations would be limited in their nature, duration, and scope, and focused on protecting civilians and civilian populated areas from attack. Two months into these operations, your Administration is unable to specify what limits will apply to the duration of the operations, and the coalition in which we are participating appears to have expanded its objectives to weakening the Gaddafi regime’s hold on power through strikes on leadership targets and, potentially, infrastructure targets.<ref>http://lugar.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=332967&</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-obama-above-the-law/2011/05/26/AGL5zyCH_story.html</ref>}}

The evidence is President Obama’s war in Libya is illegal and unconstitutional. Columnist George Will laid out the case in, “Is Obama Above the Law?” The war is a violation of the War Powers Act, which says the president can go to war without Congressional approval only if there is an imminent threat to the U.S. and there is a 60-day deadline for the withdrawal of forces. [http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2467]

The law states that “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States , its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Since there was no declaration of war or statutory authorization for the Libya action, there has to be a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S. There was none in the Libya case.<ref>http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2458 Conservative Truth.</ref> A [[bipartisan]] group of legislators have begun action against what they percieve to be President Obama's unconstitutional misuse of power.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/house/166577-kucinich-jones-sue-white-house-over-libya-war</ref>

=== 10 Reasons to Oppose the War in Libya ===

According to Rep. [[Dennis Kucinich]]:

* '''It is unconstitutional''', violating Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which gives the power of declaring war to the Congress.
* '''It is illegal''', as the War Powers Resolution was exploited out of context in order to declare war.
* '''American public opinion is against it''', as 6 Americans out of 10 oppose the war.
* It '''distracts''' the President from more immediate concerns, such as the dire state of the economy.
* It '''costs''' funds that should be used for other purposes.
* Although the war was declared by Britain and France, '''America is paying more than other NATO allies'''.
* '''Civilians are being killed''' by the same powers that are supposed to protect them.
* '''The U.N. Resolution that authorized limited military action did not allow for regime change'''
* '''Public support of the war is eroding even in other allied countries.'''
* '''The situation is a stalemate''' that ought to be solved by political, not military means.

See more at: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/10-reasons-to-oppose-the_b_881554.html 10 Reasons to Oppose the War in Libya.]

=== Opposition of [[Ron Paul]] ===

<blockquote>
''"Why did the US intervene in a civil war in a country that has neither attacked us nor poses a threat? We are told this was another humanitarian intervention, like Clinton’s 1999 war against [[Serbia]]. But as civilian victims of the US-led coalition bombing continue to add up, it is getting difficult to determine whether the problem we are creating on the ground is worse than the one we were trying to solve."'' [http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-03-28/ron-paul-end-the-libyan-war/]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
''"Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, explained in a recent article that there is plausible reason to believe the rebels are current or former Islamist mujahedin, eager to engage in jihad. Indeed, Gaddafi has fought against Libyan Islamists for years and is seen by them as a bitter enemy. Astoundingly, it may well be that we are assisting al Qaeda in this new war! [[Ibidem]]"''
</blockquote>

==Role of China==
In the first decade of the Twenty-first century China quietly has overtaken the United States to become Africa's largest trading partner, particularly in oil, which accounts for 73 percent of all African exports. According to the Chinese government's first white paper on its economic and trade cooperation with Africa, China's trade with Africa has soared to $114.81 billion in the first 11 months of 2010. China uses about 8 million barrels per day (bpd), a demand that is projected to rise to 11.3 million bpd by 2015 and now receives 28 percent of its oil imports from Africa. China's top oil suppliers are [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Iran]], [[Angola]], Russia, [[Oman]] and [[Sudan]]. Saudi Arabia is China's top oil supplier (1.1 million bpd.) China is also buying oil from [[Chad]], [[Gabon]] and [[Nigeria]] as well. China's top African oil suppliers are [[Angola]], [[Sudan]] and [[Nigeria]]. The [[International Monetary Fund]] reports, oil now accounts for 99 percent of Sudanese exports, with China absorbing for 65 percent of them. Energy is Angola's sole export hard currency earner, with China now accounting for 35 percent of Angolan exports.<ref>http://mammutcapital.blogspot.com/2011/06/upcoming-us-china-struggle-for-african.html</ref>

===Competition for resources===
After hostilities began China evacuated over 36,000 of its energy and construction workers and shut down operations of Chinese companies with over $18.8 billion of Chinese investments in Libya.<ref>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/1119924/1/.html</ref> China alone is expected to invest on a scale of $50 billion a year in Libya and Africa by 2015, a figure - funded by America’s [[trade deficit]] with China - which the Western powers and NATO cannot match.<ref>Leslie Hook, ''China’s future in Africa, after Libya,'' March 4, 2011. The U.S trade deficit with China in 2010 was $273 billion.</ref> China, Libya's largest Asian oil customer, called for an immediate ceasefire.

Dr. [[Paul Craig Roberts]], former Assistant Secretary of US Treasury in the [[Reagan administration]] observed the joint French, British, and US coalition's objective is
{{Cquote|to eliminate China from the [[Mediterranean]]. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source. The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that's the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.}}
Roberts observes
{{Cquote| the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or [[Yemen]] or [[Bahrain]] or [[Tunisia]] and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion...these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is - they did not originate in the capital city. And we have heard from the beginning credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests, and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/26/111109/new-rebel-leader-spent-much-of.html</ref> to head up the Libyan rebellion... China has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya.<ref>http://www.presstv.ir/detail/175076.html</ref>}}

Whatever Washington’s ulterior motives, there is no doubt that NATO’s military operations in Libya are harming China’s fiscal interests. According to information from China’s Ministry of Trade, by March, when the military operation began, there were 75 major Chinese companies operating in Libya, and they had concluded $18 billion in contracts. Because of the NATO operations in Libya, the Chinese companies are expecting gigantic losses. <ref> [http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ Washington Using NATO For Proxy Conflict With China In Libya.] </ref>

==Mission creep==
UN Security Council Resolution 1973, passed in March 2011, does not authorise participating members to support the anti-Gaddafi tribes, to defend armed groups, or to oust Gaddafi. Nor does it authorise a ground invasion or military occupation. Strategic analyst Anthony Cordesman notes the similarities between Libya and Iraq and the loose uncoordinated coalitions "failure to plan for the decisive and lasting use of force, failure to plan for the civil side of military operations and to support stability operations, and focus on short term goals without a realistic plan for a successful strategic and post-conflict outcome." Cordesman notes,
{{Cquote|the lives and futures of some 6.6 million Libyans are at stake. The Franco-Anglo-American gamble now seems far too likely to fail at their expense. Moreover, it seems likely to drag the other nations that support the operation into their failure -- along with part of the reputation of NATO and credibility of the UN.... gambling on Qaddafi caving in has created a far more serious humanitarian crisis for the Libyan people than would ever have occurred if the Coalition had acted decisively from the start ...The humanitarian cost of humanitarian restraint is all too clear: Hundreds of Libyan and foreign workers have been killed...hundreds of thousands lack jobs, security, and safe conditions of life....an enduring war of attrition will turn a minor humanitarian crisis into a major one ...This kind of operation cannot be “surgical’ – if “surgical” now means minimizing bloodshed regardless of whether the patient dies. Hard, and sometimes brutal, choices need to be made between limited civilian casualties and collateral damage during the decisive use of force and an open-ended war of attrition that will produce far higher cumulative civilian casualties and collateral damage.<ref>http://csis.org/publication/libya-will-farce-stay-us-and-france-and-britain</ref>}}
Cordesman notes mission creep and boots on the ground ultimately lead to [[nation building]]:
{{Cquote|France, Britain, and the US now have a special obligation to both finish what they started in military terms, and deal with the aftermath. A post-conflict Libya will need extensive help in building a workable political system, in rebuilding the capability to govern, in both rebuilding the existing economy and correcting for decades of Qaddafi’s reckless and constantly shifting eccentricities.}}
On April 19, 2011, one month after Sarkozy, Cameron, and Obama asked the UN Security Council for authorization for a limited use of force, the UK ''[[Guardian (UK)|Guardian]]'' reported,
{{Cquote|Britain is now publicly doing what it expressly said it would not do when the no-fly intervention began: putting boots on the ground in Libya. France is taking similar action. Given that the rebel tribes have convincingly demonstrated their inability to win on their own, given the sizable negatives for David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy of an open-ended, inconclusive conflict, and given Barack Obama's flat refusal to do any more, the question now is: how many more British and French boots will follow, sooner or later, in the advisers' fateful footsteps?....By encouraging and assisting rebel resistance, as [[George H. W. Bush|George Bush Snr]] did with the [[Shia]]s of southern [[Iraq]] in 1991, Britain and France risk worsening the plight of the Libyan civilians they are primarily pledged to defend. The UN and concerned aid agencies all agree the humanitarian situation is growing steadily worse, the longer the conflict continues. ..<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref>}}

<blockquote>
Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, in particular, has been scathing about Western intervention in Libya, comparing the Resolution 1973 to “a medieval call to the crusades” and saying “the so-called civilized community, with all its might, pounces on a small country, and ruins infrastructure that has been built over generations.” Mr. Putin returned to the subject of Libya repeatedly, despite acknowledging that foreign policy decisions were not within his portfolio as prime minister. [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/world/europe/28russia.html?hp]
</blockquote>

===Manufacturing Consent===

"On how the western media makes the case for war. Our consent has been manufactured by the criminalization of Gaddafi and his government, and the Libyan people cannot believe it when I tell them what is said about him in the west. And if only you could see how they live, they are far more free than us in England in many ways, this does not fit in with the oppressive image of Gaddafi portrayed in the west.

So for example, I have had Libyans coming up to me asking me about a report in the popular French newspaper Le Figaro that came out about 3 days ago saying 10,000 people have been killed in Tripoli over the past 3 months by government forces. They are astonished, because this is complete and utter lies. " [https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend.]

=== Libya post-Gaddafi = ==
Rebel fighters with support from NATO airstrikes, overtook the capital of Tripoli and toppled the government of Libya causing Gaddafi to flee into hiding. This victory finally peaked the interests of the liberal media, who remained silent, even as the President violated the War Powers Act.

As of September 2011, a single enclave of government/tribal resistance remains and is surrounded by rebels, Gaddafi's hometown. The rebels have been recognized by the U.S. and the U.N. as the legitimate government. It remains to be seen how much money of the former regime will be released to the new government, estimated in the multi-billions. It will be a year or longer before Libya can resume full capacity oil shipments.

Knowledgeable people agree, the situation in a post-Gaddafi is uncertain. Likely, the nation will be end up an Islamic state. U.S. intelligence says as many as 20,000 advanced Russian surface-to-air missiles are missing and could end up in terror groups' arsenals. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/27/u-s-intelligence-now-says-up-to-20000-advanced-surface-to-air-missiles-mussing-from-libya/ U.S. Intelligence Now Says Up To 20,000 Advanced Surface-To-Air Missiles Missing From Lib, Weasel Zippers, September 27, 2011]</ref> [[Al Qaeda]] is very active in the region and the conflict. No one is sure how to rid the country of this terrorist element.

==External links==
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/in-arming-libyan-rebels-the-us-would-follow-an-old-dark-path/73019/ In Arming Libyan Rebels, the U.S. Would Follow an Old, Dark Path.]
[[File:Tripoli NATO bombing Libya.jpg|thumb|280px|Tripoli, NATO bombing.]]
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels.] ''The Independent'', UK.
*[http://www.sott.net/articles/show/225613-Operation-Libya-The-US-NATO-Attempted-Coup-d-Etat-in-Libya-and-the-Battle-for-Oil "Operation Libya": The US-NATO Attempted Coup d'Etat in Libya and the Battle for Oil.]
*[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2055251,00.html Why Libya's Uprising Is Bad for the World Economy.]
*[http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions False pretense for war in Libya?]
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-nato-civil-war-cameron These humanitarians come to Libya with missiles, and an agenda.] by [[Simon Jenkins]].
*[http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=24188 The West's War Against Gaddafi. Yet another long-lasting, tragic crime against humanity.]
*[http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama%E2%80%99s-war-in-libya-is-illegal-and-unconstitutional/ Obama’s War in Libya is Illegal and Unconstitutional.] by Cliff Kincaid.
*[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/30/us-libya-school-idUSTRE73T24620110430 Libya disabled children school hit in NATO strike.] Reuters.
*[http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/06/08/natos-alternate-universe-in-libya.html NATO's "Alternate Universe" in Libya.]
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reese-schonfeld/are-the-lessons-of-kosovo_b_868281.html Are The Lessons of Kosovo Spreading to Libya?]
*[http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/06/22/le-patron-de-la-ligue-arabe-fait-part-de-scrupules-sur-la-libye_1539111_1496980.html#ens_id=1481986 The head of the Arab League expressed "qualms" about Libya.] In French.
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx3UAWau9T8&%20NR=1 George Galloway talks about Libya war.] Youtube

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Libya]]
[[category:Africa]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:War]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

NATO war in Libya

2011-09-28T02:01:50Z

BrentH: /* Libya Post Gaddafi */ Moving

[[File:Gaddafi and Mandela 1.JPG|thumb|right|250px|[[Nobel Peace Prize]] winner [[Nelson Mandela]] greets an old friend and ally, Muammar Gaddafi, who supported the [[ANC]] during their struggle against [[apartheid]]. ''[[Reuters]]'' reports President Obama secretly ordered support for [[al Qaeda]] terrorists seeking Gaddafi's ouster.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umgMDJIpkn0</ref>.]]
The '''Libyan War of 2011''' started as the '''Benghazi rebellion''', a series of protests in eastern [[Libya]] on February 16, 2011 after the successful uprisings in [[Tunisia]] and [[Egypt]]. The scale of violence contrasts markedly with the more peaceful uprisings that toppled the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes. The [[Islamist]] terror group [[Al-Qaeda]] in North Africa has vowed to do everything in its power to help the uprising against the Libyan [[secular]] strongman [[Muammar Gaddafi]].<ref> [http://www.dawn.com/2011/02/24/al-qaeda-in-n-africa-backs-libya-uprising-site.html Al Qaeda in N. Africa backs Libya uprising: SITE] </ref><ref> [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/07/libya-uprising-live-updates Libya uprising.] </ref> Journalist David Wood has reported,
{{Cquote|Eastern Libya has been described by U.S. diplomats as a breeding ground for Islamist [[extremism]]. In diplomatic cables released by [[Wikileaks]], the region’s young men were said to have "nothing to lose" by resorting to violence. Sermons in the local [[mosque]]s are "laced with phraseology urging worshippers to support [[jihad]]," one diplomat reported.<ref>http://91.214.23.156/cablegate/wire.php?id=08TRIPOLI120&search=</ref>}}
Wood added,
{{Cquote|extremist elements make up only a portion of the resistance to Gaddafi and have been present in every popular uprising in the region stretching from the [[Iran]]ian revolution to the [[Egypt]]ian people’s overthrow of [[Hosni Mubarak]].<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html</ref>}}

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said [[jihad]]ists who fought against American troops in [[Iraq]] are on the front lines of the battle against Gaddafi's regime. <ref> [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links.] </ref> <ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world/guantanamo-files-libyan-detainee-now-us-ally-of-sorts.html Libyan, Once a Detainee, Is Now a U.S. Ally of Sorts.]</ref>

An international coalition intervened in what many describe as an "illegal war"<ref>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/01/obamas_illegal_war</ref> led by the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO), whose own leaders have openly questioned what the value, purpose, and reason for existence of NATO is. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/world/europe/14iht-letter14.html</ref><ref>http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_58ebd6cf-0558-5ee2-bd8d-cf27c1af7630.html</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/12/nato-usa</ref>

__TOC__
It was reported on February 24, 2011, that an emergency meeting of the [[United Nations Human Rights Council]] (UNHRC) on Libya would take no action, or make no recommendation to the [[UN General Assembly]], to remove Libya from its seat on the UN Human Rights Council, despite alleged [[human rights]] abuses.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] (UNSC) then voted on March 17, 2011, to pass Security Council resolution 1973 proposed by [[France]], along with its British and Lebanese partners, initiating the use of military force in Libya. [[China]], [[Russia]], [[India]] and [[Brazil]] (the so-called BRIC nations) all abstained from the vote. The [[Obama administration]] called for Gaddafi to step aside, and has provided assistance to the insurgent tribes. US Congressional leaders were not consulted, <ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262921/boehner-obama-libya-many-other-members-house-representatives-are-troubled-robert-costa</ref> nor has the United States Congress authorized any use of force in Libya.

Military and intelligence experts in France, [[Britain]], and the United States warned about uncertainties, but were overruled by political leaders. The result was a set of decisions focusing on short term considerations and gambling on the outcome. French, British, and US leaders did not fully coordinate, but according to Anthony Cordesman, it became clear,
{{Cquote|they sought and got international cover from the UN by claiming a no fly zone could protect civilians when their real objective was to use force as a catalyst to drive Gaddafi out of power.}}
[[Sarkozy]], [[David Cameron|Cameron]], and [[Obama]] seem to have assumed that a largely unknown, divided, and fractured group of insurgents could win through sheer political momentum, and could then be turned into a successful government. Within the first month it was obvious a "weak, divided, poorly led, and badly equipped and supplied set of rebel tribes can only hang on with the present level of air support" that was provided.

The assault on Libya set off a frenzy of speculations about the real motive behind the war in the oil-rich country, with many analysts saying that under the guise of protecting civilians, as enshrined in the UNSC Resolution 1973, Washington and its Western allies are basically after the North African country’s vast oil reserves. <ref>[http://2012indyinfo.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/presstv-germany-slams-nato-mission-in-libya/ Germany slams NATO mission in Libya.]</ref>

[[Stephen Lendman]]: Libya assault planned months ahead; See interview: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSlXO_X_fE&feature=related in Youtube.]

== Libya before the 2011 uprising ==
[[File:Libya Irrigation project.jpg|thumb|330px|Satellite view is showing irrigated farming projects at Al Khufrah Oasis in south-east Libya. Part of the "Great Man Made River Project" ($33 billion), where water is drawn from vast underground aquifers. This water is transported about 800 km (500 mi) to the coastal cities of Libya by means of the world's largest underground network of pipes.]]
In 1951 Libya was officially the poorest country in the world, <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,864742,00.html]</ref> but by the time of the 2011 uprising, Libyans' living standards were considered the highest in Africa. The GDP per Capita was more than the double of that in Egypt, and above that of Russia. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge; but more than the advances in housing, agricultural, industry, health care, education, is the advance in direct popular democracy. <ref>[http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/libfacts.htm]</ref> [[Condoleezza Rice]] praised Libya for its "excellent co-operation" in the US-led [[war on terror]]. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4773617.stm] (BBC News)</ref>.
<blockquote>
The living standards of Libyans have improved significantly since the 1970s, ranking the country among the highest in Africa. Urbanization, developmental projects, and high oil revenues have enabled the Libyan government to elevate its people's living standards. The social and economic status of women and children has particularly improved. Various subsidized or free services (health, education, housing, and basic foodstuffs) have ensured basic necessities. The low percentage of people without access to safe water (3 percent), health services (0 percent) and sanitation (2 percent), and a relatively high life expectancy (70.2 years) in 1998 indicate the improved living standards. Adequate health care and subsidized foodstuffs have sharply reduced infant mortality, from 105 per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 20 per 1,000 live births in 1998. The government also subsidizes education, which is compulsory and free between the ages of 6 and 15. The expansion of educational facilities has elevated the literacy rate (78.1 in 1998). There are universities in [[Tripoli]], Benghazi, Marsa el-Brega, Misurata, Sebha, and Tobruk. <ref>[http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Libya-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html] (SOURCE: Handbook of the Nations; CIA World Factbook.)</ref>
</blockquote>

[[Nobel Peace Prize]] recipient [[Nelson Mandela]] warned of the machinations of outside influences in a speech noting Gaddafi and leadership in Africa:
{{Cquote|In a world where the strong may seek to impose upon the more vulnerable; and where particular nations or groups of nations may still seek to decide the fate of the planet - in such a world respect for multilateralism, moderation of public discourse and a patient search for compromise become even more imperative to save the world from debilitating conflict and enduring inequality. When we dismissed criticism of our friendship with yourself, My Brother Leader, and of the relationship between [[South Africa]] and Libya, it was precisely in defence of those values.<ref>http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=222537&sn=Detail</ref>}}
[[File:Benghazi shopping center Libya.JPG|thumb|Benghazi shopping center.]]
At present Gaddafi is not well seen in the EU and USA but the Libyan people seem to be thriving with him as leader. A delegation of medical professionals from [[Russia]], [[Ukraine]] and [[Belarus]] wrote in an appeal to "Russian President [[Medvedev]] and Prime Minister [[Putin]] that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort". Libya today is not a highly polarized society divided between extremes of wealth and poverty.

On February 24, 2011, no threat was seen to Libya’s Seat on top U.N. Human Rights Body. A European Union-proposed draft resolution for a subsequent session “strongly condemns” human rights violations committed in Libya amid turmoil sparked by protesters, rather than condemning Gaddafi or the regime for committing them. [http://www.cnsnews.com/public/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human]
<blockquote>
The "United Nations Development Program (UNDP) confirms that the country had excellent prospects for achieving United Nations development goals by 2015. NATO's war will have already dashed those hopes. A collapse like the one in Iraq now threatens the country. [http://www.newsfrommiddleeast.com/?new=77210]
</blockquote>
<center>
[[File:View to Tripoli Libya.jpg|380px|thumb|center|Tripoli, 2009.]]
</center>

==Libya under Gaddafi ==
===Petrodollars and oil===
According to a Russian article titled ''Bombing of Libya - Punishment for Qaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,'' Gaddafi initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the [[Euro]] as payment for Libya's oil, and called on [[Arab]] and African nations to use a new currency, the gold dinar. Gaddafi proposed establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. The initiative was viewed negatively in the United States and the [[European Union]], with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind. But Gaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa. As early September 9, 1999, the first steps towards the formation of the [[African Union]] were taken by the Heads of State of the Organisation of African Unity.<ref>[http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/aboutau/au_in_a_nutshell_en.htm The AU in a nutshell]</ref>

In the wake of the global [[financial crisis of 2008]] forcing the United States into [[recession]], both China and Russia called for the dollar’s role in the global financial system to be diluted. Both China and the USSR abstained from UNSCR 1973.

''Bloomberg News'' reported in September 2010 that China and Russia planned to start trading in each other’s currency as the world’s second-biggest energy consumer and the largest energy supplier seek to diminish the dollar’s role in global trade. Bhanu Baweja commented {{Cquote|Given the risk to the dollar and U.S. assets from their fiscal position they want to reduce their dependence on the dollar as an invoicing currency....It makes sense for two large economies to exclude a third, overly dominant economy from their trading equation.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-08/china-russia-push-yuan-ruble-trading-to-diminish-dominance-of-u-s-dollar.html</ref>}}

===African Satellite Control Center===
An observer spelled out one of Gaddafi’s motivations for proposing an African Union:
{{Cquote|It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.

An African satellite only cost a one-time payment of $400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a $500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn't finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can [[slave]]s, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the [[World Bank]], the [[International Monetary Fund]], the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put $300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added $50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further $27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.<ref>http://www.vtcommons.org/blog/2011/04/21/ethan-allen-qaddafi</ref>}}

===Libyan Central Bank===
In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:
{{Cquote|One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned.... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a [[sovereign]] nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.<ref>Eric Encina,''[http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27208.html Globalists Target 100% State Owned Central Bank of Libya,]'' Market Oracle.</ref>}}
Ellen Brown adds,
{{Cquote|Libya not only has oil. According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS (Bank of International Settlements), the IMF and their rules.<ref>Ellen Brown, ''[http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/5625-libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking,]'' Reader Supported News, April 15, 2011.</ref>}}
Gaddafi’s proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa contravenes IMF rules and is designed to bypass them.

=== Italian Friendship treaty ===
"We signed a friendship treaty with Libya, that includes a non-aggression clause, but when the counterpart '''no longer exists''' — in this case the Libyan state — the treaty cannot be applied”, said [[Italy]]’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini on February 26, 2011, ten days after the uprising began.
{{Cquote|Italy’s treaty with Libya, signed by Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] in August 2008, calls on Italy to pay Libya $5 billion over 20 years in reparations for its colonial past there. In return, Libya pledged to help block the flow of illegal immigrants to Italy and grant favorable treatment for Italian companies seeking to do business in Libya. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/world/europe/28military.html]</ref>}}

==French intervention==

A report from Congressman [[Dennis Kucinich]] corroborated the claim of Franco Bechis<ref>''[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RkUoFsgEwm8J:www.voltairenet.org/article169069.html+French+plans+to+topple+Gaddafi+on+track+since+last+November&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com French plans to topple Gaddafi on track since last November]'', by Franco Bechis, VoltaireNet, March 26, 2011.</ref> in Italy that "plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010."<ref>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24347</ref>

On March 10, 2011, France became the first and only country to recognize the Libyan Transitional National Council “as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.”<ref> “Sarkozy’s Libyan Surprise,” ''The Economist'', March 14, 2011.</ref> "France recognizes states, not parties", said a senior official on March 9th. After a meeting arranged by [[Bernard Henri Levy|Bernard-Henri Lévy]] the next morning, on March 10th, two representatives of the Libyan opposition emerged from President Sarkozys office at the Elysée Palace to announce that "France recognizes the Libyan Transitional National Council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people". <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2</ref><ref>http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/03/france_and_libya</ref>

On March 19, two days after passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1973,<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278685</ref> French President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] convened an emergency meeting of allied and Arab leaders in [[Paris]] which endorsed the immediate deployment of military aircraft to attack Gaddafi forces defending Benghazi and establish a no-fly zone. Before the end of the meeting, French fighter planes were attacking armored vehicles and tanks outside Benghazi. Some participants at the Paris meeting were critical of the French government, both for insisting on convening the meeting before agreeing to endorse air strikes, and then for launching air strikes before the meeting was over.<ref>Allies Open Air Assault on Qaddafi’s Forces in Libya, ''New York Times'', March 19, 2011.</ref> French officials claim that meeting participants were informed of the operation beforehand. The strikes had clearly been planned and coordinated with the [[United States]] and some other NATO forces.<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service'', March 30, 2011, p. 19 pd.</ref>

[[National Public Radio]] (NPR) reported Sarkozy enjoyed a "burst of public support"<ref>http://wap.npr.org/story/134855539</ref> while the ''[[London Guardian]]'' wrote Sarkozy's actions may save him from "electoral humiliation."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/libya-crisis-nicolas-sarkozy-electoral</ref> Several analysts speculate Sarkozy used the crisis to propel France into a Superpower role, usurping the global leadership of the United States abrogated by [[President Obama]].<ref>http://www.businessandpolitics.org/?p=4651</ref> Columnist Jim Hoagland of the ''[[Washington Post]]'' observes,
{{Cquote|France is a country that has a past being involved in world affairs, wanting to count in world affairs, and being willing to pay its way for defense forces and to use those forces abroad. So, France plays a natural role in that. At a time when governments are slashing defense spending and reducing troops, France still wants to occupy an important role in world affairs....the reason you're seeing France taking on such a much larger role is that other countries, including the United States, are not willing to do it anymore. And Sarkozy is trying to fill that vacuum.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/france2_04-07.html</ref>}}

Sarkozy's approval rating stood at 30% prior to the intervention.

===Legality of French actions===
On May 29 two French lawyers, Roland Dumas and Jacques Vergès, announced plans to initiate legal proceedings against President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] for crimes against humanity over the [[NATO]] led campaign in [[Libya]]. Dumas (who also served as a foreign minister under President [[François Mitterrand]]) said that the NATO mission, which was meant to protect civilians, is in fact killing them.<ref>http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=46395</ref> On July 4 a French lawyer, Marcel Ceccaldi, called for investigation of the International Criminal Court on NATO "war crimes". [http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/07/04/libye-un-avocat-demande-une-enquete-de-la-cpi-sur-les-crimes-de-guerre-de-l-otan_1544755_1496980.html]

== National Transitional Council ==
The National Transitional Council of the Libyan Republic announced its official establishment in early March 2011 in the city of Benghazi. The stated goal was to the overthrow of Mu’ammar Gaddafi.<ref>http://ntclibya.org/english/</ref> It has been recognized by France, [[Qatar]], Italy, [[Kuwait]], [[Maldives]] and [[Gambia]]. They have proceeded to form a transitional government for the post-Gaddafi era. Before forming a government, they robbed about $505 million from the Central Bank of Libya in Benghazi.
[[File:Libya Rebels Gaining Momentum.jpg|thumb|Anti-Gaddafi tribal insurgents in March, 2011 (Photo:Reuters).]]
{{Cquote|The top leaders of the “revolutionary” masses in Benghazi are two recent defectors of what the Left dubs Gaddafi’s “murderous regime”, Mustafa Abdul Jalil a former Justice minister (who prosecuted dissenters up to the day before the armed uprising), Mahmoud Jebril a top Gaddafite neo-liberal prominent in inviting multi-nationals to take over the oil fields (FT, March 23, 2011, p. 7) and Ali Aziz al-Eisawa, Gaddafi’s former ambassador to India who jumped ship when it looked like the uprising would succeed. These self-appointed leaders of the “rebels” are staunch backers of Euro-US military intervention just as they previously were long-term backers of Gaddafi’s dictatorship and promoters of MNC takeovers of oil and gas fields. The heads of the “rebels” military council is Omar Hariri and General Abdul Fattah Younis former head of the Ministry of Interior, both with long histories (since 1969) of repressing any democratic movements.<ref>http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/euro-us-war-on-libya-official-lies-and-misconceptions-of-critics/</ref>}}
The root base of the armed uprising is Benghazi, a hotbed of tribal backers and clients of the deposed King Idris.

===Misuse of humanitarian assistance===

In May, 2011, NATO and Arab countries agreed in Rome to set up a fund to manage donations to help areas controlled by the rebels; they announced a financial mechanism to assist the opposition in Libya. This would include a partial unfreezing of Libyan assets in banks that would go into a temporary fund managed by the U.N. Sanctions Committee. And it would be intended to help the rebels with their immediate needs to cover food, medicine and hospital costs;<ref>http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/136011941/diplomats-discuss-aid-to-libyan-rebels</ref> The insurgents would gain access to a special $3 billion (£1.8 billion) trust fund established by its Western backers to finance the breakaway regions fighting against Gaddafi;<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8492745/Libyan-rebels-to-receive-1.8-billion-trust-fund.html</ref> but the Transitional National Council is planing to use money pledged for humanitarian and reconstruction purposes to buy weapons.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/amnesty-international-accuses-gaddafi-regime-of-war-crimes-in-misurata/2011/05/06/AFbPjw6F_story.html?hpid=z2</ref>
[[File:Rebel fighters hoist the former Libyan monarchy flag on the outskirts of Benghazi.jpg|thumb|Rebel fighters hoist the former Libyan monarchy flag on the outskirts of Benghazi. Modern urbanization and equipments may be clearly seen there.]]

===Insurgent Death Squads===

Insurgent tribal leaders created a wanted list and placed suspects under round-the-clock surveillance. Secret militia units raid houses without court warrants and often interrogate suspects for hours. Those released have to sign a document stating their loyalty to the revolution. As many as 30 civilians are being held at various rebel military bases around Benghazi without due process of law, said human rights activists, judges and prosecutors. In recent weeks, at least seven former members of the internal security police have turned up dead, their bodies riddled with bullets. Although it is not known who killed them, many suspect that they died at the hands of rebel-affiliated death squads. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/libyan-rebels-accused-of-reprisal-attacks/2011/05/20/AFaeAh8G_story.html?hpid=z4]

On May, 26, the deputy leader of Libya's rebel administration said it could take up to two years to organize elections, backtracking on promises of a six-month transition to democracy. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110526/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya]

==Security Council Res. 1973 and NATO==
UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 of March 17, 2011 followed on the heels of Gaddafi’s public announcement on March 2 he may throw western oil companies out of Libya, and his invitation on March 14 to Chinese, Russian, and Indian firms to produce Libyan oil in their place.<ref>''[http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/7661/Business/Economy/Gaddafi-offers-Libyan-oil-production-to-India,-Rus.aspx Gaddafi offers Libyan oil production to India, Russia, China,] Agence France-Presse, March 14, 2011.</ref> China, Russia, India and Brazil all abstained on UNSC Resolution 1973.

Despite France taking the lead role in the intervention, the Congressional Research Service reports, "Only the United States and NATO possess the command and control capabilities necessary for coalition operations enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya." France only recently rejoined the NATO alliance, in 2008, after a 40 year absence. The Congressional Research Service, which analyzes information and prepares reports for members of Congress, also states,
{{Cquote|In spite of statements underscoring NATO unity on steps announced to date, the initial planning and operational phases were also marked by significant levels of discord within Europe and [[NATO]] on the aims and future direction of the mission. A key point of contention was reportedly the amount of flexibility that NATO forces would be granted to protect civilians and civilian areas, as called for in paragraph 4 of UNSCR 1973. Reports indicate that French officials insisted on maintaining the ability to strike ground forces that threatened civilian areas, while their [[Turkish]] counterparts vocally opposed any targeting of ground forces. Adding to the strain within NATO, NATO ally [[Germany]] abstained from UNSCR 1973 and, opposed to any potential [[combat]] operation, on March 23, withdrew its naval assets in the [[Mediterranean]] from NATO command. Throughout the first week of operations, other European allies contributing to the mission, including Italy and Norway, expressed increasing frustration with the lack of agreement within NATO, with Norway refusing to deploy its fighter jets unless under they were under NATO command and control.<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya):
Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service,'' March 30, 2011, p. 20 pdf.</ref>}}

Of NATO's 28 members, 14 are said to be "actively participating," but only 6 provided military support. By June Norway announced its intention to quit the coalition<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/norway-quit-libya-operation-august</ref> and French and British leaders expressed concerns over being able to meet the costs of a war they dragged the United States into.<ref>http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/2e515285f07040df999bd6b670db791c/Article_2011-06-14-EU-NATO-Libya/id-f6d2287c00ba4816924c082ed9cc12fa</ref> Of the 22-country [[Arab League]], whose appeal prompted the United Nations to vote on intervention, only [[Qatar]] and the [[United Arab Emirates]] are involved. Of the 192 members of the [[UN General Assembly]], who all have a legal "responsibility to protect" civilians attacked by their own governments, only [[Sweden]] has responded.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref> After the authorization and commitment of NATO and U.S. forces, Secretary Gates announced,
{{Cquote|The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.}}
and warned
{{Cquote|The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the American body politic writ large—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.<ref>http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/10/robert_gates_nato_defense_secretary_questions_future_of_the_alli.html</ref>}}

===Exceeding UN mandate===
Resolution 1973 authorized strict limitations, according to international law, on NATO as the organization with responsibility for the implementation of the resolution. Particularly, it provides only for a naval blockade enforcing the arms embargo, and enforcement of a no-fly zone. On March 29, 2011, Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin commented after a meeting with NATO officials in [[Brussels, Belgium]], that Russia expressed deep concern over the interpretation of the Security Council’s resolution, as some countries have effectively turned it into an approval for ground operations.
{{Cquote|[[Moscow]] has many questions about how the UN Security Council’s resolution is being carried out...First of all, there are reports that civilians have been killed in the air strikes. This is odd if you consider the message of the resolution, which says that the foreign forces’ actions should protect civilians. So it’s hard to comprehend how you can protect civilians by killing them....we demanded that the UN Security Council be fully informed about the actions of the alliance in Libya at all times... We have reports of air strikes against convoys far from the front line. This is a far cry from the UN Security Council resolution.<ref>http://rt.com/news/coalition-libya-nato-russian-envoy/</ref>}}
[[File:Bombing Tripoli Libya.jpg|right|Bombing Tripoli, Libya.]]
NATO planes and ships have been striking cities and military installations in Libya since mid-March, 2011. Allied military officials have spoken in recent weeks of the need for escalation to help protect Libyan civilians and have called for Gaddafi to step down. Libyan officials have said that NATO is picking sides in a civil war and complained that strikes on Gaddafi’s Tripoli compound are attempts to assassinate the leader of a sovereign country. NATO launched its largest airstrike against Moammar Gaddafi’s regime on May, 24, 2011, with at least 15 massive explosions rocking the Libyan capital. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/french-officials-france-and-britain-to-use-attack-helicopters-in-libya/2011/05/23/AFTF909G_story.html?hpid=z2]
<blockquote>
On May 15, two months into the NATO bombing campaign against loyal Gaddafi’s forces, Britain’s top military commander said that the Libyan leader could remain “clinging to power” unless NATO broadened its bombing targets to include the country’s infrastructure. <ref>http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html</ref>
</blockquote>

The French and the British described plans for a wargames exercise for an attack on Libya last November, in the end they used those military assets that had been mobilized for the real thing 3 months ago. We know that NATO doesn’t just go and bomb a country over night, these things are planned far in advance, and in this case there is conclusive evidence that there have been plans for this for many many years. <ref> [https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend] June 4, 2011. </ref>
<blockquote>
On Jun 18, Prime minister of Libya Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi accused [[NATO]] of a "new level of aggression" over the past 72 hours in which he said the military alliance intentionally targeted civilian buildings, including a hotel and a university. "It has become clear to us that NATO has moved on to deliberately hitting civilian buildings. ... This is a crime against humanity," he told reporters in the capital. Libya's Health Ministry released new casualty figures that put the number of civilians killed in NATO air strikes through to June 7 at 856. <ref> [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/gaddafi-rages-at-nato-after-bombing-2299509.html Gaddafi rages at NATO after bombing.] </ref>
</blockquote>
[[File:Women with Gaddafi Libya.jpg|thumb|280px|Lizzie Cocker with mum and two daughters from Sudan who have been living in Libya for 17 years. They had to flee from Misrata to Tripoli following the vicious atrocities committed by the pro-NATO rebels against black skinned peoples. They are firmly standing behind their leader Moammar Gadaffi. The sisters have written on the poster, on the left: "King of Kings of Africa" and on the right: "Our souls are for you".]]
==== Italy - Berlusconi ====
[[Italy]] called for a suspension of hostilities in [[Libya]] on June 22 in the latest sign of dissent within [[NATO]] as the civilian death toll mounts and [[Muammar Gaddafi]] shows no signs of quitting power. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110622/ts_afp/libyaconflictnatoitalydiplomacy]

===African response to UN & NATO intervention===
NATO's Libyan intervention has proven fractious in black Africa; in March [[Nigeria]]'s Foreign Minister Odein Ajumogobia commented, "The contradictions between principle and national interest ... have enabled the international community to impose a no-fly zone over Libya ostensibly to protect innocent civilians from slaughter, but to watch seemingly helplessly (in [[Ivory Coast]]) as ...men, women and children are slaughtered in equally, even if less egregious, violence."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503543_162-503543.html?keyword=ivory+coast</ref>
<blockquote>
Amr Moussa, the outgoing head of the Arab League and a front runner to become president of a democratic Egypt, has voiced reservations about NATO's bombing campaign in Libya, calling for a ceasefire and talks on a political settlement while Muammar Gaddafi remains in power. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/21/arab-league-chief-libya-air-strikes]
</blockquote>
The Arab League, which in March asked the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians, condemned the loss of life in bombing incidents.
<blockquote>
"When the Arab League agreed on the idea of having a no-fly zone over Libya it was to protect civilians but when civilians get killed this has to be condemned with the harshest of statements," said Deputy Secretary-General Ahmed Ben Helli.
</blockquote>
The Libyan leader says the Western-led military campaign is an act of colonial aggression designed to steal Libya's oil. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110620/wl_nm/us_libya]

==United States intervention==
[[File:Treaty of Tripoli PD LC.jpg|thumb|Treaty of Tripoli, Libya was one of the first nation to recognize the US in 1796.]]
===Frozen assets===
President Obama moved swiftly to support French plans to frustrate Gaddafi’s proposal for an African Union with his unilateral declaration of a national emergency in order to freeze all of the Bank of Libya’s $30 billion of funds to which America had access. This was reported in the U.S. press as a freeze of the funds of "Colonel Qaddafi, his children and family, and senior members of the Libyan government.<ref>''New York Times'', February 27, 2011.</ref> The second section of Obama’s decree explicitly targeted "All property and interests… of the Government of Libya, its agencies, instrumentalities, and controlled entities, and the Central Bank of Libya.<ref>Executive Order of February 25, 2011, citing International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, seizes all Libyan Govt assets, February 25, 2011, link. The authority granted to the President by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act "may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose" (50 U.S.C. 1701).</ref> The consequences of the $30-billion freeze for [[Africa]], as well as for Libya, have been spelled out by an African observer:
{{Cquote|The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.}}

===War Powers Act===

Under the [[War Powers Act]] of 1973 the U.S President has limited authority to use military force without Congressional authorization when there is an imminent [[national security]] threat, however President Obama made clear that he ordered the use of force for other reasons. Members of Congress of both parties have expressed concern the President may have violated the law in doing so.<ref>http://rooney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3190:rooney-resolution-president-should-obtain-congressional-authorization-or-end-military-campaign-in-libya-&catid=48:2011-press-releases</ref> The War Powers Act specifically states that the President’s power to introduce forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities can only be exercised pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. The War Powers Act requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific Congressional authorization. None of these prerequisites have been met.

On March 21, 2011, President Obama publicly announced U.S. military forces commenced no fly-zone operations in Libya two days earlier, on March 19, "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe" and cited UN Resolutions as giving him the authority to do so. Secretary of Defense [[Robert Gates]] warned establishment of a no-fly zone meant attacking Libaya.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20038391-503544.html</ref> Officials as National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough also opposed to attacking Libya; but "[[Hillary Clinton]] won the bureaucratic battle to use DOD resources to achieve what's essentially the State Department's objective... and Obama let it happen". <ref>[http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/18/how_obama_turned_on_a_dime_toward_war How Obama turned on a dime toward war.] </ref> The Charter of the [[United Nations]], in Article 2(4), prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of a member state, and many observers have wondered whether the establishment of a no-fly zone would constitute a violation of this prohibition. The Congressional Research Services advised that a no-fly zone imposed against a state that has not carried out an attack on its neighbors may consider the imposition of a no-fly zone an “armed attack.” CRS warned that even if no-fly zone operations in a given state do not constitute an “armed attack",
{{Cquote|that state, and other members of the international community, might consider them a violation of the prohibition of the “threat or use of force,” as well as of the customary duty of non-intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states.}}

NATO's Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee days before President Obama publicly admitted to intervention that U.S. intelligence knew of [[al Qaeda]] and [[Hezbollah]] elements among the Libyan insurgents.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8414583/Libya-al-Qaeda-among-Libya-rebels-Nato-chief-fears.html</ref> A document published by the U.S. [[West Point]] Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center reveals that Libya sent more fighters to the [[Operation_Iraqi_Freedom#InsurgencyIraq|Islamic insurgency]] than any other [[Muslim]] country (from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah.).<ref>[http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf The Sinjar documents], a collection of al Qaeda computer data captured by Americans in 2007 in a predawn raid near Sinjar, Iraq, six miles from the Syrian border. The documents included background information on around 750 foreign fighters, who migrated to Iraq to kill American soldiers, many of those fighters coming from among the very people we are now pledging to protect. David Wood wrote: "Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah. On a per capita basis, that’s more than twice as many than came from any other Arabic-speaking country, amounting to what the counter terrorism center called a Libyan “surge” of young men eager to kill Americans."</ref> This set off a fierce debate in the [[Obama administration]] over the wisdom of arming terrorists.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss</ref> It is now known however, that sometime prior to March 31, 2011,<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=2&hp</ref> President Obama signed a secret Presidential Finding authorizing support for the insurgents.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref> Direct arms support would violate the arms embargo imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1970 on February 26, 2011.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref>

Public opinion initially was divided on support for President Obama's actions, within 30 days however, opposition rose 15%<ref>http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/americans-rapidly-turn-against-obama-over-handling-of-libyan-intervention.php</ref> as the reality of the intervention set in.

===Legality of U.S. military actions===
The ''[[Washington Post]]'' reported on May 20, 2011 President Obama missed the legal deadline set in the 1973 law that required him to obtain Congressional approval for U.S. military operations in Libya. Under the [[Nixon]]-era War Powers Resolution, the president must obtain Congressional authorization of military action within 60 days, or else begin withdrawing forces.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-likely-to-miss-deadline-for-congressional-approval-of-libya-operations/2011/05/19/AFFLKn7G_story.html</ref> Sen. [[Richard Lugar]] of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations warned President Obama,
[[File:NATO strike Libya.jpg|right|220px|NATO strike, Libya.]]
{{Cquote|U.S. military operations in Libya have assumed a different character than you suggested when you announced the decision to initiate them. In your March 21 letter to the Congress, you indicated that these operations would be limited in their nature, duration, and scope, and focused on protecting civilians and civilian populated areas from attack. Two months into these operations, your Administration is unable to specify what limits will apply to the duration of the operations, and the coalition in which we are participating appears to have expanded its objectives to weakening the Gaddafi regime’s hold on power through strikes on leadership targets and, potentially, infrastructure targets.<ref>http://lugar.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=332967&</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-obama-above-the-law/2011/05/26/AGL5zyCH_story.html</ref>}}

The evidence is President Obama’s war in Libya is illegal and unconstitutional. Columnist George Will laid out the case in, “Is Obama Above the Law?” The war is a violation of the War Powers Act, which says the president can go to war without Congressional approval only if there is an imminent threat to the U.S. and there is a 60-day deadline for the withdrawal of forces. [http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2467]

The law states that “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States , its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Since there was no declaration of war or statutory authorization for the Libya action, there has to be a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S. There was none in the Libya case.<ref>http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2458 Conservative Truth.</ref> A [[bipartisan]] group of legislators have begun action against what they percieve to be President Obama's unconstitutional misuse of power.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/house/166577-kucinich-jones-sue-white-house-over-libya-war</ref>

=== 10 Reasons to Oppose the War in Libya ===

According to Rep. [[Dennis Kucinich]]:

* '''It is unconstitutional''', violating Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which gives the power of declaring war to the Congress.
* '''It is illegal''', as the War Powers Resolution was exploited out of context in order to declare war.
* '''American public opinion is against it''', as 6 Americans out of 10 oppose the war.
* It '''distracts''' the President from more immediate concerns, such as the dire state of the economy.
* It '''costs''' funds that should be used for other purposes.
* Although the war was declared by Britain and France, '''America is paying more than other NATO allies'''.
* '''Civilians are being killed''' by the same powers that are supposed to protect them.
* '''The U.N. Resolution that authorized limited military action did not allow for regime change'''
* '''Public support of the war is eroding even in other allied countries.'''
* '''The situation is a stalemate''' that ought to be solved by political, not military means.

See more at: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/10-reasons-to-oppose-the_b_881554.html 10 Reasons to Oppose the War in Libya.]

=== Opposition of [[Ron Paul]] ===

<blockquote>
''"Why did the US intervene in a civil war in a country that has neither attacked us nor poses a threat? We are told this was another humanitarian intervention, like Clinton’s 1999 war against [[Serbia]]. But as civilian victims of the US-led coalition bombing continue to add up, it is getting difficult to determine whether the problem we are creating on the ground is worse than the one we were trying to solve."'' [http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-03-28/ron-paul-end-the-libyan-war/]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
''"Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, explained in a recent article that there is plausible reason to believe the rebels are current or former Islamist mujahedin, eager to engage in jihad. Indeed, Gaddafi has fought against Libyan Islamists for years and is seen by them as a bitter enemy. Astoundingly, it may well be that we are assisting al Qaeda in this new war! [[Ibidem]]"''
</blockquote>

==Role of China==
In the first decade of the Twenty-first century China quietly has overtaken the United States to become Africa's largest trading partner, particularly in oil, which accounts for 73 percent of all African exports. According to the Chinese government's first white paper on its economic and trade cooperation with Africa, China's trade with Africa has soared to $114.81 billion in the first 11 months of 2010. China uses about 8 million barrels per day (bpd), a demand that is projected to rise to 11.3 million bpd by 2015 and now receives 28 percent of its oil imports from Africa. China's top oil suppliers are [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Iran]], [[Angola]], Russia, [[Oman]] and [[Sudan]]. Saudi Arabia is China's top oil supplier (1.1 million bpd.) China is also buying oil from [[Chad]], [[Gabon]] and [[Nigeria]] as well. China's top African oil suppliers are [[Angola]], [[Sudan]] and [[Nigeria]]. The [[International Monetary Fund]] reports, oil now accounts for 99 percent of Sudanese exports, with China absorbing for 65 percent of them. Energy is Angola's sole export hard currency earner, with China now accounting for 35 percent of Angolan exports.<ref>http://mammutcapital.blogspot.com/2011/06/upcoming-us-china-struggle-for-african.html</ref>

===Competition for resources===
After hostilities began China evacuated over 36,000 of its energy and construction workers and shut down operations of Chinese companies with over $18.8 billion of Chinese investments in Libya.<ref>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/1119924/1/.html</ref> China alone is expected to invest on a scale of $50 billion a year in Libya and Africa by 2015, a figure - funded by America’s [[trade deficit]] with China - which the Western powers and NATO cannot match.<ref>Leslie Hook, ''China’s future in Africa, after Libya,'' March 4, 2011. The U.S trade deficit with China in 2010 was $273 billion.</ref> China, Libya's largest Asian oil customer, called for an immediate ceasefire.

Dr. [[Paul Craig Roberts]], former Assistant Secretary of US Treasury in the [[Reagan administration]] observed the joint French, British, and US coalition's objective is
{{Cquote|to eliminate China from the [[Mediterranean]]. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source. The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that's the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.}}
Roberts observes
{{Cquote| the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or [[Yemen]] or [[Bahrain]] or [[Tunisia]] and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion...these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is - they did not originate in the capital city. And we have heard from the beginning credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests, and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/26/111109/new-rebel-leader-spent-much-of.html</ref> to head up the Libyan rebellion... China has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya.<ref>http://www.presstv.ir/detail/175076.html</ref>}}

Whatever Washington’s ulterior motives, there is no doubt that NATO’s military operations in Libya are harming China’s fiscal interests. According to information from China’s Ministry of Trade, by March, when the military operation began, there were 75 major Chinese companies operating in Libya, and they had concluded $18 billion in contracts. Because of the NATO operations in Libya, the Chinese companies are expecting gigantic losses. <ref> [http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ Washington Using NATO For Proxy Conflict With China In Libya.] </ref>

==Mission creep==
UN Security Council Resolution 1973, passed in March 2011, does not authorise participating members to support the anti-Gaddafi tribes, to defend armed groups, or to oust Gaddafi. Nor does it authorise a ground invasion or military occupation. Strategic analyst Anthony Cordesman notes the similarities between Libya and Iraq and the loose uncoordinated coalitions "failure to plan for the decisive and lasting use of force, failure to plan for the civil side of military operations and to support stability operations, and focus on short term goals without a realistic plan for a successful strategic and post-conflict outcome." Cordesman notes,
{{Cquote|the lives and futures of some 6.6 million Libyans are at stake. The Franco-Anglo-American gamble now seems far too likely to fail at their expense. Moreover, it seems likely to drag the other nations that support the operation into their failure -- along with part of the reputation of NATO and credibility of the UN.... gambling on Qaddafi caving in has created a far more serious humanitarian crisis for the Libyan people than would ever have occurred if the Coalition had acted decisively from the start ...The humanitarian cost of humanitarian restraint is all too clear: Hundreds of Libyan and foreign workers have been killed...hundreds of thousands lack jobs, security, and safe conditions of life....an enduring war of attrition will turn a minor humanitarian crisis into a major one ...This kind of operation cannot be “surgical’ – if “surgical” now means minimizing bloodshed regardless of whether the patient dies. Hard, and sometimes brutal, choices need to be made between limited civilian casualties and collateral damage during the decisive use of force and an open-ended war of attrition that will produce far higher cumulative civilian casualties and collateral damage.<ref>http://csis.org/publication/libya-will-farce-stay-us-and-france-and-britain</ref>}}
Cordesman notes mission creep and boots on the ground ultimately lead to [[nation building]]:
{{Cquote|France, Britain, and the US now have a special obligation to both finish what they started in military terms, and deal with the aftermath. A post-conflict Libya will need extensive help in building a workable political system, in rebuilding the capability to govern, in both rebuilding the existing economy and correcting for decades of Qaddafi’s reckless and constantly shifting eccentricities.}}
On April 19, 2011, one month after Sarkozy, Cameron, and Obama asked the UN Security Council for authorization for a limited use of force, the UK ''[[Guardian (UK)|Guardian]]'' reported,
{{Cquote|Britain is now publicly doing what it expressly said it would not do when the no-fly intervention began: putting boots on the ground in Libya. France is taking similar action. Given that the rebel tribes have convincingly demonstrated their inability to win on their own, given the sizable negatives for David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy of an open-ended, inconclusive conflict, and given Barack Obama's flat refusal to do any more, the question now is: how many more British and French boots will follow, sooner or later, in the advisers' fateful footsteps?....By encouraging and assisting rebel resistance, as [[George H. W. Bush|George Bush Snr]] did with the [[Shia]]s of southern [[Iraq]] in 1991, Britain and France risk worsening the plight of the Libyan civilians they are primarily pledged to defend. The UN and concerned aid agencies all agree the humanitarian situation is growing steadily worse, the longer the conflict continues. ..<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref>}}

<blockquote>
Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, in particular, has been scathing about Western intervention in Libya, comparing the Resolution 1973 to “a medieval call to the crusades” and saying “the so-called civilized community, with all its might, pounces on a small country, and ruins infrastructure that has been built over generations.” Mr. Putin returned to the subject of Libya repeatedly, despite acknowledging that foreign policy decisions were not within his portfolio as prime minister. [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/world/europe/28russia.html?hp]
</blockquote>

===Manufacturing Consent===

"On how the western media makes the case for war. Our consent has been manufactured by the criminalization of Gaddafi and his government, and the Libyan people cannot believe it when I tell them what is said about him in the west. And if only you could see how they live, they are far more free than us in England in many ways, this does not fit in with the oppressive image of Gaddafi portrayed in the west.

So for example, I have had Libyans coming up to me asking me about a report in the popular French newspaper Le Figaro that came out about 3 days ago saying 10,000 people have been killed in Tripoli over the past 3 months by government forces. They are astonished, because this is complete and utter lies. " [https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend.]

==External links==
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/in-arming-libyan-rebels-the-us-would-follow-an-old-dark-path/73019/ In Arming Libyan Rebels, the U.S. Would Follow an Old, Dark Path.]
[[File:Tripoli NATO bombing Libya.jpg|thumb|280px|Tripoli, NATO bombing.]]
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels.] ''The Independent'', UK.
*[http://www.sott.net/articles/show/225613-Operation-Libya-The-US-NATO-Attempted-Coup-d-Etat-in-Libya-and-the-Battle-for-Oil "Operation Libya": The US-NATO Attempted Coup d'Etat in Libya and the Battle for Oil.]
*[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2055251,00.html Why Libya's Uprising Is Bad for the World Economy.]
*[http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions False pretense for war in Libya?]
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-nato-civil-war-cameron These humanitarians come to Libya with missiles, and an agenda.] by [[Simon Jenkins]].
*[http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=24188 The West's War Against Gaddafi. Yet another long-lasting, tragic crime against humanity.]
*[http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama%E2%80%99s-war-in-libya-is-illegal-and-unconstitutional/ Obama’s War in Libya is Illegal and Unconstitutional.] by Cliff Kincaid.
*[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/30/us-libya-school-idUSTRE73T24620110430 Libya disabled children school hit in NATO strike.] Reuters.
*[http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/06/08/natos-alternate-universe-in-libya.html NATO's "Alternate Universe" in Libya.]
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reese-schonfeld/are-the-lessons-of-kosovo_b_868281.html Are The Lessons of Kosovo Spreading to Libya?]
*[http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/06/22/le-patron-de-la-ligue-arabe-fait-part-de-scrupules-sur-la-libye_1539111_1496980.html#ens_id=1481986 The head of the Arab League expressed "qualms" about Libya.] In French.
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx3UAWau9T8&%20NR=1 George Galloway talks about Libya war.] Youtube

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Libya]]
[[category:Africa]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:War]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

NATO war in Libya

2011-09-28T02:01:33Z

BrentH: /* Libya Post Gaddafi */ fix writing

[[File:Gaddafi and Mandela 1.JPG|thumb|right|250px|[[Nobel Peace Prize]] winner [[Nelson Mandela]] greets an old friend and ally, Muammar Gaddafi, who supported the [[ANC]] during their struggle against [[apartheid]]. ''[[Reuters]]'' reports President Obama secretly ordered support for [[al Qaeda]] terrorists seeking Gaddafi's ouster.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umgMDJIpkn0</ref>.]]
The '''Libyan War of 2011''' started as the '''Benghazi rebellion''', a series of protests in eastern [[Libya]] on February 16, 2011 after the successful uprisings in [[Tunisia]] and [[Egypt]]. The scale of violence contrasts markedly with the more peaceful uprisings that toppled the Tunisian and Egyptian regimes. The [[Islamist]] terror group [[Al-Qaeda]] in North Africa has vowed to do everything in its power to help the uprising against the Libyan [[secular]] strongman [[Muammar Gaddafi]].<ref> [http://www.dawn.com/2011/02/24/al-qaeda-in-n-africa-backs-libya-uprising-site.html Al Qaeda in N. Africa backs Libya uprising: SITE] </ref><ref> [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/07/libya-uprising-live-updates Libya uprising.] </ref> Journalist David Wood has reported,
{{Cquote|Eastern Libya has been described by U.S. diplomats as a breeding ground for Islamist [[extremism]]. In diplomatic cables released by [[Wikileaks]], the region’s young men were said to have "nothing to lose" by resorting to violence. Sermons in the local [[mosque]]s are "laced with phraseology urging worshippers to support [[jihad]]," one diplomat reported.<ref>http://91.214.23.156/cablegate/wire.php?id=08TRIPOLI120&search=</ref>}}
Wood added,
{{Cquote|extremist elements make up only a portion of the resistance to Gaddafi and have been present in every popular uprising in the region stretching from the [[Iran]]ian revolution to the [[Egypt]]ian people’s overthrow of [[Hosni Mubarak]].<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html</ref>}}

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said [[jihad]]ists who fought against American troops in [[Iraq]] are on the front lines of the battle against Gaddafi's regime. <ref> [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links.] </ref> <ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world/guantanamo-files-libyan-detainee-now-us-ally-of-sorts.html Libyan, Once a Detainee, Is Now a U.S. Ally of Sorts.]</ref>

An international coalition intervened in what many describe as an "illegal war"<ref>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/01/obamas_illegal_war</ref> led by the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO), whose own leaders have openly questioned what the value, purpose, and reason for existence of NATO is. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/world/europe/14iht-letter14.html</ref><ref>http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_58ebd6cf-0558-5ee2-bd8d-cf27c1af7630.html</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/12/nato-usa</ref>

__TOC__
It was reported on February 24, 2011, that an emergency meeting of the [[United Nations Human Rights Council]] (UNHRC) on Libya would take no action, or make no recommendation to the [[UN General Assembly]], to remove Libya from its seat on the UN Human Rights Council, despite alleged [[human rights]] abuses.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] (UNSC) then voted on March 17, 2011, to pass Security Council resolution 1973 proposed by [[France]], along with its British and Lebanese partners, initiating the use of military force in Libya. [[China]], [[Russia]], [[India]] and [[Brazil]] (the so-called BRIC nations) all abstained from the vote. The [[Obama administration]] called for Gaddafi to step aside, and has provided assistance to the insurgent tribes. US Congressional leaders were not consulted, <ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262921/boehner-obama-libya-many-other-members-house-representatives-are-troubled-robert-costa</ref> nor has the United States Congress authorized any use of force in Libya.

Military and intelligence experts in France, [[Britain]], and the United States warned about uncertainties, but were overruled by political leaders. The result was a set of decisions focusing on short term considerations and gambling on the outcome. French, British, and US leaders did not fully coordinate, but according to Anthony Cordesman, it became clear,
{{Cquote|they sought and got international cover from the UN by claiming a no fly zone could protect civilians when their real objective was to use force as a catalyst to drive Gaddafi out of power.}}
[[Sarkozy]], [[David Cameron|Cameron]], and [[Obama]] seem to have assumed that a largely unknown, divided, and fractured group of insurgents could win through sheer political momentum, and could then be turned into a successful government. Within the first month it was obvious a "weak, divided, poorly led, and badly equipped and supplied set of rebel tribes can only hang on with the present level of air support" that was provided.

The assault on Libya set off a frenzy of speculations about the real motive behind the war in the oil-rich country, with many analysts saying that under the guise of protecting civilians, as enshrined in the UNSC Resolution 1973, Washington and its Western allies are basically after the North African country’s vast oil reserves. <ref>[http://2012indyinfo.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/presstv-germany-slams-nato-mission-in-libya/ Germany slams NATO mission in Libya.]</ref>

[[Stephen Lendman]]: Libya assault planned months ahead; See interview: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSlXO_X_fE&feature=related in Youtube.]

== Libya Post Gaddafi ==
Rebel fighters with support from NATO airstrikes, overtook the capital of Tripoli and toppled the government of Libya causing Gaddafi to flee into hiding. This victory finally peaked the interests of the liberal media, who remained silent, even as the President violated the War Powers Act.

As of September 2011, a single enclave of government/tribal resistance remains and is surrounded by rebels, Gaddafi's hometown. The rebels have been recognized by the U.S. and the U.N. as the legitimate government. It remains to be seen how much money of the former regime will be released to the new government, estimated in the multi-billions. It will be a year or longer before Libya can resume full capacity oil shipments.

Knowledgeable people agree, the situation in a post-Gaddafi is uncertain. Likely, the nation will be end up an Islamic state. U.S. intelligence says as many as 20,000 advanced Russian surface-to-air missiles are missing and could end up in terror groups' arsenals. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/27/u-s-intelligence-now-says-up-to-20000-advanced-surface-to-air-missiles-mussing-from-libya/ U.S. Intelligence Now Says Up To 20,000 Advanced Surface-To-Air Missiles Missing From Lib, Weasel Zippers, September 27, 2011]</ref> [[Al Qaeda]] is very active in the region and the conflict. No one is sure how to rid the country of this terrorist element.

== Libya before the 2011 uprising ==
[[File:Libya Irrigation project.jpg|thumb|330px|Satellite view is showing irrigated farming projects at Al Khufrah Oasis in south-east Libya. Part of the "Great Man Made River Project" ($33 billion), where water is drawn from vast underground aquifers. This water is transported about 800 km (500 mi) to the coastal cities of Libya by means of the world's largest underground network of pipes.]]
In 1951 Libya was officially the poorest country in the world, <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,864742,00.html]</ref> but by the time of the 2011 uprising, Libyans' living standards were considered the highest in Africa. The GDP per Capita was more than the double of that in Egypt, and above that of Russia. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of charge; but more than the advances in housing, agricultural, industry, health care, education, is the advance in direct popular democracy. <ref>[http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/libfacts.htm]</ref> [[Condoleezza Rice]] praised Libya for its "excellent co-operation" in the US-led [[war on terror]]. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4773617.stm] (BBC News)</ref>.
<blockquote>
The living standards of Libyans have improved significantly since the 1970s, ranking the country among the highest in Africa. Urbanization, developmental projects, and high oil revenues have enabled the Libyan government to elevate its people's living standards. The social and economic status of women and children has particularly improved. Various subsidized or free services (health, education, housing, and basic foodstuffs) have ensured basic necessities. The low percentage of people without access to safe water (3 percent), health services (0 percent) and sanitation (2 percent), and a relatively high life expectancy (70.2 years) in 1998 indicate the improved living standards. Adequate health care and subsidized foodstuffs have sharply reduced infant mortality, from 105 per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 20 per 1,000 live births in 1998. The government also subsidizes education, which is compulsory and free between the ages of 6 and 15. The expansion of educational facilities has elevated the literacy rate (78.1 in 1998). There are universities in [[Tripoli]], Benghazi, Marsa el-Brega, Misurata, Sebha, and Tobruk. <ref>[http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Libya-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html] (SOURCE: Handbook of the Nations; CIA World Factbook.)</ref>
</blockquote>

[[Nobel Peace Prize]] recipient [[Nelson Mandela]] warned of the machinations of outside influences in a speech noting Gaddafi and leadership in Africa:
{{Cquote|In a world where the strong may seek to impose upon the more vulnerable; and where particular nations or groups of nations may still seek to decide the fate of the planet - in such a world respect for multilateralism, moderation of public discourse and a patient search for compromise become even more imperative to save the world from debilitating conflict and enduring inequality. When we dismissed criticism of our friendship with yourself, My Brother Leader, and of the relationship between [[South Africa]] and Libya, it was precisely in defence of those values.<ref>http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=222537&sn=Detail</ref>}}
[[File:Benghazi shopping center Libya.JPG|thumb|Benghazi shopping center.]]
At present Gaddafi is not well seen in the EU and USA but the Libyan people seem to be thriving with him as leader. A delegation of medical professionals from [[Russia]], [[Ukraine]] and [[Belarus]] wrote in an appeal to "Russian President [[Medvedev]] and Prime Minister [[Putin]] that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort". Libya today is not a highly polarized society divided between extremes of wealth and poverty.

On February 24, 2011, no threat was seen to Libya’s Seat on top U.N. Human Rights Body. A European Union-proposed draft resolution for a subsequent session “strongly condemns” human rights violations committed in Libya amid turmoil sparked by protesters, rather than condemning Gaddafi or the regime for committing them. [http://www.cnsnews.com/public/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human]
<blockquote>
The "United Nations Development Program (UNDP) confirms that the country had excellent prospects for achieving United Nations development goals by 2015. NATO's war will have already dashed those hopes. A collapse like the one in Iraq now threatens the country. [http://www.newsfrommiddleeast.com/?new=77210]
</blockquote>
<center>
[[File:View to Tripoli Libya.jpg|380px|thumb|center|Tripoli, 2009.]]
</center>

==Libya under Gaddafi ==
===Petrodollars and oil===
According to a Russian article titled ''Bombing of Libya - Punishment for Qaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,'' Gaddafi initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the [[Euro]] as payment for Libya's oil, and called on [[Arab]] and African nations to use a new currency, the gold dinar. Gaddafi proposed establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. The initiative was viewed negatively in the United States and the [[European Union]], with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind. But Gaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa. As early September 9, 1999, the first steps towards the formation of the [[African Union]] were taken by the Heads of State of the Organisation of African Unity.<ref>[http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/aboutau/au_in_a_nutshell_en.htm The AU in a nutshell]</ref>

In the wake of the global [[financial crisis of 2008]] forcing the United States into [[recession]], both China and Russia called for the dollar’s role in the global financial system to be diluted. Both China and the USSR abstained from UNSCR 1973.

''Bloomberg News'' reported in September 2010 that China and Russia planned to start trading in each other’s currency as the world’s second-biggest energy consumer and the largest energy supplier seek to diminish the dollar’s role in global trade. Bhanu Baweja commented {{Cquote|Given the risk to the dollar and U.S. assets from their fiscal position they want to reduce their dependence on the dollar as an invoicing currency....It makes sense for two large economies to exclude a third, overly dominant economy from their trading equation.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-08/china-russia-push-yuan-ruble-trading-to-diminish-dominance-of-u-s-dollar.html</ref>}}

===African Satellite Control Center===
An observer spelled out one of Gaddafi’s motivations for proposing an African Union:
{{Cquote|It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.

An African satellite only cost a one-time payment of $400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a $500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn't finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can [[slave]]s, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the [[World Bank]], the [[International Monetary Fund]], the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put $300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added $50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further $27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.<ref>http://www.vtcommons.org/blog/2011/04/21/ethan-allen-qaddafi</ref>}}

===Libyan Central Bank===
In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:
{{Cquote|One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned.... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a [[sovereign]] nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.<ref>Eric Encina,''[http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27208.html Globalists Target 100% State Owned Central Bank of Libya,]'' Market Oracle.</ref>}}
Ellen Brown adds,
{{Cquote|Libya not only has oil. According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS (Bank of International Settlements), the IMF and their rules.<ref>Ellen Brown, ''[http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/5625-libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking,]'' Reader Supported News, April 15, 2011.</ref>}}
Gaddafi’s proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa contravenes IMF rules and is designed to bypass them.

=== Italian Friendship treaty ===
"We signed a friendship treaty with Libya, that includes a non-aggression clause, but when the counterpart '''no longer exists''' — in this case the Libyan state — the treaty cannot be applied”, said [[Italy]]’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini on February 26, 2011, ten days after the uprising began.
{{Cquote|Italy’s treaty with Libya, signed by Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] in August 2008, calls on Italy to pay Libya $5 billion over 20 years in reparations for its colonial past there. In return, Libya pledged to help block the flow of illegal immigrants to Italy and grant favorable treatment for Italian companies seeking to do business in Libya. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/world/europe/28military.html]</ref>}}

==French intervention==

A report from Congressman [[Dennis Kucinich]] corroborated the claim of Franco Bechis<ref>''[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RkUoFsgEwm8J:www.voltairenet.org/article169069.html+French+plans+to+topple+Gaddafi+on+track+since+last+November&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com French plans to topple Gaddafi on track since last November]'', by Franco Bechis, VoltaireNet, March 26, 2011.</ref> in Italy that "plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010."<ref>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24347</ref>

On March 10, 2011, France became the first and only country to recognize the Libyan Transitional National Council “as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.”<ref> “Sarkozy’s Libyan Surprise,” ''The Economist'', March 14, 2011.</ref> "France recognizes states, not parties", said a senior official on March 9th. After a meeting arranged by [[Bernard Henri Levy|Bernard-Henri Lévy]] the next morning, on March 10th, two representatives of the Libyan opposition emerged from President Sarkozys office at the Elysée Palace to announce that "France recognizes the Libyan Transitional National Council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people". <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2</ref><ref>http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/03/france_and_libya</ref>

On March 19, two days after passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1973,<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278685</ref> French President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] convened an emergency meeting of allied and Arab leaders in [[Paris]] which endorsed the immediate deployment of military aircraft to attack Gaddafi forces defending Benghazi and establish a no-fly zone. Before the end of the meeting, French fighter planes were attacking armored vehicles and tanks outside Benghazi. Some participants at the Paris meeting were critical of the French government, both for insisting on convening the meeting before agreeing to endorse air strikes, and then for launching air strikes before the meeting was over.<ref>Allies Open Air Assault on Qaddafi’s Forces in Libya, ''New York Times'', March 19, 2011.</ref> French officials claim that meeting participants were informed of the operation beforehand. The strikes had clearly been planned and coordinated with the [[United States]] and some other NATO forces.<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service'', March 30, 2011, p. 19 pd.</ref>

[[National Public Radio]] (NPR) reported Sarkozy enjoyed a "burst of public support"<ref>http://wap.npr.org/story/134855539</ref> while the ''[[London Guardian]]'' wrote Sarkozy's actions may save him from "electoral humiliation."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/libya-crisis-nicolas-sarkozy-electoral</ref> Several analysts speculate Sarkozy used the crisis to propel France into a Superpower role, usurping the global leadership of the United States abrogated by [[President Obama]].<ref>http://www.businessandpolitics.org/?p=4651</ref> Columnist Jim Hoagland of the ''[[Washington Post]]'' observes,
{{Cquote|France is a country that has a past being involved in world affairs, wanting to count in world affairs, and being willing to pay its way for defense forces and to use those forces abroad. So, France plays a natural role in that. At a time when governments are slashing defense spending and reducing troops, France still wants to occupy an important role in world affairs....the reason you're seeing France taking on such a much larger role is that other countries, including the United States, are not willing to do it anymore. And Sarkozy is trying to fill that vacuum.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/france2_04-07.html</ref>}}

Sarkozy's approval rating stood at 30% prior to the intervention.

===Legality of French actions===
On May 29 two French lawyers, Roland Dumas and Jacques Vergès, announced plans to initiate legal proceedings against President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] for crimes against humanity over the [[NATO]] led campaign in [[Libya]]. Dumas (who also served as a foreign minister under President [[François Mitterrand]]) said that the NATO mission, which was meant to protect civilians, is in fact killing them.<ref>http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=46395</ref> On July 4 a French lawyer, Marcel Ceccaldi, called for investigation of the International Criminal Court on NATO "war crimes". [http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/07/04/libye-un-avocat-demande-une-enquete-de-la-cpi-sur-les-crimes-de-guerre-de-l-otan_1544755_1496980.html]

== National Transitional Council ==
The National Transitional Council of the Libyan Republic announced its official establishment in early March 2011 in the city of Benghazi. The stated goal was to the overthrow of Mu’ammar Gaddafi.<ref>http://ntclibya.org/english/</ref> It has been recognized by France, [[Qatar]], Italy, [[Kuwait]], [[Maldives]] and [[Gambia]]. They have proceeded to form a transitional government for the post-Gaddafi era. Before forming a government, they robbed about $505 million from the Central Bank of Libya in Benghazi.
[[File:Libya Rebels Gaining Momentum.jpg|thumb|Anti-Gaddafi tribal insurgents in March, 2011 (Photo:Reuters).]]
{{Cquote|The top leaders of the “revolutionary” masses in Benghazi are two recent defectors of what the Left dubs Gaddafi’s “murderous regime”, Mustafa Abdul Jalil a former Justice minister (who prosecuted dissenters up to the day before the armed uprising), Mahmoud Jebril a top Gaddafite neo-liberal prominent in inviting multi-nationals to take over the oil fields (FT, March 23, 2011, p. 7) and Ali Aziz al-Eisawa, Gaddafi’s former ambassador to India who jumped ship when it looked like the uprising would succeed. These self-appointed leaders of the “rebels” are staunch backers of Euro-US military intervention just as they previously were long-term backers of Gaddafi’s dictatorship and promoters of MNC takeovers of oil and gas fields. The heads of the “rebels” military council is Omar Hariri and General Abdul Fattah Younis former head of the Ministry of Interior, both with long histories (since 1969) of repressing any democratic movements.<ref>http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/euro-us-war-on-libya-official-lies-and-misconceptions-of-critics/</ref>}}
The root base of the armed uprising is Benghazi, a hotbed of tribal backers and clients of the deposed King Idris.

===Misuse of humanitarian assistance===

In May, 2011, NATO and Arab countries agreed in Rome to set up a fund to manage donations to help areas controlled by the rebels; they announced a financial mechanism to assist the opposition in Libya. This would include a partial unfreezing of Libyan assets in banks that would go into a temporary fund managed by the U.N. Sanctions Committee. And it would be intended to help the rebels with their immediate needs to cover food, medicine and hospital costs;<ref>http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/136011941/diplomats-discuss-aid-to-libyan-rebels</ref> The insurgents would gain access to a special $3 billion (£1.8 billion) trust fund established by its Western backers to finance the breakaway regions fighting against Gaddafi;<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8492745/Libyan-rebels-to-receive-1.8-billion-trust-fund.html</ref> but the Transitional National Council is planing to use money pledged for humanitarian and reconstruction purposes to buy weapons.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/amnesty-international-accuses-gaddafi-regime-of-war-crimes-in-misurata/2011/05/06/AFbPjw6F_story.html?hpid=z2</ref>
[[File:Rebel fighters hoist the former Libyan monarchy flag on the outskirts of Benghazi.jpg|thumb|Rebel fighters hoist the former Libyan monarchy flag on the outskirts of Benghazi. Modern urbanization and equipments may be clearly seen there.]]

===Insurgent Death Squads===

Insurgent tribal leaders created a wanted list and placed suspects under round-the-clock surveillance. Secret militia units raid houses without court warrants and often interrogate suspects for hours. Those released have to sign a document stating their loyalty to the revolution. As many as 30 civilians are being held at various rebel military bases around Benghazi without due process of law, said human rights activists, judges and prosecutors. In recent weeks, at least seven former members of the internal security police have turned up dead, their bodies riddled with bullets. Although it is not known who killed them, many suspect that they died at the hands of rebel-affiliated death squads. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/libyan-rebels-accused-of-reprisal-attacks/2011/05/20/AFaeAh8G_story.html?hpid=z4]

On May, 26, the deputy leader of Libya's rebel administration said it could take up to two years to organize elections, backtracking on promises of a six-month transition to democracy. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110526/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya]

==Security Council Res. 1973 and NATO==
UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 of March 17, 2011 followed on the heels of Gaddafi’s public announcement on March 2 he may throw western oil companies out of Libya, and his invitation on March 14 to Chinese, Russian, and Indian firms to produce Libyan oil in their place.<ref>''[http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/7661/Business/Economy/Gaddafi-offers-Libyan-oil-production-to-India,-Rus.aspx Gaddafi offers Libyan oil production to India, Russia, China,] Agence France-Presse, March 14, 2011.</ref> China, Russia, India and Brazil all abstained on UNSC Resolution 1973.

Despite France taking the lead role in the intervention, the Congressional Research Service reports, "Only the United States and NATO possess the command and control capabilities necessary for coalition operations enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya." France only recently rejoined the NATO alliance, in 2008, after a 40 year absence. The Congressional Research Service, which analyzes information and prepares reports for members of Congress, also states,
{{Cquote|In spite of statements underscoring NATO unity on steps announced to date, the initial planning and operational phases were also marked by significant levels of discord within Europe and [[NATO]] on the aims and future direction of the mission. A key point of contention was reportedly the amount of flexibility that NATO forces would be granted to protect civilians and civilian areas, as called for in paragraph 4 of UNSCR 1973. Reports indicate that French officials insisted on maintaining the ability to strike ground forces that threatened civilian areas, while their [[Turkish]] counterparts vocally opposed any targeting of ground forces. Adding to the strain within NATO, NATO ally [[Germany]] abstained from UNSCR 1973 and, opposed to any potential [[combat]] operation, on March 23, withdrew its naval assets in the [[Mediterranean]] from NATO command. Throughout the first week of operations, other European allies contributing to the mission, including Italy and Norway, expressed increasing frustration with the lack of agreement within NATO, with Norway refusing to deploy its fighter jets unless under they were under NATO command and control.<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya):
Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service,'' March 30, 2011, p. 20 pdf.</ref>}}

Of NATO's 28 members, 14 are said to be "actively participating," but only 6 provided military support. By June Norway announced its intention to quit the coalition<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/norway-quit-libya-operation-august</ref> and French and British leaders expressed concerns over being able to meet the costs of a war they dragged the United States into.<ref>http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/2e515285f07040df999bd6b670db791c/Article_2011-06-14-EU-NATO-Libya/id-f6d2287c00ba4816924c082ed9cc12fa</ref> Of the 22-country [[Arab League]], whose appeal prompted the United Nations to vote on intervention, only [[Qatar]] and the [[United Arab Emirates]] are involved. Of the 192 members of the [[UN General Assembly]], who all have a legal "responsibility to protect" civilians attacked by their own governments, only [[Sweden]] has responded.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref> After the authorization and commitment of NATO and U.S. forces, Secretary Gates announced,
{{Cquote|The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.}}
and warned
{{Cquote|The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the American body politic writ large—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.<ref>http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/10/robert_gates_nato_defense_secretary_questions_future_of_the_alli.html</ref>}}

===Exceeding UN mandate===
Resolution 1973 authorized strict limitations, according to international law, on NATO as the organization with responsibility for the implementation of the resolution. Particularly, it provides only for a naval blockade enforcing the arms embargo, and enforcement of a no-fly zone. On March 29, 2011, Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin commented after a meeting with NATO officials in [[Brussels, Belgium]], that Russia expressed deep concern over the interpretation of the Security Council’s resolution, as some countries have effectively turned it into an approval for ground operations.
{{Cquote|[[Moscow]] has many questions about how the UN Security Council’s resolution is being carried out...First of all, there are reports that civilians have been killed in the air strikes. This is odd if you consider the message of the resolution, which says that the foreign forces’ actions should protect civilians. So it’s hard to comprehend how you can protect civilians by killing them....we demanded that the UN Security Council be fully informed about the actions of the alliance in Libya at all times... We have reports of air strikes against convoys far from the front line. This is a far cry from the UN Security Council resolution.<ref>http://rt.com/news/coalition-libya-nato-russian-envoy/</ref>}}
[[File:Bombing Tripoli Libya.jpg|right|Bombing Tripoli, Libya.]]
NATO planes and ships have been striking cities and military installations in Libya since mid-March, 2011. Allied military officials have spoken in recent weeks of the need for escalation to help protect Libyan civilians and have called for Gaddafi to step down. Libyan officials have said that NATO is picking sides in a civil war and complained that strikes on Gaddafi’s Tripoli compound are attempts to assassinate the leader of a sovereign country. NATO launched its largest airstrike against Moammar Gaddafi’s regime on May, 24, 2011, with at least 15 massive explosions rocking the Libyan capital. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/french-officials-france-and-britain-to-use-attack-helicopters-in-libya/2011/05/23/AFTF909G_story.html?hpid=z2]
<blockquote>
On May 15, two months into the NATO bombing campaign against loyal Gaddafi’s forces, Britain’s top military commander said that the Libyan leader could remain “clinging to power” unless NATO broadened its bombing targets to include the country’s infrastructure. <ref>http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html</ref>
</blockquote>

The French and the British described plans for a wargames exercise for an attack on Libya last November, in the end they used those military assets that had been mobilized for the real thing 3 months ago. We know that NATO doesn’t just go and bomb a country over night, these things are planned far in advance, and in this case there is conclusive evidence that there have been plans for this for many many years. <ref> [https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend] June 4, 2011. </ref>
<blockquote>
On Jun 18, Prime minister of Libya Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi accused [[NATO]] of a "new level of aggression" over the past 72 hours in which he said the military alliance intentionally targeted civilian buildings, including a hotel and a university. "It has become clear to us that NATO has moved on to deliberately hitting civilian buildings. ... This is a crime against humanity," he told reporters in the capital. Libya's Health Ministry released new casualty figures that put the number of civilians killed in NATO air strikes through to June 7 at 856. <ref> [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/gaddafi-rages-at-nato-after-bombing-2299509.html Gaddafi rages at NATO after bombing.] </ref>
</blockquote>
[[File:Women with Gaddafi Libya.jpg|thumb|280px|Lizzie Cocker with mum and two daughters from Sudan who have been living in Libya for 17 years. They had to flee from Misrata to Tripoli following the vicious atrocities committed by the pro-NATO rebels against black skinned peoples. They are firmly standing behind their leader Moammar Gadaffi. The sisters have written on the poster, on the left: "King of Kings of Africa" and on the right: "Our souls are for you".]]
==== Italy - Berlusconi ====
[[Italy]] called for a suspension of hostilities in [[Libya]] on June 22 in the latest sign of dissent within [[NATO]] as the civilian death toll mounts and [[Muammar Gaddafi]] shows no signs of quitting power. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110622/ts_afp/libyaconflictnatoitalydiplomacy]

===African response to UN & NATO intervention===
NATO's Libyan intervention has proven fractious in black Africa; in March [[Nigeria]]'s Foreign Minister Odein Ajumogobia commented, "The contradictions between principle and national interest ... have enabled the international community to impose a no-fly zone over Libya ostensibly to protect innocent civilians from slaughter, but to watch seemingly helplessly (in [[Ivory Coast]]) as ...men, women and children are slaughtered in equally, even if less egregious, violence."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503543_162-503543.html?keyword=ivory+coast</ref>
<blockquote>
Amr Moussa, the outgoing head of the Arab League and a front runner to become president of a democratic Egypt, has voiced reservations about NATO's bombing campaign in Libya, calling for a ceasefire and talks on a political settlement while Muammar Gaddafi remains in power. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/21/arab-league-chief-libya-air-strikes]
</blockquote>
The Arab League, which in March asked the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians, condemned the loss of life in bombing incidents.
<blockquote>
"When the Arab League agreed on the idea of having a no-fly zone over Libya it was to protect civilians but when civilians get killed this has to be condemned with the harshest of statements," said Deputy Secretary-General Ahmed Ben Helli.
</blockquote>
The Libyan leader says the Western-led military campaign is an act of colonial aggression designed to steal Libya's oil. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110620/wl_nm/us_libya]

==United States intervention==
[[File:Treaty of Tripoli PD LC.jpg|thumb|Treaty of Tripoli, Libya was one of the first nation to recognize the US in 1796.]]
===Frozen assets===
President Obama moved swiftly to support French plans to frustrate Gaddafi’s proposal for an African Union with his unilateral declaration of a national emergency in order to freeze all of the Bank of Libya’s $30 billion of funds to which America had access. This was reported in the U.S. press as a freeze of the funds of "Colonel Qaddafi, his children and family, and senior members of the Libyan government.<ref>''New York Times'', February 27, 2011.</ref> The second section of Obama’s decree explicitly targeted "All property and interests… of the Government of Libya, its agencies, instrumentalities, and controlled entities, and the Central Bank of Libya.<ref>Executive Order of February 25, 2011, citing International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, seizes all Libyan Govt assets, February 25, 2011, link. The authority granted to the President by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act "may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose" (50 U.S.C. 1701).</ref> The consequences of the $30-billion freeze for [[Africa]], as well as for Libya, have been spelled out by an African observer:
{{Cquote|The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.}}

===War Powers Act===

Under the [[War Powers Act]] of 1973 the U.S President has limited authority to use military force without Congressional authorization when there is an imminent [[national security]] threat, however President Obama made clear that he ordered the use of force for other reasons. Members of Congress of both parties have expressed concern the President may have violated the law in doing so.<ref>http://rooney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3190:rooney-resolution-president-should-obtain-congressional-authorization-or-end-military-campaign-in-libya-&catid=48:2011-press-releases</ref> The War Powers Act specifically states that the President’s power to introduce forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities can only be exercised pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. The War Powers Act requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific Congressional authorization. None of these prerequisites have been met.

On March 21, 2011, President Obama publicly announced U.S. military forces commenced no fly-zone operations in Libya two days earlier, on March 19, "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe" and cited UN Resolutions as giving him the authority to do so. Secretary of Defense [[Robert Gates]] warned establishment of a no-fly zone meant attacking Libaya.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20038391-503544.html</ref> Officials as National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough also opposed to attacking Libya; but "[[Hillary Clinton]] won the bureaucratic battle to use DOD resources to achieve what's essentially the State Department's objective... and Obama let it happen". <ref>[http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/18/how_obama_turned_on_a_dime_toward_war How Obama turned on a dime toward war.] </ref> The Charter of the [[United Nations]], in Article 2(4), prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of a member state, and many observers have wondered whether the establishment of a no-fly zone would constitute a violation of this prohibition. The Congressional Research Services advised that a no-fly zone imposed against a state that has not carried out an attack on its neighbors may consider the imposition of a no-fly zone an “armed attack.” CRS warned that even if no-fly zone operations in a given state do not constitute an “armed attack",
{{Cquote|that state, and other members of the international community, might consider them a violation of the prohibition of the “threat or use of force,” as well as of the customary duty of non-intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states.}}

NATO's Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee days before President Obama publicly admitted to intervention that U.S. intelligence knew of [[al Qaeda]] and [[Hezbollah]] elements among the Libyan insurgents.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8414583/Libya-al-Qaeda-among-Libya-rebels-Nato-chief-fears.html</ref> A document published by the U.S. [[West Point]] Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center reveals that Libya sent more fighters to the [[Operation_Iraqi_Freedom#InsurgencyIraq|Islamic insurgency]] than any other [[Muslim]] country (from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah.).<ref>[http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf The Sinjar documents], a collection of al Qaeda computer data captured by Americans in 2007 in a predawn raid near Sinjar, Iraq, six miles from the Syrian border. The documents included background information on around 750 foreign fighters, who migrated to Iraq to kill American soldiers, many of those fighters coming from among the very people we are now pledging to protect. David Wood wrote: "Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah. On a per capita basis, that’s more than twice as many than came from any other Arabic-speaking country, amounting to what the counter terrorism center called a Libyan “surge” of young men eager to kill Americans."</ref> This set off a fierce debate in the [[Obama administration]] over the wisdom of arming terrorists.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss</ref> It is now known however, that sometime prior to March 31, 2011,<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=2&hp</ref> President Obama signed a secret Presidential Finding authorizing support for the insurgents.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref> Direct arms support would violate the arms embargo imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1970 on February 26, 2011.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref>

Public opinion initially was divided on support for President Obama's actions, within 30 days however, opposition rose 15%<ref>http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/americans-rapidly-turn-against-obama-over-handling-of-libyan-intervention.php</ref> as the reality of the intervention set in.

===Legality of U.S. military actions===
The ''[[Washington Post]]'' reported on May 20, 2011 President Obama missed the legal deadline set in the 1973 law that required him to obtain Congressional approval for U.S. military operations in Libya. Under the [[Nixon]]-era War Powers Resolution, the president must obtain Congressional authorization of military action within 60 days, or else begin withdrawing forces.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-likely-to-miss-deadline-for-congressional-approval-of-libya-operations/2011/05/19/AFFLKn7G_story.html</ref> Sen. [[Richard Lugar]] of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations warned President Obama,
[[File:NATO strike Libya.jpg|right|220px|NATO strike, Libya.]]
{{Cquote|U.S. military operations in Libya have assumed a different character than you suggested when you announced the decision to initiate them. In your March 21 letter to the Congress, you indicated that these operations would be limited in their nature, duration, and scope, and focused on protecting civilians and civilian populated areas from attack. Two months into these operations, your Administration is unable to specify what limits will apply to the duration of the operations, and the coalition in which we are participating appears to have expanded its objectives to weakening the Gaddafi regime’s hold on power through strikes on leadership targets and, potentially, infrastructure targets.<ref>http://lugar.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=332967&</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-obama-above-the-law/2011/05/26/AGL5zyCH_story.html</ref>}}

The evidence is President Obama’s war in Libya is illegal and unconstitutional. Columnist George Will laid out the case in, “Is Obama Above the Law?” The war is a violation of the War Powers Act, which says the president can go to war without Congressional approval only if there is an imminent threat to the U.S. and there is a 60-day deadline for the withdrawal of forces. [http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2467]

The law states that “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States , its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Since there was no declaration of war or statutory authorization for the Libya action, there has to be a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S. There was none in the Libya case.<ref>http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2458 Conservative Truth.</ref> A [[bipartisan]] group of legislators have begun action against what they percieve to be President Obama's unconstitutional misuse of power.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/house/166577-kucinich-jones-sue-white-house-over-libya-war</ref>

=== 10 Reasons to Oppose the War in Libya ===

According to Rep. [[Dennis Kucinich]]:

* '''It is unconstitutional''', violating Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which gives the power of declaring war to the Congress.
* '''It is illegal''', as the War Powers Resolution was exploited out of context in order to declare war.
* '''American public opinion is against it''', as 6 Americans out of 10 oppose the war.
* It '''distracts''' the President from more immediate concerns, such as the dire state of the economy.
* It '''costs''' funds that should be used for other purposes.
* Although the war was declared by Britain and France, '''America is paying more than other NATO allies'''.
* '''Civilians are being killed''' by the same powers that are supposed to protect them.
* '''The U.N. Resolution that authorized limited military action did not allow for regime change'''
* '''Public support of the war is eroding even in other allied countries.'''
* '''The situation is a stalemate''' that ought to be solved by political, not military means.

See more at: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/10-reasons-to-oppose-the_b_881554.html 10 Reasons to Oppose the War in Libya.]

=== Opposition of [[Ron Paul]] ===

<blockquote>
''"Why did the US intervene in a civil war in a country that has neither attacked us nor poses a threat? We are told this was another humanitarian intervention, like Clinton’s 1999 war against [[Serbia]]. But as civilian victims of the US-led coalition bombing continue to add up, it is getting difficult to determine whether the problem we are creating on the ground is worse than the one we were trying to solve."'' [http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-03-28/ron-paul-end-the-libyan-war/]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
''"Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, explained in a recent article that there is plausible reason to believe the rebels are current or former Islamist mujahedin, eager to engage in jihad. Indeed, Gaddafi has fought against Libyan Islamists for years and is seen by them as a bitter enemy. Astoundingly, it may well be that we are assisting al Qaeda in this new war! [[Ibidem]]"''
</blockquote>

==Role of China==
In the first decade of the Twenty-first century China quietly has overtaken the United States to become Africa's largest trading partner, particularly in oil, which accounts for 73 percent of all African exports. According to the Chinese government's first white paper on its economic and trade cooperation with Africa, China's trade with Africa has soared to $114.81 billion in the first 11 months of 2010. China uses about 8 million barrels per day (bpd), a demand that is projected to rise to 11.3 million bpd by 2015 and now receives 28 percent of its oil imports from Africa. China's top oil suppliers are [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Iran]], [[Angola]], Russia, [[Oman]] and [[Sudan]]. Saudi Arabia is China's top oil supplier (1.1 million bpd.) China is also buying oil from [[Chad]], [[Gabon]] and [[Nigeria]] as well. China's top African oil suppliers are [[Angola]], [[Sudan]] and [[Nigeria]]. The [[International Monetary Fund]] reports, oil now accounts for 99 percent of Sudanese exports, with China absorbing for 65 percent of them. Energy is Angola's sole export hard currency earner, with China now accounting for 35 percent of Angolan exports.<ref>http://mammutcapital.blogspot.com/2011/06/upcoming-us-china-struggle-for-african.html</ref>

===Competition for resources===
After hostilities began China evacuated over 36,000 of its energy and construction workers and shut down operations of Chinese companies with over $18.8 billion of Chinese investments in Libya.<ref>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/1119924/1/.html</ref> China alone is expected to invest on a scale of $50 billion a year in Libya and Africa by 2015, a figure - funded by America’s [[trade deficit]] with China - which the Western powers and NATO cannot match.<ref>Leslie Hook, ''China’s future in Africa, after Libya,'' March 4, 2011. The U.S trade deficit with China in 2010 was $273 billion.</ref> China, Libya's largest Asian oil customer, called for an immediate ceasefire.

Dr. [[Paul Craig Roberts]], former Assistant Secretary of US Treasury in the [[Reagan administration]] observed the joint French, British, and US coalition's objective is
{{Cquote|to eliminate China from the [[Mediterranean]]. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source. The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that's the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.}}
Roberts observes
{{Cquote| the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or [[Yemen]] or [[Bahrain]] or [[Tunisia]] and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion...these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is - they did not originate in the capital city. And we have heard from the beginning credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests, and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/26/111109/new-rebel-leader-spent-much-of.html</ref> to head up the Libyan rebellion... China has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya.<ref>http://www.presstv.ir/detail/175076.html</ref>}}

Whatever Washington’s ulterior motives, there is no doubt that NATO’s military operations in Libya are harming China’s fiscal interests. According to information from China’s Ministry of Trade, by March, when the military operation began, there were 75 major Chinese companies operating in Libya, and they had concluded $18 billion in contracts. Because of the NATO operations in Libya, the Chinese companies are expecting gigantic losses. <ref> [http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ Washington Using NATO For Proxy Conflict With China In Libya.] </ref>

==Mission creep==
UN Security Council Resolution 1973, passed in March 2011, does not authorise participating members to support the anti-Gaddafi tribes, to defend armed groups, or to oust Gaddafi. Nor does it authorise a ground invasion or military occupation. Strategic analyst Anthony Cordesman notes the similarities between Libya and Iraq and the loose uncoordinated coalitions "failure to plan for the decisive and lasting use of force, failure to plan for the civil side of military operations and to support stability operations, and focus on short term goals without a realistic plan for a successful strategic and post-conflict outcome." Cordesman notes,
{{Cquote|the lives and futures of some 6.6 million Libyans are at stake. The Franco-Anglo-American gamble now seems far too likely to fail at their expense. Moreover, it seems likely to drag the other nations that support the operation into their failure -- along with part of the reputation of NATO and credibility of the UN.... gambling on Qaddafi caving in has created a far more serious humanitarian crisis for the Libyan people than would ever have occurred if the Coalition had acted decisively from the start ...The humanitarian cost of humanitarian restraint is all too clear: Hundreds of Libyan and foreign workers have been killed...hundreds of thousands lack jobs, security, and safe conditions of life....an enduring war of attrition will turn a minor humanitarian crisis into a major one ...This kind of operation cannot be “surgical’ – if “surgical” now means minimizing bloodshed regardless of whether the patient dies. Hard, and sometimes brutal, choices need to be made between limited civilian casualties and collateral damage during the decisive use of force and an open-ended war of attrition that will produce far higher cumulative civilian casualties and collateral damage.<ref>http://csis.org/publication/libya-will-farce-stay-us-and-france-and-britain</ref>}}
Cordesman notes mission creep and boots on the ground ultimately lead to [[nation building]]:
{{Cquote|France, Britain, and the US now have a special obligation to both finish what they started in military terms, and deal with the aftermath. A post-conflict Libya will need extensive help in building a workable political system, in rebuilding the capability to govern, in both rebuilding the existing economy and correcting for decades of Qaddafi’s reckless and constantly shifting eccentricities.}}
On April 19, 2011, one month after Sarkozy, Cameron, and Obama asked the UN Security Council for authorization for a limited use of force, the UK ''[[Guardian (UK)|Guardian]]'' reported,
{{Cquote|Britain is now publicly doing what it expressly said it would not do when the no-fly intervention began: putting boots on the ground in Libya. France is taking similar action. Given that the rebel tribes have convincingly demonstrated their inability to win on their own, given the sizable negatives for David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy of an open-ended, inconclusive conflict, and given Barack Obama's flat refusal to do any more, the question now is: how many more British and French boots will follow, sooner or later, in the advisers' fateful footsteps?....By encouraging and assisting rebel resistance, as [[George H. W. Bush|George Bush Snr]] did with the [[Shia]]s of southern [[Iraq]] in 1991, Britain and France risk worsening the plight of the Libyan civilians they are primarily pledged to defend. The UN and concerned aid agencies all agree the humanitarian situation is growing steadily worse, the longer the conflict continues. ..<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref>}}

<blockquote>
Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, in particular, has been scathing about Western intervention in Libya, comparing the Resolution 1973 to “a medieval call to the crusades” and saying “the so-called civilized community, with all its might, pounces on a small country, and ruins infrastructure that has been built over generations.” Mr. Putin returned to the subject of Libya repeatedly, despite acknowledging that foreign policy decisions were not within his portfolio as prime minister. [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/world/europe/28russia.html?hp]
</blockquote>

===Manufacturing Consent===

"On how the western media makes the case for war. Our consent has been manufactured by the criminalization of Gaddafi and his government, and the Libyan people cannot believe it when I tell them what is said about him in the west. And if only you could see how they live, they are far more free than us in England in many ways, this does not fit in with the oppressive image of Gaddafi portrayed in the west.

So for example, I have had Libyans coming up to me asking me about a report in the popular French newspaper Le Figaro that came out about 3 days ago saying 10,000 people have been killed in Tripoli over the past 3 months by government forces. They are astonished, because this is complete and utter lies. " [https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend.]

==External links==
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/in-arming-libyan-rebels-the-us-would-follow-an-old-dark-path/73019/ In Arming Libyan Rebels, the U.S. Would Follow an Old, Dark Path.]
[[File:Tripoli NATO bombing Libya.jpg|thumb|280px|Tripoli, NATO bombing.]]
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels.] ''The Independent'', UK.
*[http://www.sott.net/articles/show/225613-Operation-Libya-The-US-NATO-Attempted-Coup-d-Etat-in-Libya-and-the-Battle-for-Oil "Operation Libya": The US-NATO Attempted Coup d'Etat in Libya and the Battle for Oil.]
*[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2055251,00.html Why Libya's Uprising Is Bad for the World Economy.]
*[http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions False pretense for war in Libya?]
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-nato-civil-war-cameron These humanitarians come to Libya with missiles, and an agenda.] by [[Simon Jenkins]].
*[http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=24188 The West's War Against Gaddafi. Yet another long-lasting, tragic crime against humanity.]
*[http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama%E2%80%99s-war-in-libya-is-illegal-and-unconstitutional/ Obama’s War in Libya is Illegal and Unconstitutional.] by Cliff Kincaid.
*[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/30/us-libya-school-idUSTRE73T24620110430 Libya disabled children school hit in NATO strike.] Reuters.
*[http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/06/08/natos-alternate-universe-in-libya.html NATO's "Alternate Universe" in Libya.]
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reese-schonfeld/are-the-lessons-of-kosovo_b_868281.html Are The Lessons of Kosovo Spreading to Libya?]
*[http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/06/22/le-patron-de-la-ligue-arabe-fait-part-de-scrupules-sur-la-libye_1539111_1496980.html#ens_id=1481986 The head of the Arab League expressed "qualms" about Libya.] In French.
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx3UAWau9T8&%20NR=1 George Galloway talks about Libya war.] Youtube

==Notes==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Libya]]
[[category:Africa]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:War]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Talk:Pj o'rourke

2011-09-27T00:26:44Z

BrentH: Created page with "Get his name correct in the title of the article: P.J. O'Rourke and you'll see we already have an article on the guy. ~~~~"

Get his name correct in the title of the article: [[P.J. O'Rourke]] and you'll see we already have an article on the guy. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 20:26, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

United States presidential election, 2012

2011-09-26T22:32:36Z

BrentH: Not strong enough on the pro-life front to carry the nomination. This is an absolute deal-breaker for the conservative core of the GOP

''This article is about the '''United States Presidential Election 2012'''. See [[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for presidential elections in other countries.

'''''The next presidential debate is on October 11, 2011, in [[New Hampshire]]'''''.

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. [[Obama]], with his [[Barack Obama approval ratings|declining popularity]], is unlikely to win reelection unless he can carry [[Florida]], which he only narrowly won last time.

For the Republican nomination, the leaders are [[Mitt Romney]] (likely to win [[New Hampshire]]) and [[Rick Perry]] (likely to win the South).<ref>The order of the early primaries is not yet finally determined. For estimated dates, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> Neither seems to have broad enough support to win the nomination. [[Ron Paul]] has a solid base of about 10% and his ideas are being adopted by other candidates. Additional candidates (perhaps [[Jeb Bush]] or [[Chris Christie]]?) are possible.
__NOTOC__
== Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|The declining economy means the opportunity for Jeb to win is now, not in 2016 when another Republican would be the incumbent; Jeb is sure to win Florida and Obama cannot win reelection if the Republican wins Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Has polled unusually poorly (54-34%) against [[Barack Obama]];<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/obama-would-beat-jeb-bush-big-says-poll/</ref> Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012, when he could still be tagged with negatives via George; not liked by many Tea Partiers; would be seen by many as the "third" Bush, tagged rather unfairly to how both his father and brother have been President; might wait to run when Hillary runs.
|With unemployment high (9.1% in August 2011), it is more likely a Republican will win in 2012, and Jeb will not want to pass up that opportunity and then wait until 2020, when he's old,
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, business experience, Republican governor of a Democratic state, cut taxes and the deficit, prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner, polling at 40% in the key early primary state of [[New Hampshire]], credited for helping [[Scott Brown]] win an upset victory for the seat long held by [[Ted Kennedy]]. Likely to be endorsed by [[Chris Christie]], [[Marsha Blackburn]], [[Jim Talent]], etc. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref> Out with a new jobs plan.
|Refuses to sign the same [[pro-life]] pledge that all other major [[Republican]] candidates signed;<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57256.html</ref> continues to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]]; Romney once supported [[abortion]] and [[civil unions]], criticized by the [[Tea Party Express]] chairwoman and others due to his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion; struggles in Iowa and won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008.
|Doubts are growing that someone as weak as Romney on pro-life can win the nomination. He has lost ground despite winning his first debate, and finished only 5th in the straw poll at the Republican Leadership Conference; disappointed pro-lifers by failing to take a pro-life pledge. He did win the two Florida debates against Perry, however.
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than libertarian, and is trying to appeal to Ron Paul's fanbase<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref>, thus a Bachmann candidacy could unite Tea Party conservatives.
|As with [[Ronald Reagan]], [[liberal bias]] is at its worst against her; has never won statewide office; [[Ron Paul]] did not support her for a House leadership position and did not join her [[Tea Party]] caucus.
|Did extremely well in the first debate and jumped to #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters; took a sterner approach in the second and third debates, perhaps to appeal more to angry voters currently supporting [[Ron Paul]]. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Has slipped badly in the polls since Perry's entrance.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Won the [[CPAC]] poll, terrific on economic issues, is strong in national polls, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; appeals to many social liberals.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; opposed Bachmann for a leadership position; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienates many Republicans.
|Improving as Obama's support is lowest when Paul is his opponent; Paul is gaining ground as economy crumbles. Was the clear crowd favorite in the [[Iowa]] debate on Aug. 10. Finished only 1% behind Michele Bachmann in the Ames straw poll; together with her the two of them won more than half the votes. In an online poll, Paul easily won the [[MSNBC]]-sponsored candidates' debate at the [[Reagan Library]] on September 7.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem, is making himself known, won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24.
|Still not very well known nationally but is getting more recognition.
|Improving in his ranking
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|Articulate, credited with 1994 landslide, balanced the federal budget in the Clinton era, leader in fundraising, likely to obtain endorsement of older "right to life" groups against Mitt;<ref name="April%252525202010%25252520Fundraising">http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/04/19/sarah-palin-lags-in-2012-fundraising-primary.html</ref> has one-sided promotion by the [[Fox News Channel]] and the [[WSJ]], who will likely criticize his opponent [[Mitt Romney]]; Gingrich's record of passing [[conservative]] legislation as [[Speaker of the House]] is remarkably strong, including welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. He also had the courage to shut down the government.
|Unable to gain much support despite having shown flashes of the old Newt in several debates. Gingrich has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax) and a [[Con Con]]; resigned as Speaker rather than follow through with the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]; divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a women 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office. Sarah Palin is suggesting that she may not pull out and this could prevent Newt from defeating Mitt. Since 9/11, Newt has come to adopt more big-government and pro-regulatory [[neoconservative]] views, unlike the push for limited-government and [[deregulation]] he spearheaded during the 1990s.
|Lost ground when his senior staff jumped ship on June 9th.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Ahead in national polls by single digits over Mitt Romney, but his support is primarily in the Old South. Perry formally announced his candidacy on August 13. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election against a popular opponent, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states like [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Illinois]], and [[New York]]. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show by attending prayer-ins that are mocked by [[east coast liberals]]. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]].
|It can be argued is more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. ''Could simply block [[Mitt Romney]] from winning the nomination, without winning it himself''.
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]] and [[same-sex marriage]], and then lost the support of some voters by declaring that he is opposed to building a fence to reduce illegal immigration. Did not participate in the Iowa debate or Straw Poll. May be focusing on a southern strategy that is unlikely to give him the majority of delegates needed to win.
Did well in the first debate that he participated in, but seemed awkward or uncomfortable during his second and third debates, causing second thoughts about his electability.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasizes the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality.
|It's difficult to take seriously someone who relies so heavily on [[Facebook]]; even [[liberal]] [[Hollywood]] preferred ''The King's Speech'' at the [[Oscars]]. Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lags in fundraising despite publicity,<ref name="April%252525202010%25252520Fundraising"/> came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>. Frequently mocked and subjected to personal attacks from the [[liberal media]].
|Says she is still considering whether to run. Registered a "sharp turnaround," according to the Marist poll conducted September 13-14, 2011, by going from 21 points behind Obama to 5 behind in one month's time. Poll also showed that a large majority of Republicans still don't want her to run.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by Iowan evangelicals at campaign-like event in March 2010, strongly socially conservative.
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he has regretted it at CPAC 2010; could simply be a [[stalking horse]] for Romney, who he endorsed in 2008.
|Was fabulous in the Iowa debate August 10th, and has won praise for his performance in more recent debates, but has been slow to climb in the polls
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Worked in the Obama administration; Criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|Not getting much support, except among the media and multiple Democrats
|-
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Leads [[Barack Obama]] in Zogby's polling (January 2011), takes on the [[public school]] teachers' unions and is a fiscal reformer who puts liberals in their place, has an unscripted style and appearance that is a refreshing alternative to the Teleprompter President.
|Significantly overweight, Picked a [[pro-abortion]] running mate when he ran for governor, and has little experience with national issues; repeatedly says he is not running; campaigned for [[RINO]] [[Mike Castle]] in [[Delaware]] who was then defeated; neither added [[New Jersey]] to one of the lawsuits against [[ObamaCare]] nor joined an [[amicus brief]] against it; ''will probably support [[Mitt Romney]]''.
|Attaining budget cuts, particularly to [[Planned Parenthood]], Christie has become a leading contender for Vice President
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles seeking asylum in the U.S. at the time of his birth in Miami, making him an inspiring, uniquely American success story.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on two fronts: 1) what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. 2) Liberals who have been deriding the strict definition of "natural born citizen" which some conservatives have been applying to Obama might also turn around and use the same logic with Rubio, claiming that his non-citizen parents invalidate his natural-born status. Some Republican voters may think he's really running to be selected as Vice President.
|Probably running for VP
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30% without any way to gain broader support needed to win; also supporter of big government, as governor raised taxes and increased state spending, released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing ground and relevancy
|-
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Tied for number 1 in [[Gallup Poll]];<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> forced Obama's to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and is also willing to criticize liberal media; has business savvy and resources as a billionaire; is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want. Not a career politician helps his cause.
|Said he's not running.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/</ref> Criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. Needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past, and is starting to look one-dimensional. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>
|Declining in support
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is yet. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could be seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011 and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government. Could inherit the support for his father, who could hand off the campaign to Rand.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, will not run for president unless his dad drops his own campaign for the same office. Rand could first campaign for his dad and then become the candidate if voters think he has a better opportunity to win, but time is running out for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Will almost certainly be supporting his dad's run for President.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Definitely not running now
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Busy achieving good things in his current job
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president. Has endorsed Perry.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]] (but never won with more than 50% of the vote); benefits from exodus of the leadership from Newt's campaign on June 9th. Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees;<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/3k4p8jf ''Duluth News Tribune'': Fees soar as state taxes hold steady] (2006)</ref> supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base or any appeal that would attract support away from the front-runners; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure; an ex-Catholic and that may not play well with Catholic swing voters. Came off as as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination.
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he has declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, and stay in the House
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Falling into obscurity
|-
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|Former [[libertarian]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], he has been recommended by [[Ron Paul]], Johnson is a strong advocate of a libertarian belief system.
|Like other libertarians but unlike most Republicans, Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given Ron Paul's run, there seems to be little support for Gary Johnson in this election cycle.
|Cannot get much support with Ron Paul in the same race, but he did quite well in the second debate that he was allowed to appear in.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]]; was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|Announced in late April 2011 that he is not running; also, rarely seen at conservative conferences, and a Republican from the [[Deep South]] may have trouble attracting independent voters.
|
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich
|
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP
|
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Michelle Bachmann could reach that goal also, and benefits from having a strong conservative base too. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. But others lacking in a strong base will struggle unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====
[[File:Ronpaul.jpg|thumb|Ron Paul.]]
There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt can win only one out of the three (New Hampshire), leaving an opening for another candidate to win the other two.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

McClatchy-Marist survey after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur. 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal. The Marist poll says,
{{Cquote|Interestingly, a plurality of Democrats – 42 percent – would like to see a more liberal challenger while half of Democratic leaning independents – 50 percent – would like to see a more conservative one.}}
The McClatchy-Marist poll indicates that 48 percent of registered voters nationwide plan to vote against the president in 2012, with 36 percent saying they'll vote to re-elect Obama.

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives endearing support from the media.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. She has the highest approval ratings of any potential challenger.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2010/58_view_hillary_clinton_favorably 58% View Hillary Clinton Favorably], January 19, 2010. Retrieved February 15, 2010.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Her [[feminism]] is not wanted and she'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Will make this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention, and he likely will never get a chance to go up against Obama in a debate.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, when he's mentioned
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physicians license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacy by Mike Bloomberg ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which he can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be a split in the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2011-09-26T17:08:50Z

BrentH: loses more ground with MI straw pole.

'''''The next presidential debate is on Sept. 22, 2011, in [[Florida]]'''''.

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, when the [[United States]] elects a president. [[Obama]], with his [[Barack Obama approval ratings|declining popularity]], is unlikely to win reelection unless he can carry [[Florida]], which he only narrowly won last time.

For the Republican nomination, the leaders are [[Mitt Romney]] (likely to win [[New Hampshire]]), [[Michele Bachmann]] (likely to win [[Iowa]]), and [[Rick Perry]] (likely to win the South).<ref>The order of the early primaries is not yet finally determined as of the end of 2010. For estimated dates, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> Neither seem to have broad enough support to win the nomination. [[Ron Paul]] has a solid base of about 10% and his ideas are being adopted by other candidates. Additional candidates (perhaps [[Jeb Bush]]?) are possible.
__NOTOC__
== Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, business experience, Republican governor of a Democratic state, cut taxes and the deficit, prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner, polling at 40% in the key early primary state of [[New Hampshire]], credited for helping [[Scott Brown]] win an upset victory for the seat long held by [[Ted Kennedy]]. Likely to be endorsed by [[Chris Christie]], [[Marsha Blackburn]], [[Jim Talent]], etc. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref> Out with a new jobs plan.
|Refuses to sign the same [[pro-life]] pledge that all other major [[Republican]] candidates signed;<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57256.html</ref> continues to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]]; Romney once supported [[abortion]] and [[civil unions]], criticized by the [[Tea Party Express]] chairwoman and others due to his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion; struggles in Iowa and won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008.
|Doubts are growing that someone as weak as Romney on pro-life can win the nomination. He is losing ground despite winning his first debate, and finished only 5th in the straw poll at the Republican Leadership Conference; disappointed pro-lifers by failing to take a pro-life pledge. He did win the Florida debate against Perry, however.
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|The declining economy means the opportunity for Jeb to win is now, not in 2016 when another Republican would be the incumbent; Jeb is sure to win Florida and Obama cannot win reelection if the Republican wins Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Has polled unusually poorly (54-34%) against [[Barack Obama]];<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/obama-would-beat-jeb-bush-big-says-poll/</ref> Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012, when he could still be tagged with negatives via George; not liked by many Tea Partiers; would be seen by many as the "third" Bush, tagged rather unfairly to how both his father and brother have been President; might wait to run when Hillary runs.
|With unemployment high (9.1% in August 2011), it is more likely a Republican will win in 2012, and Jeb will not want to pass up that opportunity and then wait until 2020, when he's old
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than libertarian, and is trying to appeal to Ron Paul's fanbase<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref>, thus a Bachmann candidacy could unite Tea Party conservatives.
|As with [[Ronald Reagan]], [[liberal bias]] is at its worst against her; has never won statewide office; [[Ron Paul]] did not support her for a House leadership position and did not join her [[Tea Party]] caucus.
|Did extremely well in the first debate and jumped to #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters; took a sterner approach in the second and third debates, perhaps to appeal more to angry voters currently supporting [[Ron Paul]]. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Has slipped in the polls since Perry's entrance.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Won the [[CPAC]] poll, terrific on economic issues, is strong in national polls, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; appeals to many social liberals.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; opposed Bachmann for a leadership position; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienates many Republicans.
|Improving as Obama's support is lowest when Paul is his opponent; Paul is gaining ground as economy crumbles. Was the clear crowd favorite in the [[Iowa]] debate on Aug. 10. Finished only 1% behind Michele Bachmann in the Ames straw poll; together with her the two of them won more than half the votes. In an online poll, Paul easily won the [[MSNBC]]-sponsored candidates' debate at the [[Reagan Library]] on September 7.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem, is making himself known, won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24.
|Still not very well known by people but is getting more recognition.
|Improving in his ranking
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|Articulate, credited with 1994 landslide, balanced the federal budget in the Clinton era, leader in fundraising, likely to obtain endorsement of older "right to life" groups against Mitt;<ref name="April%252525202010%25252520Fundraising">http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/04/19/sarah-palin-lags-in-2012-fundraising-primary.html</ref> has one-sided promotion by the [[Fox News Channel]] and the [[WSJ]], who will likely criticize his opponent [[Mitt Romney]]; Gingrich's record of passing [[conservative]] legislation as [[Speaker of the House]] is remarkably strong, including welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. He also had the courage to shut down the government.
|Unable to gain much support despite having shown flashes of the old Newt in several debates. Gingrich has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax) and a [[Con Con]]; resigned as Speaker rather than follow through with the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]; divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a women 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office. Sarah Palin is suggesting that she may not pull out and this could prevent Newt from defeating Mitt. Since 9/11, Newt has come to adopt more big-government and pro-regulatory [[neoconservative]] views, unlike the push for limited-government and [[deregulation]] he spearheaded during the 1990s.
|Lost ground when his senior staff jumped ship on June 9th.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Ahead in national polls by single digits over Mitt Romney, but his support is primarily in the Old South. Perry formally announced his candidacy on August 13. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election against a popular opponent, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states like [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Illinois]], and [[New York]]. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show by attending prayer-ins that are mocked by [[east coast liberals]]. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]].
|It can be argued is more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. ''Could simply block [[Mitt Romney]] from winning the nomination, without winning it himself''.
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]] and [[same-sex marriage]], and then lost the support of some voters by declaring that he is opposed to building a fence to reduce illegal immigration. Did not participate in the Iowa debate or Straw Poll. May be focusing on a southern strategy that is unlikely to give him the majority of delegates needed to win.
Did well in the first debate that he participated in, but seemed awkward or uncomfortable during his second and third debates, causing second thoughts about his electability.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasizes the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality.
|It's difficult to take seriously someone who relies so heavily on [[Facebook]]; even [[liberal]] [[Hollywood]] preferred ''The King's Speech'' at the [[Oscars]]. Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lags in fundraising despite publicity,<ref name="April%252525202010%25252520Fundraising"/> came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>. Frequently mocked and subjected to personal attacks from the [[liberal media]].
|Says she is still considering whether to run. Registered a "sharp turnaround," according to the Marist poll conducted September 13-14, 2011, by going from 21 points behind Obama to 5 behind in one month's time. Poll also showed that a large majority of Republicans still don't want her to run.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by Iowan evangelicals at campaign-like event in March 2010, strongly socially conservative.
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he has regretted it at CPAC 2010; could simply be a [[stalking horse]] for Romney, who he endorsed in 2008.
|Was fabulous in the Iowa debate August 10th, and has won praise for his performance in more recent debates, but has been unable to climb in the polls
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Worked in the Obama administration; Criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|Not getting much support, except among the media and multiple Democrats
|-
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Leads [[Barack Obama]] in Zogby's polling (January 2011), takes on the [[public school]] teachers' unions and is a fiscal reformer who puts liberals in their place, has an unscripted style and appearance that is a refreshing alternative to the Teleprompter President.
|Significantly overweight, Picked a [[pro-abortion]] running mate when he ran for governor, and has little experience with national issues; repeatedly says he is not running; campaigned for [[RINO]] [[Mike Castle]] in [[Delaware]] who was then defeated; neither added [[New Jersey]] to one of the lawsuits against [[ObamaCare]] nor joined an [[amicus brief]] against it; ''will probably support [[Mitt Romney]]''.
|Attaining budget cuts, particularly to [[Planned Parenthood]], Christie has become the leading contender for Vice President
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles seeking asylum in the U.S. at the time of his birth in Miami, making him an inspiring, uniquely American success story.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on two fronts: 1) what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. 2) Liberals who have been deriding the strict definition of "natural born citizen" which some conservatives have been applying to Obama might also turn around and use the same logic with Rubio, claiming that his non-citizen parents invalidate his natural-born status. Some Republican voters may think he's really running to be selected as Vice President.
|Probably running for VP
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30% without any way to gain broader support needed to win; also supporter of big government, as governor raised taxes and increased state spending, released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing ground and relevancy
|-
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Tied for number 1 in [[Gallup Poll]];<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> forced Obama's to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and is also willing to criticize liberal media; has business savvy and resources as a billionaire; is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want. Not a career politician helps his cause.
|Said he's not running.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/</ref> Criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. Needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past, and is starting to look one-dimensional. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>
|Declining in support
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is yet. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could be seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011 and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government. Could inherit the support for his father, who could hand off the campaign to Rand.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, will not run for president unless his dad drops his own campaign for the same office. Rand could first campaign for his dad and then become the candidate if voters think he has a better opportunity to win, but time is running out for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Will almost certainly be supporting his dad's run for President.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Definitely not running now
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Busy achieving good things in his current job
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president. Has endorsed Perry.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]] (but never won with more than 50% of the vote); benefits from exodus of the leadership from Newt's campaign on June 9th. Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees;<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/3k4p8jf ''Duluth News Tribune'': Fees soar as state taxes hold steady] (2006)</ref> supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base or any appeal that would attract support away from the front-runners; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure; an ex-Catholic and that may not play well with Catholic swing voters. Came off as as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination.
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he has declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, and stay in the House
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Falling into obscurity
|-
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|Former [[libertarian]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], he has been recommended by [[Ron Paul]], Johnson is a strong advocate of a libertarian belief system.
|Like other libertarians but unlike most Republicans, Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given Ron Paul's run, there seems to be little support for Gary Johnson in this election cycle.
|Cannot get much support with Ron Paul in the same race, but he did quite well in the second debate that he was allowed to appear in.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]]; was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|Announced in late April 2011 that he is not running; also, rarely seen at conservative conferences, and a Republican from the [[Deep South]] may have trouble attracting independent voters.
|
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich
|
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP
|
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Michelle Bachmann could reach that goal also, and benefits from having a strong conservative base too. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. But others lacking in a strong base will struggle unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====
[[File:Ronpaul.jpg|thumb|Ron Paul.]]
There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt can win only one out of the three (New Hampshire), leaving an opening for another candidate to win the other two.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

McClatchy-Marist survey after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur. 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal. The Marist poll says,
{{Cquote|Interestingly, a plurality of Democrats – 42 percent – would like to see a more liberal challenger while half of Democratic leaning independents – 50 percent – would like to see a more conservative one.}}
The McClatchy-Marist poll indicates that 48 percent of registered voters nationwide plan to vote against the president in 2012, with 36 percent saying they'll vote to re-elect Obama.

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives endearing support from the media.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. She has the highest approval ratings of any potential challenger.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2010/58_view_hillary_clinton_favorably 58% View Hillary Clinton Favorably], January 19, 2010. Retrieved February 15, 2010.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Her [[feminism]] is not wanted and she'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Will make this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention, and he likely will never get a chance to go up against Obama in a debate.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, when he's mentioned
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physicians license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacy by Mike Bloomberg ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which he can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be a split in the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Ségolène Royal

2011-09-26T04:05:26Z

BrentH: /* Writings */

[[Image:Segolene royal.jpg|thumb|Ségolène Royal]]

'''Marie-Ségolène Royal''' (born 22 September 1953 in Dakar, [[Senegal]]) was the [[democratic socialism|Socialist]] candidate for the [[2007 French presidential elections|2007 French presidential election]]. On May 6, 2007 [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] won the French presidential election. The socialist Ségolène Royal conceded defeat, by a 53-47% margin.

Her father Jacques Royal, is a Catholic, [[conservative]] [[France|French]] army colonel. Royal attended the prestigious Ecole Nationale d'Administration. She has also a Degree in Economics, Graduate of the Institut d'Etudes Politiques in Paris. At the Ecole Nationale she met François Hollande, the leader of the Socialist Party and father of her four children. Both collaborated with the staff of Socialist President François Mitterrand.

She is a National Assembly member and the President of the Poitou-Charentes region. On March 27, 2000, She was appointed as Minister at the Ministry of Employment and Solidarity, with delegated responsibility for Childhood and the Family.

== Writings ==

*''Le printemps des grands-parents'', Editions Robert Laffont
*''Le ras-le-bol des bébés zappeurs'', Editions Robert Laffont
*''Pays, paysans, paysage'', Editions Robert Laffont
*''La vérité d'une femme'', Stock. (A Woman's Truth)

==Policies==

Segolene Royal has promised to implement leftist economic policies that will "frighten the capitalists." She also calls for European opposition to "the American hyperpower." <ref>http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070424-102752-8335r.htm</ref>

She is known for her admiration for some "[[Third Way]]" policies (and has been compared to [[Tony Blair]] in this respect), for her insistence on the importance of the "welfare state" and for her support of participatory democracy and devolution.

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Royal, Ségolène}}

[[Category:International Political Figures]]
[[Category:French People]]
[[Category:Women]]

French Presidential Election 2012

2011-09-26T03:36:32Z

BrentH: /* Candidates */

The French Presidential Election 2012 is on April 22nd and May 6th 2012.

==Candidates==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Party
! Candidate(s)
! Previous candidate (2007)
|-
| [[Union for a Popular Movement]] ( Union pour un Mouvement Populaire)
| [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] ?
| [[Nicolas Sarkozy]]
|-
| [[Socialist|Socialists]]
| [[Martine Aubry]], [[François Hollande]], [[Ségolène Royale]] ?
| [[Ségolène Royale]]
|-
| [[National Front|Front National]] (Nationalists)
| [[Marine Le Pen]]
| [[Jean-Marie Le Pen]]
|-
| [[Green Party]]
| Eva Joly
| Dominique Voynet
|-
| Other candidates
| François Bayrou, Jean-Luc Mélenchon ([[Communist]]), Philippe Poutou ([[Anticapitalist]])
|
|}

French Presidential Election 2012

2011-09-26T03:35:51Z

BrentH:

The French Presidential Election 2012 is on April 22nd and May 6th 2012.

==Candidates==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Party
! Candidate(s)
! Previous candidate (2007)
|-
| [[Union for a Popular Movement]] ( Union pour un Mouvement Populaire)
| [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] ?
| [[Nicolas Sarkozy]]
|-
| [[Socialist|Socialists]]
| [[Martine Aubry]], [[François Hollande]], [[Ségolène Royale]] ?
| [[Ségolène Royale]]
|-
| Front National (Nationalists)
| [[Marine LePen]]
| [[Jean-Marie Le Pen]]
|-
| [[Green Party]]
| Eva Joly
| Dominique Voynet
|-
| Other candidates
| François Bayrou, Jean-Luc Mélenchon ([[Communist]]), Philippe Poutou ([[Anticapitalist]])
|
|}

French Presidential Election 2012

2011-09-26T03:34:15Z

BrentH: /* Candidates */

The French Presidential Election 2012 is on April 22nd and May 6th 2012.

==Candidates==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Party
! Candidate(s)
! Previous candidate (2007)
|-
| [[Union for a Popular Movement]] ( Union pour un Mouvement Populaire)
| [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] ?
| [[Nicolas Sarkozy]]
|-
| [[Socialist|Socialists]]
| [[Martine Aubry]], [[François Hollande]], [[Ségolène Royale]] ?
| [[Ségolène Royale]]
|-
| Front National (Nationalists)
| [[Marine LePen]]
| [[Jean-Marie LePen]]
|-
| [[Green Party]]
| Eva Joly
| Dominique Voynet
|-
| Other candidates
| François Bayrou, Jean-Luc Mélenchon ([[Communist]]), Philippe Poutou ([[Anticapitalist]])
|
|}

Les Républicains

2011-09-26T03:33:06Z

BrentH:

The '''Union for a Popular Movement''' (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire) is [[France]]'s largest [[conservative]] political party. It was initially aligned with the policies of [[Jacques Chirac]], but has increasingly differed with him, especially when it officially expressed opposition to [[Turkey]]'s membership in the [[European Union]] after Chirac supported it.

In 2007 the UMP nominated [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] (who is also the president of the party) for [[2007 French presidential elections|president]]. Sarkozy won the presidency in the second round of voting on May 6, 2007.

The party also holds a majority in both houses of the French [[Parliament]], with [[François Fillon]] serving as [[Prime Minister]].

==Famous members of the Union for a Popular Movement==
*[[Nicolas Sarkozy]]
*[[Jacques Chirac]]

[[Category:French Political Parties]]

Mazurek v. Armstrong

2011-09-26T00:43:30Z

BrentH:

In '''Mazurek v. Armstrong''', 520 U.S. 968 (1997), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that it is constitutional to prohibit non-physicians from doing [[abortion]]s. This decision was based on [[logic]], and did not find it appropriate to consider whether other medical professionals could an abortion as safely as a physician, or how much prices for abortions may increase due to the physician-only rule.
[[Category:abortion]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

List of French Presidents

2011-09-26T00:42:38Z

BrentH: /* Forth Republic */

==Second Republic==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! From
! To
|-
| [[Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte]]
| 20 December 1848
| 2 December 1852
|}

==Third Republic==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! From
! To
|-
| Adolphe Thiers
| 31 August 1871
| 24 May 1873
|-
| Patrice de Mac Mahon
| 24 May 1873
| 30 January 1879
|-
| Jules Grévy
| 30 January 1879
| 2 December 1887
|-
| Sadi Carnot
| 3 December 1887
| 25 June 1894
|-
| Jean Casimir-Perier
| 27 June 1894
| 16 January 1895
|-
| Félix Faure
| 17 January 1895
| 16 February 1899
|-
| Émile Loubet
| 18 February 1899
| 18 February 1906
|-
| Armand Fallières
| 18 February 1906
| 18 February 1913
|-
| Raymond Poincaré
| 18 February 1913
| 18 February 1920
|-
| Paul Deschanel
| 18 February 1920
| 21 September 1920
|-
| Alexandre Millerand
| 23 September 1920
| 11 June 1924
|-
| Gaston Doumergue
| 13 June 1924
| 13 June 1931
|-
| Paul Doumer
| 13 June 1931
| 7 May 1932
|-
| Albert Lebrun
| 10 May 1932
| 11 July 1940
|}

==Fourth Republic==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! From
! To
|-
| Vincent Auriol
| 16 January 1947
| 16 January 1954
|-
| René Coty
| 16 January 1954
| 8 January 1959
|}

==Fifth Republic==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! From
! To
|-
| [[Charles de Gaulle]]
| 8 January 1959
| 28 April 1969
|-
| [[Georges Pompidou]]
| 20 June 1969
| 2 April 1974
|-
| [[Valéry Giscard d'Estaing]]
| 27 May 1974
| 21 May 1981
|-
| [[François Mitterrand]]
| 21 May 1981
| 17 May 1995
|-
| [[Jacques Chirac]]
| 17 May 1995
| 16 May 2007
|-
| [[Nicolas Sarkozy]]
| 16 May 2007
| Current
|}

List of French Presidents

2011-09-26T00:42:13Z

BrentH: Undo revision 921203 by BrentH (talk) ooops

==Second Republic==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! From
! To
|-
| [[Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte]]
| 20 December 1848
| 2 December 1852
|}

==Third Republic==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! From
! To
|-
| Adolphe Thiers
| 31 August 1871
| 24 May 1873
|-
| Patrice de Mac Mahon
| 24 May 1873
| 30 January 1879
|-
| Jules Grévy
| 30 January 1879
| 2 December 1887
|-
| Sadi Carnot
| 3 December 1887
| 25 June 1894
|-
| Jean Casimir-Perier
| 27 June 1894
| 16 January 1895
|-
| Félix Faure
| 17 January 1895
| 16 February 1899
|-
| Émile Loubet
| 18 February 1899
| 18 February 1906
|-
| Armand Fallières
| 18 February 1906
| 18 February 1913
|-
| Raymond Poincaré
| 18 February 1913
| 18 February 1920
|-
| Paul Deschanel
| 18 February 1920
| 21 September 1920
|-
| Alexandre Millerand
| 23 September 1920
| 11 June 1924
|-
| Gaston Doumergue
| 13 June 1924
| 13 June 1931
|-
| Paul Doumer
| 13 June 1931
| 7 May 1932
|-
| Albert Lebrun
| 10 May 1932
| 11 July 1940
|}

==Forth Republic==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! From
! To
|-
| Vincent Auriol
| 16 January 1947
| 16 January 1954
|-
| René Coty
| 16 January 1954
| 8 January 1959
|}

==Fifth Republic==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! From
! To
|-
| [[Charles de Gaulle]]
| 8 January 1959
| 28 April 1969
|-
| [[Georges Pompidou]]
| 20 June 1969
| 2 April 1974
|-
| [[Valéry Giscard d'Estaing]]
| 27 May 1974
| 21 May 1981
|-
| [[François Mitterrand]]
| 21 May 1981
| 17 May 1995
|-
| [[Jacques Chirac]]
| 17 May 1995
| 16 May 2007
|-
| [[Nicolas Sarkozy]]
| 16 May 2007
| Current
|}

List of French Presidents

2011-09-26T00:41:29Z

BrentH: /* Second Republic */

==First Republic==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! From
! To
|-
| [[Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte]]
| 20 December 1848
| 2 December 1852
|}

==Third Republic==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! From
! To
|-
| Adolphe Thiers
| 31 August 1871
| 24 May 1873
|-
| Patrice de Mac Mahon
| 24 May 1873
| 30 January 1879
|-
| Jules Grévy
| 30 January 1879
| 2 December 1887
|-
| Sadi Carnot
| 3 December 1887
| 25 June 1894
|-
| Jean Casimir-Perier
| 27 June 1894
| 16 January 1895
|-
| Félix Faure
| 17 January 1895
| 16 February 1899
|-
| Émile Loubet
| 18 February 1899
| 18 February 1906
|-
| Armand Fallières
| 18 February 1906
| 18 February 1913
|-
| Raymond Poincaré
| 18 February 1913
| 18 February 1920
|-
| Paul Deschanel
| 18 February 1920
| 21 September 1920
|-
| Alexandre Millerand
| 23 September 1920
| 11 June 1924
|-
| Gaston Doumergue
| 13 June 1924
| 13 June 1931
|-
| Paul Doumer
| 13 June 1931
| 7 May 1932
|-
| Albert Lebrun
| 10 May 1932
| 11 July 1940
|}

==Forth Republic==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! From
! To
|-
| Vincent Auriol
| 16 January 1947
| 16 January 1954
|-
| René Coty
| 16 January 1954
| 8 January 1959
|}

==Fifth Republic==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! From
! To
|-
| [[Charles de Gaulle]]
| 8 January 1959
| 28 April 1969
|-
| [[Georges Pompidou]]
| 20 June 1969
| 2 April 1974
|-
| [[Valéry Giscard d'Estaing]]
| 27 May 1974
| 21 May 1981
|-
| [[François Mitterrand]]
| 21 May 1981
| 17 May 1995
|-
| [[Jacques Chirac]]
| 17 May 1995
| 16 May 2007
|-
| [[Nicolas Sarkozy]]
| 16 May 2007
| Current
|}

United States presidential election, 2012

2011-09-25T02:08:15Z

BrentH: Cain beats Perry in FLA poll.

'''''The next presidential debate is on Sept. 22, 2011, in [[Florida]]'''''.

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, when the [[United States]] elects a president. [[Obama]], with his [[Barack Obama approval ratings|declining popularity]], is unlikely to win reelection unless he can carry [[Florida]], which he only narrowly won last time.

For the Republican nomination, the leaders are [[Mitt Romney]] (likely to win [[New Hampshire]]), [[Michele Bachmann]] (likely to win [[Iowa]]), and [[Rick Perry]] (likely to win the South).<ref>The order of the early primaries is not yet finally determined as of the end of 2010. For estimated dates, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> Neither seem to have broad enough support to win the nomination. [[Ron Paul]] has a solid base of about 10% and his ideas are being adopted by other candidates. Additional candidates (perhaps [[Jeb Bush]]?) are possible.
__NOTOC__
== Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, business experience, Republican governor of a Democratic state, cut taxes and the deficit, prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner, polling at 40% in the key early primary state of [[New Hampshire]], credited for helping [[Scott Brown]] win an upset victory for the seat long held by [[Ted Kennedy]]. Likely to be endorsed by [[Chris Christie]], [[Marsha Blackburn]], [[Jim Talent]], etc. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref> Out with a new jobs plan.
|Refuses to sign the same [[pro-life]] pledge that all other major [[Republican]] candidates signed;<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57256.html</ref> continues to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]]; Romney once supported [[abortion]] and [[civil unions]], criticized by the [[Tea Party Express]] chairwoman and others due to his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion; struggles in Iowa and won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008.
|Doubts are growing that someone as weak as Romney on pro-life can win the nomination. He is losing ground despite winning his first debate, and finished only 5th in the straw poll at the Republican Leadership Conference; disappointed pro-lifers by failing to take a pro-life pledge. He did win the Florida debate against Perry, however.
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|The declining economy means the opportunity for Jeb to win is now, not in 2016 when another Republican would be the incumbent; Jeb is sure to win Florida and Obama cannot win reelection if the Republican wins Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Has polled unusually poorly (54-34%) against [[Barack Obama]];<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/obama-would-beat-jeb-bush-big-says-poll/</ref> Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012, when he could still be tagged with negatives via George; not liked by many Tea Partiers; would be seen by many as the "third" Bush, tagged rather unfairly to how both his father and brother have been President; might wait to run when Hillary runs.
|With unemployment high (9.1% in August 2011), it is more likely a Republican will win in 2012, and Jeb will not want to pass up that opportunity and then wait until 2020, when he's old
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than libertarian, and is trying to appeal to Ron Paul's fanbase<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref>, thus a Bachmann candidacy could unite Tea Party conservatives.
|As with [[Ronald Reagan]], [[liberal bias]] is at its worst against her; has never won statewide office; [[Ron Paul]] did not support her for a House leadership position and did not join her [[Tea Party]] caucus.
|Did extremely well in the first debate and jumped to #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters; took a sterner approach in the second and third debates, perhaps to appeal more to angry voters currently supporting [[Ron Paul]]. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Has slipped in the polls since Perry's entrance.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Won the [[CPAC]] poll, terrific on economic issues, is strong in national polls, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; appeals to many social liberals.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; opposed Bachmann for a leadership position; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienates many Republicans.
|Improving as Obama's support is lowest when Paul is his opponent; Paul is gaining ground as economy crumbles. Was the clear crowd favorite in the [[Iowa]] debate on Aug. 10. Finished only 1% behind Michele Bachmann in the Ames straw poll; together with her the two of them won more than half the votes. In an online poll, Paul easily won the [[MSNBC]]-sponsored candidates' debate at the [[Reagan Library]] on September 7.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem, is making himself known.
|Not well known outside the conservative sphere of influence, although he is getting there.
|Maintaining his ranking
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Ahead in national polls by single digits over Mitt Romney, but his support is primarily in the Old South. Perry formally announced his candidacy on August 13. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election against a popular opponent, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states like [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Illinois]], and [[New York]]. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show by attending prayer-ins that are mocked by [[east coast liberals]]. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]].
|It can be argued is more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. ''Could simply block [[Mitt Romney]] from winning the nomination, without winning it himself''.
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]] and [[same-sex marriage]], and then lost the support of some voters by declaring that he is opposed to building a fence to reduce illegal immigration. Did not participate in the Iowa debate or Straw Poll. May be focusing on a southern strategy that is unlikely to give him the majority of delegates needed to win.
Did well in the first debate that he participated in, but seemed awkward or uncomfortable during his second and third debates, causing second thoughts about his electability.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|Articulate, credited with 1994 landslide, balanced the federal budget in the Clinton era, leader in fundraising, likely to obtain endorsement of older "right to life" groups against Mitt;<ref name="April%252525202010%25252520Fundraising">http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/04/19/sarah-palin-lags-in-2012-fundraising-primary.html</ref> has one-sided promotion by the [[Fox News Channel]] and the [[WSJ]], who will likely criticize his opponent [[Mitt Romney]]; Gingrich's record of passing [[conservative]] legislation as [[Speaker of the House]] is remarkably strong, including welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. He also had the courage to shut down the government.
|Unable to gain much support despite having shown flashes of the old Newt in several debates. Gingrich has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax) and a [[Con Con]]; resigned as Speaker rather than follow through with the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]; divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a women 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office. Sarah Palin is suggesting that she may not pull out and this could prevent Newt from defeating Mitt. Since 9/11, Newt has come to adopt more big-government and pro-regulatory [[neoconservative]] views, unlike the push for limited-government and [[deregulation]] he spearheaded during the 1990s.
|Lost ground when his senior staff jumped ship on June 9th.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasizes the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality.
|It's difficult to take seriously someone who relies so heavily on [[Facebook]]; even [[liberal]] [[Hollywood]] preferred ''The King's Speech'' at the [[Oscars]]. Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lags in fundraising despite publicity,<ref name="April%252525202010%25252520Fundraising"/> came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>. Frequently mocked and subjected to personal attacks from the [[liberal media]].
|Says she is still considering whether to run. Registered a "sharp turnaround," according to the Marist poll conducted September 13-14, 2011, by going from 21 points behind Obama to 5 behind in one month's time. Poll also showed that a large majority of Republicans still don't want her to run.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by Iowan evangelicals at campaign-like event in March 2010, strongly socially conservative.
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he has regretted it at CPAC 2010; could simply be a [[stalking horse]] for Romney, who he endorsed in 2008.
|Was fabulous in the Iowa debate August 10th, and has won praise for his performance in more recent debates, but has been unable to climb in the polls
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Worked in the Obama administration; Criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|Not getting much support, except among the media and multiple Democrats
|-
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Leads [[Barack Obama]] in Zogby's polling (January 2011), takes on the [[public school]] teachers' unions and is a fiscal reformer who puts liberals in their place, has an unscripted style and appearance that is a refreshing alternative to the Teleprompter President.
|Significantly overweight, Picked a [[pro-abortion]] running mate when he ran for governor, and has little experience with national issues; repeatedly says he is not running; campaigned for [[RINO]] [[Mike Castle]] in [[Delaware]] who was then defeated; neither added [[New Jersey]] to one of the lawsuits against [[ObamaCare]] nor joined an [[amicus brief]] against it; ''will probably support [[Mitt Romney]]''.
|Attaining budget cuts, particularly to [[Planned Parenthood]], Christie has become the leading contender for Vice President
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles seeking asylum in the U.S. at the time of his birth in Miami, making him an inspiring, uniquely American success story.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on two fronts: 1) what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. 2) Liberals who have been deriding the strict definition of "natural born citizen" which some conservatives have been applying to Obama might also turn around and use the same logic with Rubio, claiming that his non-citizen parents invalidate his natural-born status. Some Republican voters may think he's really running to be selected as Vice President.
|Probably running for VP
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30% without any way to gain broader support needed to win; also supporter of big government, as governor raised taxes and increased state spending, released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing ground and relevancy
|-
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Tied for number 1 in [[Gallup Poll]];<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> forced Obama's to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and is also willing to criticize liberal media; has business savvy and resources as a billionaire; is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want. Not a career politician helps his cause.
|Said he's not running.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/</ref> Criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. Needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past, and is starting to look one-dimensional. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>
|Declining in support
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is yet. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could be seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011 and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government. Could inherit the support for his father, who could hand off the campaign to Rand.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, will not run for president unless his dad drops his own campaign for the same office. Rand could first campaign for his dad and then become the candidate if voters think he has a better opportunity to win, but time is running out for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Will almost certainly be supporting his dad's run for President.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Definitely not running now
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Busy achieving good things in his current job
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president. Has endorsed Perry.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]] (but never won with more than 50% of the vote); benefits from exodus of the leadership from Newt's campaign on June 9th. Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees;<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/3k4p8jf ''Duluth News Tribune'': Fees soar as state taxes hold steady] (2006)</ref> supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base or any appeal that would attract support away from the front-runners; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure; an ex-Catholic and that may not play well with Catholic swing voters. Came off as as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination.
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he has declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, and stay in the House
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Falling into obscurity
|-
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|Former [[libertarian]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], he has been recommended by [[Ron Paul]], Johnson is a strong advocate of a libertarian belief system.
|Like other libertarians but unlike most Republicans, Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given Ron Paul's run, there seems to be little support for Gary Johnson in this election cycle.
|Cannot get much support with Ron Paul in the same race, but he did quite well in the second debate that he was allowed to appear in.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]]; was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|Announced in late April 2011 that he is not running; also, rarely seen at conservative conferences, and a Republican from the [[Deep South]] may have trouble attracting independent voters.
|
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich
|
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP
|
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Michelle Bachmann could reach that goal also, and benefits from having a strong conservative base too. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. But others lacking in a strong base will struggle unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====
[[File:Ronpaul.jpg|thumb|Ron Paul.]]
There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt can win only one out of the three (New Hampshire), leaving an opening for another candidate to win the other two.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

McClatchy-Marist survey after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur. 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal. The Marist poll says,
{{Cquote|Interestingly, a plurality of Democrats – 42 percent – would like to see a more liberal challenger while half of Democratic leaning independents – 50 percent – would like to see a more conservative one.}}
The McClatchy-Marist poll indicates that 48 percent of registered voters nationwide plan to vote against the president in 2012, with 36 percent saying they'll vote to re-elect Obama.

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives endearing support from the media.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. She has the highest approval ratings of any potential challenger.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2010/58_view_hillary_clinton_favorably 58% View Hillary Clinton Favorably], January 19, 2010. Retrieved February 15, 2010.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Her [[feminism]] is not wanted and she'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Will make this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention, and he likely will never get a chance to go up against Obama in a debate.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, when he's mentioned
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physicians license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacy by Mike Bloomberg ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which he can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be a split in the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2011-09-24T03:36:45Z

BrentH: /* Banned user */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]
==How do I request/apply for upload rights?==

I would like to, in economics articles, to upload low resolution Bloomberg screenshots that demonstrate how the economy has actually gotten worse under Barack Obama. In my short time here, I have mainly contributed to economics articles, which is my speciality, including the featured article on the [[Federal Debt Limit]]. [[User:HP|HP]] 01:08, 2 August 2011 (EDT)
:I would recommend asking at [[User:Aschlafly]] talk page. He will review your edits. Expanded user rights are granted on a [[merit system]]. See: [[Conservapedia:User rights]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:56, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::I would like to request as well. It would make it a bit easier, as I have had requested images for articles I was working on and it took a while to get the first singer ones.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 20:14, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I tried for the First Lady articles and was told I hadn't edited enough. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 20:18, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
HP, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Debt_Limit&diff=prev&oldid=876420 this edit] is problematic; it looks like malevolent [[parody]] ("pervades the inner city culture greatly") and have advised Mr. Schlalfy of my opinion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:51, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:Parody? You're kidding me, right? Nah, I call it as I see it. Obama does not take personal responsibility, will not take personal responsibility, and this is typical of the inner city culture, which is pervaded by a handout culture. It's funny how you insult my work when you piggybacked off of my contributions on the debt ceiling article and most of my work still remains. I have two MS degrees (Finance and Statistics) and my criticisms, even if you think they're politically incorrect, are factual. {{personal remark removed}} [[User:HP|HP]] 23:15, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::Funny, Rob comments on the edit, and you return with a personal attack. You might want to watch that. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 23:19, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Rob, that wasn't personal, that was factual. It is factual that I laid most of the foundation for the featured article, which is not disputable. You then built upon this foundation with your upload rights and made it a featured article (for which you should be commended). But don't call me a parodist when you leave most of my contributions in the article. That is intellectually dishonest. [[User:HP|HP]] 23:32, 3 August 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy, RobS, atheists/evolutionists, deleting/oversighting and misc, ==

Here are a few comments for the record and a few comments:

1. I am not against improving CP's blocking policy and suggested a blocking review board [[User:Conservative/blocking-board-framework|HERE]].

2. In terms of blocking policy, I am somewhere between Karajou and RobS. Karajou is on the strict side and RobS is more on the permissive side. For example, I recently got someone on the liberal/evolutionist side of the aisle unbanned because their revision was correct on an article relating to a creation related topic.

3. Karajou and Andy are probably going to be more active than me at Conservapedia at least in the near future. Furthermore, given there is a lot of content at Conservapedia with multiple editors, I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. In addition, I don't agree with all the decisions that have been made in the past concerning Conservapedia which is not surprising as all websites/organizations make mistakes. With the above being said, realistically, if RobS wants to continue to be a drama queen and call Conservapedia a @$#%hole and refer to me as being "demonic" offsite (Is hissy fit, internet armchair "exorcist" commentary respectable behavior? No, it is not) plus engage in other unbecoming unnecessary tactics and drama, he is not going to get much cooperation from his fellow Sysops, from myself and from Andy. RobS is going to have to learn to be less hot-headed, show more self-restraint and engage in more constructive behavior. In addition, he is also going to have to repair some bridges in order to gain back trust. Already, he has lost his check user rights and his siteadmin rights.

Also, I had some strong words concerning RobS recently this was mainly due to his pestering me and his offsite behavior. If RobS truly believed I was "demonic" I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter and his decision to engage in this behavior offsite shows his lack of conviction and it is merely a example of his hissy fit drama queen antics. The truth is that he didn't like being ignored by me so he shot off some hot-headed nonsense.

4. I have a feeling that if I do more in the future to get involved in blocking policy at Conservapedia it will be with someone like Iduan who I have had pleasant communication with in the past.

5. Evolutionist/atheist editors are going to have to be more realistic. Andy, Karajou and others are never going to allow the website to go pro-evolution/atheism or attempt to go neutral on these issues because they know evolution/atheism is nonsense and often just window dressing for people not wanting to live under biblical standards of conduct. There are a lot of other topics that they can contribute to and I would suggest covering other topics.

6. I feel no obligation to respond to or debate obscure atheists/evolutionists at Conservapedia. I am content that my material on these subjects gets a significant amount of internet traffic. Plus, I have responded to comments in the past and there are several pages of talk page archives. If more well-known atheists were to offer an attractive offer, I would consider debating them, but I am not going to lose any sleep over it if this does not occur as I believe they are often cowards (see: [[Daniel Came]]'s recent commentary about [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]) and the fields of evolutionary biology/atheistic philosophy/secular religion and its promotion is filled with charlatans. On the other hand, Christianity has a great amount evidence supporting it and there is an abundance of websites offering excellent resources produced by scholars and others - see [[Christian apologetics website resources]].

7. I really don't fill any remorse about deleting vandalism or clearly inane comments in the past. For example, if someone says "Atheism is true because I say so" or posts some other nonsense that is often misspelled (public schools in too many cases produce atheists who can't even spell atheist, atheists and atheism) I can't say I lose any sleep in deleting it and I don't believe I did a great deal of deleting comments like these in the past. There is [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|no proof and evidence for atheism]] and as mentioned above there is a [[Christian apologetics website resources|great deal of evidence for Christianity]]. On the other hand, I have responded to atheists/evolutionists in the past on the talk pages of atheism related content and also taken some suggestions in terms of the content. I can't predict the future in terms of vandalism/malicious behavior, but with that being said I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:*''I don't agree with all of Conservapedia's content. ''
:Why don't you just come out and say it: you don't like Andy's [[Conservative Bible Project]].
:Now, my question, who on the open wiki, or in private discussion lists, gave you the permission or authority to speak for all of Conservapedia in "Conservapedia's challenge to ...(fill in the blank)...."?
:*'' I am sure he would have approached Andy about this matter ''
:I beleive I did here. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=888699]
:*''suggested a blocking review board ''
:You would need editors to man the review board, which you don't have.
:*'' I do think I will do less oversighting/deleting in the future''
:And I thank you for that. It's unfortunate this disagreement got as large as it did, but that's all it ever was about. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:55, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::RobS, given that I posted concerning you, I read your above comments on the off chance you might respond with a sincere and constructive response. That didn't happen. Unless something dramatic happens, I don't see myself inclined to read your future postings at this wiki or to read emails sent to me from you. Second, if memory serves, I thought I had commented on the [[Conservative Bible Project]] (CBP) earlier at this wiki or at the very least commented on what is required to do good Bible translation/exegesis, but I cannot find it on the talk page of the project. As far as posting on the CBP, maybe I posted on the talk page for the main page or the talk page for Andy's user page. I doubt it was oversighted. With that being said, I do think I should post on the talk page of the CBP and point out what I see are the major flaws of the CBP in terms of its approach. Good Bible translation uses some of the same principles as good Bible exegesis and these principles are explained [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm HERE]. If you click that link, obviously good Bible exegesis/translation requires a lot of work to determine original intent and it is also very methodical. I also don't like the name of the project and it will become apparent why once I post my objections to the project on the talk page of the CBP. Lastly, I have expressed criticism of other CP content and expressed my misgivings at various times. Other times, I chose to remain silent as I didn't see it accomplishing anything in terms of the content being changed. I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

:::*'' I cannot find it on the talk page of the project''
:::Well, duh, you probably deleted and oversighted it.
:::*'' I do plan on expressing my misgivings about some CP content at a later time when I think it is a more opportune time.
:::We're all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rude and insulting behaviour ==

Could someone please step in here. I made a simple, polite and non-contentious comment and another user has sought to [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert insult me and question my faith]. This is extremely insulting and it is not the first time the user has done this. I have given my soul, heart and life to Christ and for someone to suggest otherwise is saddening and offensive. No person should treat others this way. Someone please intervene and remind this user that they should not insult others in such a fashion. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:34, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to me like standard operating procedure around these parts. You might as well complain about the sky being blue. [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 22:40, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The same user has now taken to insulting me and questioning MY faith, simply becaue I disagree with him about the best way to oppose evolutionism, and nobody else seems to be making any attempts to curtail his offensive behaviour. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:42, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Max you wrote at this wiki: "Thanks for your kind words. I am not a catholic I am afraid and don't think I'll ever be one! '''I have however found Christ! Turns out he was in my heart all along.'''" (emphasis added). Setting aside the Catholicism issue, this is not in accordance with biblical doctrine. Ephesians 2:11-12: "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." Unless you were writing unclearly, something sounds amiss. See: http://www.free-online-bible-study.com/become-a-christian.html and this http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps-english.html [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
::I am sorry my poetic language has confused you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:37, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

==Discussion on reversion (from User talk:Jcw)==
Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:His last revert was to remove something vulgar, and the offender was rightfully called a troll. JCW will continue to do so as he sees fit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:01, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks for the support, Karajou. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::Seems to be that those with blocking rights (i.e me, you, Jcw etc) are able to do what they want without repercussion. Are we trying to build a conservative community or just enjoy power over others I wonder...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, exactly who are we blocking, and what do you know of him that is so vital we shouldn't be blocking him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:24, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I know nothing of the user, I just see those with extended privilages oversighting, deleting, blocking, harrasing and isulting others while being totally unable to respond to any criticism with patience, understanding and rationality. Not particulalry Christain. My Christianity teaches me forebearence, kindness and understanding which is what I see a lack of here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::That's right, Max, you know nothing of him, yet I and a few senior sysops as well as Andy had the displeasure of having this clown here. All you're seeing is "sysops playing the bully", yet you're not seeing an individual who refuses to change his past behavior, refuses to respect the site, refuses to change himself at all. Jesus did not tolerate sin; he told sinners to quit sinning. We're not going to have someone shove his way into the site and demand that we compromise with him. We're going to shove such an individual right back out that door with the demand that he change his own ways or go elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:47, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Who are you talking about here, and can you provide a diff of the eggregious offense? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:48, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Just one of the many intolerant malcontents that you are so desperate to get back into this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:20, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm sorry, Karajou, but you simply do not have clue what you are talking about.
:::::::::I have been explicit since day one: Conservapedia needs a coherent blocking policy. Conservapedia needs Sysop standards of conduct. Conservapedia needs a mechinism whereby real life persons who feel there may be incorrect information about them have an avenue to present their case. Unfortunately, you have helped to set a standard that eradicates any discussion of these serious issues which have plagued this project since its inception.
:::::::::And you can begin right here and now by ceasing innuendo, false judgments, and unwarranted conclusions about other [[good faith]] contributors.
:::::::::And you can begin constructively engaging in this discussion thread by simply providing a link (i.e., diff, or evidence) that was requested. Elsewise, your intervention here is [[Conservapedia:Trolling|trolling]], nothing more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:56, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent) RobS, look up - this discussion was started by an editor complaining about another editor being blocked, but without providing any diffs. He later admitted that he knew nothing about the blocked user, instead making general insinuations about behaviour of sysops. It's not up to Karajou or me to provide diffs, it's up to the complainants. So far I've seen no evidence even purporting to show unfair blocks by me. If anyone shows any, I'll gladly address it. I'd also like you to address the fact that you seem to be working to help these trolls and parodists against CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::Jcw, thank you for responding; this is indeed a discussion on ''reversion'', not blocking. The request was for a diff on, what Karajou refered to as, "a vulgar" comment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I can't say which case Karajou has in mind, as no usernames were mentioned by the editor who began this discussion, but it may have been one of the many Horace socks we've had recently. They all left similar comments on various talk pages futilely begging for an intransigent troll to be unblocked. I'm sure you'll agree that those comments were intended only to sow discord and start arguments - that's how trolls operate. By getting involved in this inconsequential affair, you're giving them exactly what they want - discord on CP. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:48, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So, there is essentially no checks on a sysops conduct. They can act arbitrarily with impugnity. As to reverts, it would be nice if (a) only the most eggregious, outrageuos, over the top, off-topic, intended to disrupt talk page edits we're ''immediately'' reverted; (b) a reverting editor would look, first, to see if the editor was actively involved in an ongoing discussion, particularly where ''other'' editors are involved, and particularly if a sysop or other editor with enhanced user rights are involved with the editor whose comments are being reverted. The net effect has been, and User:Karajou & User:Conservative are guilty of this, of '''disrupting''' ongoing discussions. Not everyone is present in real time in any discussion. If an editor makes an incivil, disruptive, or off-topic comment, the editor should be politely warned, either in the context of the active discussion, or on his/her user page, about a possible infraction. If the comment demands an immediate time-out, care should be taken to place the personal remark template and '''''not''''' disrupt the ''other'' editors who are involved in a discussion. Way too often, editors who in no way are involved in a discussion, show no concern whatsoever to ''other'' editors ''who are not complaining about the behavior of a participant, and totally disrupt an active discussion. This is extremely upsetting to all participants in a discussion, and rude behavior from sysops and blocking editors as well. Show some concern, some sensibility, to others, please''. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:45, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Max, your comments are way out of line. I'll be happy to hear complaints, but so far you're just throwing around insinuations. Critical comment has always been welcome on CP, but lots of trolls come here for no reason other than to make arguments. That sort of thing can't be tolerated; nor can uncivil or argumentative comments. Your own post above is undeniably argumentative in tone - if you can't express yourself civilly, how can you expect to be heeded? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:34, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have never been incivil on Conservapedia, not once and not to anyone. A look through my edits will show as much - I can hold my head high. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:36, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Calling people 'thin skinned' isn't terribly civil, and ending your first post with 'Keep that in mind.' can only be called peremptory. That's not really the point though - you admit above that you don't have any idea why this user was blocked or have anything to say in his defense, yet you come here and accuse us of 'harassing' people. From where you're standing it might look that way, but why not treat us with some forbearance and understanding? There are large numbers of liberal vandals who actively plot to undermine this project, so naturally we block a lot of new users - anyone who makes a new account and immediately starts arguing about the vandals' favourite points is clearly a troll, so why try to reason with the unreasonable? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:45, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::You and Karajou make good points...about blocking! I think reverting anything other than obscenity rather than actually addressing and blowing the complaints out of the water with a reasoned argument is why I made the "thin skinned" comment. I have skin like rock which means I never need to revert anyone because nothing gets to me! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::Sorry to butt in here, JCW, but it seems as if editors with blocking privileges are being indicted as a whole, so I'll add my two cents.
:::::Max, here's the thing: some things just don't belong here, and those things go beyond simple obscenity (although that's certainly one example.) Libelous comments, for example, do not belong here. Nor do endless debates that aren't going to be productive. When someone comes here to argue over why liberal ideas aren't portrayed more sympathetically, that's simply wasting time and space. Conservapedia makes no secret of the fact that it's a conservative site. We don't portray liberal ideas more sympathetically because they're bad ideas, plain and simple.
:::::It's a bit like dealing with telemarketers. You try to be polite at first and say "Thank you, we're not interested," and they persist. You say it again, more firmly, and STILL they persist. How long should you allow them to continue before simply saying "Goodbye" and hanging up on them? It's undoubtedly rude, but so's not taking "no" for an answer. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes, you're all to be commended. The POV that conservatives are closed minded snobs, and suspected liberal trolls are to be banhammered from the git-go because they might say something witty and catch us off guard and make us look stupid is the watchword. Go to it. STOMP STOMP STOMP. Make sure this community never grows. Karajou blocked a fellow just cause he claimed CP said something unfair in his biographical scetch. We can have none of that. Reason? Fairness? Forget it. They're all trolls, including anybody who complains about CP's lack of accountability. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I agree with Rob on this - I have been sneered at, jeered by and had my faith, '''my faith''', questioned by a CP sysop. I have no doubts that any other user would have been banned immediately. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:03, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::How can we NOT question, Max? When you consider the number of people who come here proclaiming to be dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and Christians, only to turn around and vandalize the site, it's difficult not to be paranoid. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, personally, but there have been more times than I care to remember where I've given someone said benefit and then looked like a gullible fool when they went on a vandalism spree shortly afterwards. Now, you seem like a sincere enough person to me, and I'm willing to take you at your word--but I don't spend nearly as much time here dealing with wave after wave of parodists and vandals as the sysops or some of the other editors. I suspect that if I did, I might be a lot more suspicious and (as you put it) thin-skinned. In any event, I don't want to fill up JCW's talk page with third-party discussion...but do try to see it from our position, if you would. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:38, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::''but do try to see it from our position'' "our" is also "me" because I am just as much a user as everybody else. But more to the point I have been here awhile now (can't remember exactly when) and i am demonstrably a good faith user. Andy has promoted me twice and I have been polite, candid and have also ushered vandals out. So I do understand your position because I am in it! My faith was questioned simple because I asked some basic questions. It is extremely offensive and I have no doubt if I were to call into question Karajou's faith, for example, I would be quickly shown the door. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:44, 10 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Might I suggest, if similiar behavior were to occur from a CP Sysop in the future, remind them [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators as well need to interact with others according to the same standards of civility we ask of editors,''
::::::::::::and [[Conservapedia:Administrator%27s_Guide#Civility|Conservapedia:Administrator's Guide#Civility]] states,
:::::::::::*''Conservapedia Administrators are expected to afford registered users the same standard of editing etiquette, decorum, and interaction you yourself, and the Conservapedia project as a whole, require and appreciate from others. You must be civil. No bullying.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==a perspective from a pianist==
MaxFletcher and RobSmith both bring up some excellent points, which certain sysops would do well to listen to rather than dismiss out of hand. In my own experience, I've also had my integrity, goodwill, and even faith belligerently questioned numerous times on this site for daring to disagree on the smallest matters of detail in relatively benign articles -- I never even touched the more ideological corners of the site. The first few times this happened, I fought back; the personal nature of the attacks which some sysops past and present have engaged in and continuously engage in as ''modus operandi'' is hard to take lightly. Naturally, in the power dynamics of this wiki a sysop is allowed to personally attack a lowly editor with impunity, but any talkback from the attacked editor is worthy of a stiff block; my own logs reflect this fact. After this cycle had happened several times, I learned to be more, well, Christian about the whole matter, and to repay brutish speculation with an attitude of somewhat bemused grace.

But the bottom line is, I originally came here to help build an educational resource. My contributions, beginning in early 2009, are the best evidence of that. Now, it's hard to see the point. Conservapedia has simply not progressed as an educational resource in the last two years. The only "original" content consists either of high-profile projects so extreme as to be rejected by the mainsream conservative community, or nonsensical "parody" pages which form their own small feedback loop (since for whatever reason their author does not welcome suggestion or comment). The core elements of any encyclopedia are still sorely lacking, since this site has a way of driving off people who actually know what they're writing about. It has essentially been reduced to a collection of fiefdoms owned by the small pool of sysops left. The sysop "community," if you can even call it that, has been fighting amongst itself in the ugliest, pettiest possible way. Obvious abuses are going on as a result of this fight between Conservative, RobSmith, and Karajou, with several innocent users being blocked for no reason other than as some sort of bizarre collateral damage. Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.

My whole time here, I've heard it argued, "well, we're a 'conservative' project, and anyone editing here has to accept our zero-tolerance policy towards liberalism." In that case, I do not see why this project remains run as a wiki, when the editorial wishes of its administrators would be better served by the much simpler blog software. After all, on a blog you can moderate, delete, or even disallow reader comments, you can fix all of your errors without leaving a trace, and you don't have to put up with anyone changing or haggling over what you write. The wiki software was designed with goals diametrically opposed to this, namely to encourage transparency and collaboration, what Andy would call "the best of the public," and this guiding philosophy behind the wiki idea can only be subverted by clumsy abuse of some of its tools. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens at Conservapedia with alarming frequency. You can object, revert, and engage in silly block wars with RobSmith all you want, but you ignore his attempts to instill sysop accountability at your own peril.

My two cents, for what it's worth. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:02, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Thank you JDW for your well thought out comments and I'd like to echo your position. This is, at its base, a conservative encyclopedia and, as such, should not accept liberal positions in its main-space. It also deals with religion and science. Now, not all religious perspectives are the same. I am a Christian but I don't inject it into my politics (as politics, in my view, is a human affair) nor into how I view the age of the earth (because it simply isn't relevant to me). But because of the non-relevence of creationism to me I have been jeered at and accused of being an atheist. All because I simply pointed out to User:Conservative that his 15 question had been answered and I was curious about why he keeps saying they haven't. He calls them "faux" answers but refuses to elaborate on what that means. I have been insulted for merely asking simple questions and had my comments deleted. This is why I originally posted on Jcw's page because I saw the wholesale deletion of comments which I thought was unfair - granted I didn't know the user was apparently a long-term troll but to say it was vulgar when I have had worse vulgarities directed to me by a sysop I found the whole thing curious and wanted to draw attention to what I viewed as a double standard. As to the Rob vs. Karajou: I have no opinion. Neither of these users seem right or wrong and both have treated me with fairness so I won't get into that debate. Mainly I want to see leadership, responsibility, and fairness from all users. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

::This has taken rather a tangent from the original discussion. In fact, JDW and Max seem to have taken the opportunity to return to an old saw by having yet another dig at Conservative while ignoring the point of this thread. If you don't like Conservative's Evolution article, make your own in your userspace and build a consensus on it; going on and on about your dislike of a sysop is not a productive way to spend your time. Meanwhile we'll carry on keeping the trolls at bay. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:27, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You have completely missed the point I am afraid. I have never even read the Evolution article! I never mentioned I disliked anyone either. I dislike having my faith questioned and my simple questions rebutted with childish accusations. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:29, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::(edit conflict) Sorry, Jcw, but I have to agree with JDW and Max. I'm not sure if you were around at the time, but more than one sysop has routinely ignored the guidelines and chosen to block users and IP ranges on a personal whim. In each case they were revealed to be liars and parodists. This '''is''' a Conservative and Christian wiki, so there should be no problem in everyone - including the sysops - obeying basic rules. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:31, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I didn't miss that point, I ignored it. If you want to complain about the behavior of sysops, there's a proper way to do it. Inserting these serious accusations against a senior sysop into an unrelated discussion is extremely unhelpful. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:33, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, there is not now an established, proper way to complain about sysop misconduct. This is another example of CP's stunted growth. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::So you ignored the main thrust of what I was saying and made a totally unrelated point and argued I was wrong? That is called a strawman. Secondly these are not "serious accusations" these are ''facts''. [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Atheism#Deceptive_statement_by_John_Calvert Here conservative questions my faith] and this is but one page and [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#S._Africa_and_Question_Evolution.21_campaign_-_Everything_you_post_must_be_true_and_verifiable here again he displays open hostility towards me] for asking simple questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:38, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::My point, to re-clarify '''again''' is that vulgar statements from one person is treated differently from those of a sysop. I am not taking a "dig at conservative" i am using him as an example. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:39, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I would agree with this assessment, questioning a persons professed religious faith is vulgar. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:03, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Coming from the man who didn't have the evidence (nor chutzpah) to call me "demonic" at this website and resorted to posting his allegation at a cesspool website, I find RobS's comment rather amusing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Max, please pause and consider what you're saying and where you're saying it. This thread has nothing to do with Conservative or with how sysops talk to editors; it's about me blocking someone. That question has been settled now, and Conservative never entered into it. If you'd like to criticize him, please do it elsewhere. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:44, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:You keep introducing strawmen. No, it was never about blocking - it was about reverting which I have clarified twice: my initial comment was "Please stop reverting comments you don't like and calling it trolling. Valid criticism is just that, valid criticism. Are we (you) so thin skinned that any critical comment must be reverted? Keep that in mind." Now I am trying to point out that vulgar comments have been directed at me by those in a sysop position so we needs blanket civility standards that apply to all - what would happen I started reverting conservatives rude comments towards me? Would I be banned? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:51, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Moved from above. If you must continue in this vein, do it here. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:57, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:I have removed your dishonest section title. Don't put words in my mouth. I am talking civility here. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:00, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

(EC) I made this a section of its own, to allow for a broader discussion. IMO the most important point mentioned by the pianist is
:'''Most disappointing has been the absence of leadership in this from Andy, as he's the only one who could have defused this conflict.'''
But that's only me: instead of Andy's guidance we have a couple of sysops who all claim that they act according to his wishes, or perhaps with his silent support. The only action taken by Andy over the last couple of days was to revoke some of RobSmith's rights. It's left to the augurs to interpret these signs... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:01, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
:Agree with RonLar. I do not wish to snipe with you Jcw, lets us mend our rift.. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:04, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

==And end to this==

Max: I don't want to snipe with you either, or with anyone. All I'm trying to do is prevent the kind of heated argument that hurts this site and brings joy to the parodists. As you've no doubt inferred already, I'm not prepared to discuss Conservative's editing style - it's far above my station to do so. If you'd like to do that, please do, but do it somewhere appropriate - a fresh thread on this page, for example. However, I ask you for your own good and that of the site to consider your words very carefully and avoid anything that might inflame tempers or provide grist for the trolls' mills. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:17, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

== TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS ==

TracyS edits from the same IP address as RobS. No wonder why TracyS was such a loser. Once again, RobS, "the greatest lawgiver and rule giver since Moses and Hammurabi", is breaking a Conservapedia rule. Way to stay on top of check user Karajou. It looks like RobS keeps slipping further down the moral high ground. First, he removes the protection from my "castle" and now this. Tsk. tsk. tsk. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:01, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

:May I draw you attention to [[Conservapedia:Proxy IP]]? For someone who thinks that he can keep his gender a mystery you are jumping utterly fast to conclusions about others! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 07:39, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::They have the same IP address. I can point out many things, but I will point out another thing. Both RobS and TracyS had an inordinate interest in my user page talk page layout despite Conservapedia saying a user's talk page is his/her castle. That was the clincher for me in terms of TracyS being a product of Rob's socketpuppetry. If only RobS had chosen not to pester me. I wonder if RobS pokes sleeping dogs and then complains if they bite him. Many of RobS's self-imposed problems could have been avoided merely by the absence of "pesterfesting".[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:10, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

::*You're articles are quite noticeable, so many (including me) have an interest to talk to you
::*You make a farce out of Conservapedia's saying that ''a user's talk page is his/her castle'': the main intention of a talk page is to allow for communication. This communication can be moderated - in Conservapedia's case ''heavily'' moderated by the user. Your treatment of your talk page doesn't further communication...
::*RobS was pestering you? *LOL*
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:36, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobSmith relies on proxies because his personal web connection has trouble with Conservapedia.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 12:27, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::So do a lot of vandals, but in this case there's more than a dozen individually-named socks. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::The fact that there are many accounts created from an open proxy fails to persuade that Rob = Tracy. Did Rob also use the same Canadian proxies Tracy used? Did Rob ever edit from the same Kansas City IP? In combination, that might be more compelling. Then again, do Conservapedia administrators need to persuade anyone but themselves to act? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::And how do you know a Canadian proxy was used? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That is an excellent question. I can't see how he can know unless he's a sock of one of the parties in this. Perhaps there's another explanation, BradB? [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I found out by checking the block log, which you can find by going to TracyS' userpage and clicking "View full log". [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:02, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Ah yes, so I see. Thanks for that. I also notice a rather unsavory comment in there from RobS regarding another sysop. This is starting to look very unsatisfactory. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 20:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== User:Conservative ==

I take up an idea by Jcw to create a separate section to discuss User:Conservative. It is necessary to do so on this page, as his habit of blanking his own talk page (and keep it protected most of the time) makes a discussion meaningless over there.

Over the last days I tried to engage User:Conservative in a meaningful exchange of comments. I thought that this shouldn't be that difficult, as User:Conservative has often announced that he was willing to debate more or less skillful public orators, like R. Dawkins, PZ Myers, or some chap called Penn Jillette.

I wondered what made User:Conservative think that this is a good idea - his only motivation can be that even ''bad publicity is good publicity''. But there is not the slightest chance that any original good publicity comes from this: As the last days have shown that User:Conservative is lacking any skills for taking part in a debate.

A couple of times I asked him to show me to a talk page where he successfully debated with someone about [[Atheism]], [[Evolution]], etc. ([[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages... |see here for example]].) There should be hundreds of such debates on talk pages, as User:Conservative generally claims that anyone criticizing his pet articles is a atheist, evolutionist, Darwinist, etc.

User:Conservative couldn't give any link. In fact, the main tactic of User:Conservative when confronted with awkward questions is a strategic withdrawal (sometimes after creating a fog of youtube-videos, baseless accusations,...) Examples: [[Talk:Evolution#We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.|(1)]], [[Talk:Evolution#The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism|(2)]] [[Talk:Evolution#Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign|(3)]],[[Talk:Atheism#Dubious quote by John Calvert|(4)]], [[Talk:Atheism and obesity#Via several weird redirected talk pages...|(5)]] Obviously he hopes that his interlocutors get blocked, and that then he can delete (or archive) the whole episode into oblivion: out of sight, out of mind.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:28, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::You're only figuring this out now? He's been doing this since, like 2007 or so with the full approval of the administration. Why would you expect anything to change? [[User:JohnMcL|JohnMcL]] 11:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, I can see you are very frustrated. I would be frustrated too if I was an obscure atheist/evolutionists with no real evidence to offer for atheism/evolution. Lastly, I wouldn't call atheists PZ Myers or Penn Jillette skillful orators. For example, Jillette's speech is littered with obscenity. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

And again, no link to any talk-page where you showed your brilliant wit, where you outshone your opponents, where you were able to score actual points against your interlocutors, where you left the onlookers aghast, standing there in silence while admiring your abilities to lay out an well reasoned argument.

Why not? Because there is no place, not even here at Conservapedia, where anything remotely resembling such a discussion ever happened.

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:18, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

== I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy ==

I suggest convening a panel on refining Conservapedia's blocking policy.

Here are my suggestions:

1. I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights. Another Sysop agrees with me on this.

2. Given RobS's recent behavior (annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.) and his recent loss of Admin rights, I suggest that he not be on the panel.

3. I suggest starting off with a clean slate and archiving this page's current content. The panel's deliberations could then commence here. Perhaps, a more civil tone would ensue. I also suggest that sockpuppet comments be reverted as far as commentary on the panel's deliberations plus brand new editors who are merely trolling.

4. I suggest that Andy weigh in on the final product.

Please let me know if you think such a panel is necessary and if you think the above suggestions are good suggestions.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:13, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems like a good idea.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::Likewise. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:38, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I am asking others to get involved in this section. For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. Please vote below. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:41, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Well, I suggested it and got told it wouldn't work, but I still think it's a good idea, provided at least two things are included: 1) an appeal process that's open and transparent involving disinterested editors and sysops and 2) accountability on the part of the blocking editor. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:21, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am in, I hav e already laid out some guidelines elsewhere on Conservapedia. I am commited to to making CP fair and a happy place to edit. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:43, 12 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The Conservapedian Iduan has expressed some interest in helping refine Conservapedia's blocking policy. He is currently on a summer vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:14, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I sent an email to Iduan to find out when his vacation is over. I expect to receive a reply within 2-7 days. In the meantime, people who are going to be on the blocking policy refinement panel may want to look at these two pages: [[User:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] and [[User talk:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:17, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::The panel is convening on 8/17/11: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:59, 15 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as blocking policy refinement panel forming - see above ==

Please vote - archiving much of this page's content to start off with clean and more civil slate as far as discussing blocking policy refinement panel forming (I think every active Sysop/Admin should be on the panel; included in the mix should be a few senior editors with blocking rights who would be considered for sysop rights). By the way, the panel deliberations could occur elsewhere. I thought the community portal though would be a good place and perhaps allow for this community portal to be used more constructively henceforth.

'''Yes votes:'''

Yes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:44, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. In my opinion much of the discussion on this page consists of editors who've got hot under the collar and written intemperate things. A continuation of this sort of thing can only be bad for CP. A future discussion of related points must happen in a more organized and civil way. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:47, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 13:58, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 16:12, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:32, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

'''No votes:'''

(EC) ''For near term decision making, does archiving much of this page to start things off with a new slate sound good. '' I assume that this was a question. Answer: No, it doesn't sound good. Please archive only those sections to which no user has contributed for more than one week. Thank you. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:45, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. Attempting to bury the past doesn't deal with the valid questions already present. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 14:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. There have been some valid concerns raised, and "archiving" the page would be the equivalent of pretending those concerns were settled without actually answering them. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 15:31, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

No. But since when has anything here been decided by voting? The vote was something like 30-5 against RobS losing his sysop rights (can't be certain, since that page has since been unceremoniously burned.) Even if 75% of his supporters were parodists (unlikely) he still had majority support from the non-sysop editors. The decision here is going be made by the usual suspects, regardless of the outcome of this "vote". --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:37, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Archive it or not, it really doesn't matter. The conversations took place and they can't be taken back. Given some of the behavior I witnessed after RobS lost his admin rights, I'm very cynical about any changes occurring here, but I'm willing to try. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:30, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

=== A question for the ''ayes'' ===
Would you have voted for '''deleting''' the archives, too? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:04, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes. While there might have been some good points in those discussions, the vast majority was name-calling by troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets. Keeping it around gives a false impression of the site, which is exactly what the troublemakers, trolls and sockpuppets want. If any of the discussion in those archives was worthwhile, I'm sure it'll be brought up again in a more orderly fashion. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 16:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
== Why were the archives deleted? ==

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I second that question. "Starting off with a clean slate" should not mean burning all of the old discussions. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:00, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::A community is not a dishonest fool, his sockpuppet(s) and his atheist website vandal pals and their sockpuppets. No reason to provide an audience for such a spectacle. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Well, that is an answer, but not a very good one. Where was the vote on deleting the archives? Are you intending to single-handedly delete the current archive as well? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:15, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==On archiving==
By the way, I notice that Conservative has archived the recent discussions already. Since when does a 5-5 vote mean "yes, go ahead with it?" [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::It was 5-4. Sharon, was neither yes or no. It was "it does not matter". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::That was up to interpretation. Anyway, how long did you have the vote up before closing the matter? By my count it's less than 12 hours. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*the vote was up for less than 20 hours: that's an absurdly short time-
*it's even more absurd to vote on the minor matter (archiving, but preserving information) and act unilaterally on the big issue (destroying of information)
*To quote Sharon: ''The conversations took place and they can't be taken back.'' You are certainly trying, Conservative!
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Most of this page served as an attack page on several individuals, and that's going to stop. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:22, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::Karajou, there were also allegations that sysops have personally attacked editors. Those were "archived" without discussion of the issues. Do you have a comment on that? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Then they had better specify the reasons why these editors were attacked, and if these attacks were clearly for nothing, then I am open for sysop demotion; but if these alleged attacks were caused by the editors themselves through fighting, bad conduct, or the deliberate posting of false information, then they have no room to talk. For the record, the reasons why I will remove someone from the site are posted under the warning tag on my talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:39, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

*Ah, love, peace and happiness at last. And quietness. The last may become a problem, as Andy Schlafly seems to enjoy record-breaking numbers of unique visitors, and these will be hard to come by when the contribution goes back to the level of the last quarter of 2010.
*And there are still attacks left on this page, like this comment about Rob Smith: ''(annoying/pestering sock of TracyS and about a dozen other socks I have been told, etc. etc.)''
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:56, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar: A few comments: 1) Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.) 2) Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth 3) Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy 4) At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive to which I believe could increase its viewership. By the way, how many websites have you considerably added traffic to? My guess is none so your "expert" opinion has little weight. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:46, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

::::Did you post this in the wrong place? It doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 11:53, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:# ''Western liberalism is running out of other people's money (Asian money, etc.)'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservatism and austerity budgets are on the rise in the Western World so conservative websites should experience some growth'' And that is relevant because....?
:# ''Conservapedia does plan on reviewing and improving its block policy'' That may be a very promising development...
:# ''At an opportune time, perhaps in a few years, I may unveil a plan which I think Conservapedia may be more receptive too which I believe could increase its viewership.'' In the fast moving world of the internet, such intricate plans are of relatively little value.
:By the way: could you show me to a talk page where you successfully debated with someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.? Thanks
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RonLar, who said my plan was intricate? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:26, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::I found out the non-syops blockers I needed to invite to the panel so I de-archived the material. I wanted the notice about the panel not to get buried too far down the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:48, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall ==

A blocking policy refinement panel is meeting in Summer or early Fall. Here are the people who signed up so far:

*[[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysops and Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

*[[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|Sysop candidates with blocking rights]]

I am sending an email to [[User:Iduan]] to determine when he is returning from his vacation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:Just returned; first: sleep; then: back to business.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:01, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
::I have blocking rights. May I join?--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 17:10, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I added you to list. I don't think there will be any objections to me doing so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

==Response to Karajou==
I told Andy yesterday I would respond to these baseless charges today, but spent the better part of the last nine hours blocked after User:Conservative flip-flopped, reverted himself, and unblocked me (I'll accept your apology later, User:Conservative, for inconveniencing me). But to Mr. Karajou: you seem to be of the opinion that,
:'''A little leven leveneth the whole lump.'''
That would be true, if Conservapedia were a monolith, requiring ideological conformity. But it's not, and never has been. Let's not forget the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares,
:'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Tares#Narrative An enemy hath done this]. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest.''' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:29, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Here is the evidence that I am aware of:

1. Both RobS and TracyS edited from the same IP address. After Karajou pointed this out, I personally confirmed this matter.

2. Both were somewhat obsessed with my talk page design in an annoying way despite the fact that Conservapedia says a user's talk page is his/her castle. At the time, I had a system for leaving messages to me. I have since closes my talk page for leaving messages due to RobS and his atheist pals use of pestering tactics.

3. Both were dishonest. For example, RobS claiming he referred to me as demonic at Conservapedia which he never did as he knows the charge was baseless plus he didn't have the guts to do this at Conservapedia, but instead chose to do this at an atheist gutter website that is filled with obscenity and gossip. TracyS claimed he/she was not trying to annoy me about my talk despite using language purposely meant to annoy.

4. Both were annoying and needlessly argumentative.

5. Karajou claims there were multiple sockpuppets of RobS, but I have not personally investigated this matter.

RobS is still an egotist and has learned nothing. It would be a big mistake at this time to give him back his Sysop/Admin rights. He would just foment a lot of useless drama and nonsense. Conservapedia doesn't need RobS the egotist to change its blocking policy and a panel of which he is not a part to refine its blocking policy is far better suited to the task. I invited people to take part in such a panel and some have accepted my invitation to take part in the panel.

I did block RobS earlier for a short spell due to him being disruptive to me posting a notice in this room that would be more constructive than much of the current content which I archived. However, with another Sysops's assistance I was able to send out invitations to the appropriate parties so the notice at the community portal was no longer needed so I unblocked RobS and de-archived the material. Given his past behavior, I see no reason to apologize for any inconvenience this caused RobS.

I will now let RobS give his empty sales pitch on how his desysoping was all a misunderstanding and a mistake on Aschlafly's part. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:28, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:User:Conservative, I told Andy yesterday I would respond here, but was prevented by you and the whole day was wasted. Also, I see the whole page & its Archives have been vandalized, as well as other users private user space, so I hesitate in wasting anymore time here. I will however, respond with this:
:'''"pesterfesting"''': this is the term User:Conservative uses for what is commonly refereed to in the outside world as '''"[[Advocacy]]"'''. An advocate is a person who acts on behalf of others who are incapable, or have been prevented from acting on their own behalf. Two examples of advocates would be, (1) [[Andrew Schlafly]], noted attorney, and (2) [[Jesus Christ]], [[savior]] of the [[planet]]. Advocacy is very common in the world of wikis, but I can see where you would have difficultly with the idea. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:57, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
:::RobS, in retrospect, I believe your "pesterfesting" was just a petty and narcissistic post TK power grab which tried to show others that you were the "big man on campus". Second, I am sorry to hear that you couldn't find other things to do besides edit Conservapedia and that your whole day was wasted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==

The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun and can be found [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Android App? ==

Does anyone have the link to the android app? I am unable to find it for some strange reason. [[User:JacobSmith|JacobSmith]] 22:05, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:I am an Android user. Nothing exists and was likely a person having fun with lies.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

== My Testimony ==

I was a liberal atheist. About two weeks ago, I was talking to a Conservative friend of mine and she pointed me to the site conservapedia.com. So I came here and read a few articles. Then read a few more. Then when I noticed registration was open, I signed up, but didn't contribute right away, but I kept reading. I read [[Christian apologetics]], [[Counterexamples to Evolution]], [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]] and some wonderful essays too numerous to list. While reading, I felt...something. Something I haven't felt since I was a child. Yesterday, Sunday Morning, I did something I haven't done in nearly 30 years: I went to church. It was wonderful and I do believe I felt the Holy Spirit. I don't believe I deserve to call myself a Christian yet, but I'm looking forward to next Sunday. :-) Thank you all. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 13:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Summer Paper Gone Bad ==

Summer is drawing to a close and school is beginning again. I have decided to write my essay on the origin of the moon, citing Conservapedia several times. When my teacher (this is a public school) gave me my paper back with the grade an all, he gave me a 62. In addition, he gave me a "good talking to" on not using Wikipedia. I tried to explain him that Conservapedia is different, he just wouldn't listen! He gave me the opportunity to do the paper again using different sources. I don't want to use different sources, because they are most often plagued with bias. My question is simple- how do we separate ourselves from Wikipedia to the general public, and how to we improve our reputation? --[[User:WilliamMoran|WilliamMoran]] 17:13, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:Wikis are not normally considered good sources for research as they are generally open and can be edited by anyone. And any decent teacher (public school or not) probably won't accept an encyclopedia of any kind (hard copy or online) as a source for a research paper, as they normally want the student to actually do some research. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:06, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
::William, the good news is you were docked points for your sources and not for content. That implies that your teacher has an open mind. I'd suggest Answers in Genesis, A Storehouse of Knowledge, Creation Ministries International or look at some of Ray Comfort's books. Of course, these sources are all the work of man and are therefore always biased and flawed. For the truth, you'll want to turn to the Bible. --[[User:OliviaB|OliviaB]] 19:57, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

== An open apology to Conservative and Aschlafly ==

I was [[User:WalterS]] and made an inappropriate comment several months ago. Then two days ago I signed up again under the name JefferyA and tried to make some contributions to the Conservative dictionary. I was banned by [[User:Karajou]] for my actions as WalterS and told that I could come back if I apologized. I am therefore offering my apologies to [[User:Aschlafly]] and [[User:Conservative]]. I am sorry. It was wrong to vandalize your site. I know I don't deserve to stay, but if you can find it within you to allow me to, I would very much appreciate it. God be with you. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 09:23, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::Your sentiments are appreciated. With the being said, to the best of my knowledge Mr. Schlafly is the sole owner of the website. My articles tend to receive web traffic, but for the most part I create articles and I have blocked some vandals as well. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:09, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

== Banned user ==

Conservative recently banned SamCoulter for "putting garbage into article". However, the 'garbage' was a legitimate point backed up by a valid reference. Indeed, the same reference has been cited by Conservative on the main page. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:07, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
:This is a non-starter. Conservative is a senior admin with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of quality edits. This is a meritocracy, David. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 23:36, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

United States presidential election, 2012

2011-09-24T01:37:02Z

BrentH: Perry in freefall, as per the front page.

'''''The next presidential debate is on Sept. 22, 2011, in [[Florida]]'''''.

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, when the [[United States]] elects a president. [[Obama]], with his [[Barack Obama approval ratings|declining popularity]], is unlikely to win reelection unless he can carry [[Florida]], which he only narrowly won last time.

For the Republican nomination, the leaders are [[Mitt Romney]] (likely to win [[New Hampshire]]), [[Michele Bachmann]] (likely to win [[Iowa]]), and [[Rick Perry]] (likely to win the South).<ref>The order of the early primaries is not yet finally determined as of the end of 2010. For estimated dates, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> Neither seem to have broad enough support to win the nomination. [[Ron Paul]] has a solid base of about 10% and his ideas are being adopted by other candidates. Additional candidates (perhaps [[Jeb Bush]]?) are possible.
__NOTOC__
== Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, business experience, Republican governor of a Democratic state, cut taxes and the deficit, prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner, polling at 40% in the key early primary state of [[New Hampshire]], credited for helping [[Scott Brown]] win an upset victory for the seat long held by [[Ted Kennedy]]. Likely to be endorsed by [[Chris Christie]], [[Marsha Blackburn]], [[Jim Talent]], etc. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref> Out with a new jobs plan.
|Refuses to sign the same [[pro-life]] pledge that all other major [[Republican]] candidates signed;<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57256.html</ref> continues to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]]; Romney once supported [[abortion]] and [[civil unions]], criticized by the [[Tea Party Express]] chairwoman and others due to his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion; struggles in Iowa and won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008.
|Doubts are growing that someone as weak as Romney on pro-life can win the nomination. He is losing ground despite winning his first debate, and finished only 5th in the straw poll at the Republican Leadership Conference; disappointed pro-lifers by failing to take a pro-life pledge. He did win the Florida debate against Perry, however.
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|The declining economy means the opportunity for Jeb to win is now, not in 2016 when another Republican would be the incumbent; Jeb is sure to win Florida and Obama cannot win reelection if the Republican wins Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; Jeb is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Has polled unusually poorly (54-34%) against [[Barack Obama]];<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/obama-would-beat-jeb-bush-big-says-poll/</ref> Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012, when he could still be tagged with negatives via George; not liked by many Tea Partiers; would be seen by many as the "third" Bush, tagged rather unfairly to how both his father and brother have been President; might wait to run when Hillary runs.
|With unemployment high (9.1% in August 2011), it is more likely a Republican will win in 2012, and Jeb will not want to pass up that opportunity and then wait until 2020, when he's old
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than libertarian, and is trying to appeal to Ron Paul's fanbase<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref>, thus a Bachmann candidacy could unite Tea Party conservatives.
|As with [[Ronald Reagan]], [[liberal bias]] is at its worst against her; has never won statewide office; [[Ron Paul]] did not support her for a House leadership position and did not join her [[Tea Party]] caucus.
|Did extremely well in the first debate and jumped to #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters; took a sterner approach in the second and third debates, perhaps to appeal more to angry voters currently supporting [[Ron Paul]]. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Has slipped in the polls since Perry's entrance.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Won the [[CPAC]] poll, terrific on economic issues, is strong in national polls, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; appeals to many social liberals.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; opposed Bachmann for a leadership position; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienates many Republicans.
|Improving as Obama's support is lowest when Paul is his opponent; Paul is gaining ground as economy crumbles. Was the clear crowd favorite in the [[Iowa]] debate on Aug. 10. Finished only 1% behind Michele Bachmann in the Ames straw poll; together with her the two of them won more than half the votes. In an online poll, Paul easily won the [[MSNBC]]-sponsored candidates' debate at the [[Reagan Library]] on September 7.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Ahead in national polls by single digits over Mitt Romney, but his support is primarily in the South (other than Florida). Perry formally announced his candidacy on August 13. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election against a popular opponent, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states like [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Illinois]], and [[New York]]. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show by attending prayer-ins that are mocked by [[east coast liberals]]. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]].
|It can be argued is more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. ''Could simply block [[Mitt Romney]] from winning the nomination, without winning it himself''.
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]] and [[same-sex marriage]], and then lost the support of some voters by declaring that he is opposed to building a fence to reduce illegal immigration. Did not participate in the Iowa debate or Straw Poll. May be focusing on a southern strategy that is unlikely to give him the majority of delegates needed to win.
Did well in the first debate that he participated in, but seemed off-balance during his second debate (in Florida), prompting doubts among some viewers.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem, is making himself known.
|Not well known outside the conservative sphere of influence, although he is getting there.
|Maintaining his ranking
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|Articulate, credited with 1994 landslide, balanced the federal budget in the Clinton era, leader in fundraising, likely to obtain endorsement of older "right to life" groups against Mitt;<ref name="April%252525202010%25252520Fundraising">http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2010/04/19/sarah-palin-lags-in-2012-fundraising-primary.html</ref> has one-sided promotion by the [[Fox News Channel]] and the [[WSJ]], who will likely criticize his opponent [[Mitt Romney]]; Gingrich's record of passing [[conservative]] legislation as [[Speaker of the House]] is remarkably strong, including welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. He also had the courage to shut down the government.
|Unable to gain much support despite having shown flashes of the old Newt in several debates. Gingrich has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax) and a [[Con Con]]; resigned as Speaker rather than follow through with the impeachment of [[Bill Clinton]]; divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a women 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office. Sarah Palin is suggesting that she may not pull out and this could prevent Newt from defeating Mitt. Since 9/11, Newt has come to adopt more big-government and pro-regulatory [[neoconservative]] views, unlike the push for limited-government and [[deregulation]] he spearheaded during the 1990s.
|Lost ground when his senior staff jumped ship on June 9th.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasizes the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality.
|It's difficult to take seriously someone who relies so heavily on [[Facebook]]; even [[liberal]] [[Hollywood]] preferred ''The King's Speech'' at the [[Oscars]]. Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lags in fundraising despite publicity,<ref name="April%252525202010%25252520Fundraising"/> came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>. Frequently mocked and subjected to personal attacks from the [[liberal media]].
|Says she is still considering whether to run. Registered a "sharp turnaround," according to the Marist poll conducted September 13-14, 2011, by going from 21 points behind Obama to 5 behind in one month's time. Poll also showed that a large majority of Republicans still don't want her to run.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by Iowan evangelicals at campaign-like event in March 2010, strongly socially conservative.
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he has regretted it at CPAC 2010; could simply be a [[stalking horse]] for Romney, who he endorsed in 2008.
|Was fabulous in the Iowa debate August 10th, and has won praise for his performance in more recent debates, but has been unable to climb in the polls
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Worked in the Obama administration; Criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|Not getting much support, except among the media and multiple Democrats
|-
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Leads [[Barack Obama]] in Zogby's polling (January 2011), takes on the [[public school]] teachers' unions and is a fiscal reformer who puts liberals in their place, has an unscripted style and appearance that is a refreshing alternative to the Teleprompter President.
|Significantly overweight, Picked a [[pro-abortion]] running mate when he ran for governor, and has little experience with national issues; repeatedly says he is not running; campaigned for [[RINO]] [[Mike Castle]] in [[Delaware]] who was then defeated; neither added [[New Jersey]] to one of the lawsuits against [[ObamaCare]] nor joined an [[amicus brief]] against it; ''will probably support [[Mitt Romney]]''.
|Attaining budget cuts, particularly to [[Planned Parenthood]], Christie has become the leading contender for Vice President
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles seeking asylum in the U.S. at the time of his birth in Miami, making him an inspiring, uniquely American success story.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on two fronts: 1) what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. 2) Liberals who have been deriding the strict definition of "natural born citizen" which some conservatives have been applying to Obama might also turn around and use the same logic with Rubio, claiming that his non-citizen parents invalidate his natural-born status. Some Republican voters may think he's really running to be selected as Vice President.
|Probably running for VP
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30% without any way to gain broader support needed to win; also supporter of big government, as governor raised taxes and increased state spending, released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing ground and relevancy
|-
|[[Donald Trump]]
|Tied for number 1 in [[Gallup Poll]];<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> forced Obama's to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and is also willing to criticize liberal media; has business savvy and resources as a billionaire; is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want. Not a career politician helps his cause.
|Said he's not running.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/</ref> Criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. Needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past, and is starting to look one-dimensional. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>
|Declining in support
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is yet. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could be seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011 and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government. Could inherit the support for his father, who could hand off the campaign to Rand.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, will not run for president unless his dad drops his own campaign for the same office. Rand could first campaign for his dad and then become the candidate if voters think he has a better opportunity to win, but time is running out for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Will almost certainly be supporting his dad's run for President.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Definitely not running now
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Busy achieving good things in his current job
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president. Has endorsed Perry.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]] (but never won with more than 50% of the vote); benefits from exodus of the leadership from Newt's campaign on June 9th. Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees;<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/3k4p8jf ''Duluth News Tribune'': Fees soar as state taxes hold steady] (2006)</ref> supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base or any appeal that would attract support away from the front-runners; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure; an ex-Catholic and that may not play well with Catholic swing voters. Came off as as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination.
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he has declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, and stay in the House
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Falling into obscurity
|-
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|Former [[libertarian]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], he has been recommended by [[Ron Paul]], Johnson is a strong advocate of a libertarian belief system.
|Like other libertarians but unlike most Republicans, Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given Ron Paul's run, there seems to be little support for Gary Johnson in this election cycle.
|Cannot get much support with Ron Paul in the same race, but he did quite well in the second debate that he was allowed to appear in.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]]; was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|Announced in late April 2011 that he is not running; also, rarely seen at conservative conferences, and a Republican from the [[Deep South]] may have trouble attracting independent voters.
|
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich
|
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP
|
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Michelle Bachmann could reach that goal also, and benefits from having a strong conservative base too. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. But others lacking in a strong base will struggle unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====
[[File:Ronpaul.jpg|thumb|Ron Paul.]]
There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt can win only one out of the three (New Hampshire), leaving an opening for another candidate to win the other two.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

McClatchy-Marist survey after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur. 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal. The Marist poll says,
{{Cquote|Interestingly, a plurality of Democrats – 42 percent – would like to see a more liberal challenger while half of Democratic leaning independents – 50 percent – would like to see a more conservative one.}}
The McClatchy-Marist poll indicates that 48 percent of registered voters nationwide plan to vote against the president in 2012, with 36 percent saying they'll vote to re-elect Obama.

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives endearing support from the media.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. She has the highest approval ratings of any potential challenger.<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2010/58_view_hillary_clinton_favorably 58% View Hillary Clinton Favorably], January 19, 2010. Retrieved February 15, 2010.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Her [[feminism]] is not wanted and she'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Will make this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention, and he likely will never get a chance to go up against Obama in a debate.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, when he's mentioned
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physicians license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacy by Mike Bloomberg ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which he can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be a split in the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Earthquake

2011-09-23T00:46:13Z

BrentH: Still a counterexample to an old Earth, as per the main page article.

[[File:Japan quake sendai.jpg|thumb|200px|Japan quake 2011.]]
An '''earthquake''' is when the [[Earth]] shakes, caused by [[plate tectonics|tectonic]] activity in an area after the release of stored [[energy]] from the [[rock]]. Earthquakes most commonly occur on tectonic plate boundaries, and also occur along [[fault|faults]] where previous movement has occurred. There are currently 500,000 detectable earthquakes in the world each year.

Earthquakes are a significant natural [[hazard]] to populations living in areas prone to them, and emergency responses to the hazard vary with economic development. The most powerful and destructive earthquakes occur at tectonic plate boundaries like the [[San Andreas Fault]].

The severity of earthquakes is measured using the [[Moment Magnitude scale]], which replaced the [[Richter scale]] in the 1970s. The largest quake ever recorded had a magnitude of 9.5; it struck Chile in 1960<ref>http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/10_largest_world.php</ref>. Technically the Moment Magnitude scale only measures the absolute magnitiude; the [[Mercalli scale]] is used to measure the felt magnitude - essentially how much the ground shakes over the epicentre of the quake.

[[Liberal]]s conceal the fact that severe earthquakes double every 40 years, as it is another [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|Counterexample to an Old Earth]]

==Causes of Earthquakes==

'''Plate Boundaries'''

Where tectonic plates are moving relative to each other, stress is created as friction prevents the edges of the plates from moving smoothly. When the stress has increased enough to overcome the friction, the plates will release the stored energy by moving abruptly, causing an earthquake.

'''Intra-Plate Earthquakes'''

Large movements of plates may cause stress zones that extend far from the boundaries. When this stress includes a weak area in the plate - known as a fault - the fault can release energy by slipping abruptly, again causing an earthquake.

'''Vulcanism'''

The movement of magma within volcanoes can induce earthquakes. These are often an indicator of an approaching eruption, as at Mount St Helens.

[[File:Japan quake World latest USGS - PD.jpg|550px|left]]

{{Clear}}

==See also==
* [[Seismic]]
* [[Loma Prieta Earthquake]]

==External links==
*[http://www.drgeorgepc.com/EarthquakesChina.html Historical Earthquakes in China]
*[http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/ Latest Earthquakes in the World - Past 7 days.]
*[http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Maps/region/N_America.php Latest Earthquakes in the North America Region.]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Seismology]]
[[Category:Natural Disasters]]

Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2011-09-23T00:44:52Z

BrentH: According to the front page of the wiki, earthquake frequency is a counterexample to an old Earth, and it should thus be listed in the relevant article.

It takes only one "counterexample" to disprove the theory of an [[Old Earth]].<ref>Most of the "evidence" for an [[Old Earth]] is based on claims that lack testability, as in [[radiometric dating]], and hence would not even satisfy minimum requirements for admissibility in court.</ref> As with any logical proposition, one contradiction disproves the proposed rule. If each of 37 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is less than 3.8%. With the total of these counterexamples at 37, '''they demonstrate that the Earth must be young with a likelihood of greater than 96%'''.<ref>The same analysis can be applied to the [[Young Earth]] theory, but no valid counterexamples have been found in centuries of atheist attempts. In addition, there are over 100 evidences of a young [[earth]] and [[universe]] (Please see: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth ''Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe'']).</ref>

The motivation for [[atheist]]s to insist on falsely teaching that the Earth is old is to pull students away from [[God]]'s immediate presence, and to turn them away from [[Jesus Christ]]. Also, they are motivated, and biased, by the fact that their [[evolutionism|evolutionist]] theories require a world which is billions of years old.

== Counterexamples ==
The growing list of counterexamples to the theory of an [[Old Earth]] includes:

=== Astronomy ===
# The [[moon|Moon's]] orbit is a very strong counterxample: The moon is receding from the [[Earth]] at a rate<ref>"Measurements show that the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of about 3.8 centimeters per year." [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994).</ref> that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely four billion years ago, causing instability in its orbit, tidal catastrophes on Earth, and other problems that would have prevented the Earth and the Moon being as they are today. Additionally, the [[moon]]'s orbit is becoming increasingly and unexpectedly eccentric, suggesting a lack of long-term stability.<ref>http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0212</ref> This disproves the theory of an [[Old Earth]] even further.
# [[Spiral galaxies]] appear to be young, and only implausible proposals of the existence of [[dark matter]] can reconcile the spirals with a belief in an old universe.
# The planetary orbits in the Solar System - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the long periods claimed by Old Earth believers.<ref>[http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."]. (Newsweek has inexplicably taken down its article, but it is quoted by Google and other links)</ref><ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] by J. Laskar & M. Gastineau, ''Nature'' 459, 817-819 (11 June 2009). Believers in an Old Earth speculate that the instability would not result in problems in a billion years, but other computer simulations could be developed to demonstrate multi-body instability for the solar system far more recent than that.</ref>
# At least one [[spiral galaxy]] spins in the direction opposite to the spin of its tail, suggesting an age too young to have generated the tail and contradicting the theory that the tails of spiral galaxies were formed over a long period of time.<ref>[http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"]</ref>
# The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these is too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.

=== Biology ===
# The intelligence of humans is rapidly declining, whether measured by SAT scores,<ref>''See, e.g.'', David G. Savage, "The Long Decline in SAT Scores," Educational Leadership 290 (Jan. 1978). [http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197801_savage.pdf]</ref> music, personal letters,<ref>E.g., Civil War letters.</ref> quality of political debates,<ref>E.g., contrast the Lincoln-Douglas debates with debates today.</ref> the quality of news articles,<ref>''The Federalist'' was written for the newspaper audience in the late 1780s, but is far too intellectual for newspapers today.</ref> and many other measures. This means that if one goes back far enough, intelligence will end up reaching ridiculously high, if humans were supposedly hundreds of thousands of years old.
# The age of onset of [[puberty|sexual maturity]] is rapidly changing, suggesting that life is in a short-term rather than long-term equilibrium.<ref>For evidence of a rapidly changing age for sexual maturity in fish, see http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/46/3/235</ref>
# The high observed rate of [[extinctions of species]]<ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-26/animals-face-extinction-threat-as-conservation-efforts-slow-report-says.html One in five species are at risk of extinction]</ref> and harmful [[genetic mutation]]s suggest a relatively short period for the existence of life rather than a long one.
# The age of onset of graying of hair or balding is rapidly decreasing, with many teenagers now experiencing baldness or premature graying ([[CNN]]'s [[Anderson Cooper]] began graying as a teenager and was fully gray long before age 40);<ref name="Graying">http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-06-18/living/17299704_1_hair-taylor-hicks-american-idol</ref> many celebrities (such as [[American Idol]] winner Taylor Hicks graying in his 20s)<ref name="Graying"/> and athletes (such as Cal Ripken, Jr. graying and balding in his mid-30s)<ref>"There's a man, close-cropped gray hair, looks older than 35": Sports Illustrated's description of Cal Ripken at 35. [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1163438/index.htm#ixzz12ONbgydd] By age 50 he was bald too.</ref> increasingly experience premature graying or balding.
# The age of onset of [[cancer]] is markedly decreasing,<ref>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0</ref> suggesting rapid changes inconsistent with an alleged long existence to life.
# The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.
# The number of natural, pure-bred bred dogs declines over time as dogs naturally crossbreed; a short period of time is suggested by the fact that there are over 100 different natural, pure breeds of dog thriving today.
# Lack of genetic diversity among the ''Homo sapiens'' species. Were evolution and the old earth true, the human population would show a much larger genetic variance.<ref>http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html#rpafAHIwKHS7</ref> Some scientists have calculated that a troop of 55 chimpanzees contains more genetic diversity than the entire human race; this demonstrates that chimpanzees descended from a large initial population while humans descend from a much smaller one, which indeed we know to have been two people.
# Frequent occurrences of massive deaths of birds and fish, which if extrapolated over millions of years would result in little or no such life today.<ref>http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/technology&id=7884786</ref>
# The separation between salt and freshwater fish, coupled with their inability to survive in the opposing environment, shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.
# Furthermore, the separation of land and aquatic life and a similar inability for the organisms to survive in the other environment shows a lack of millions of years of evolution to enable them to spread to the opposing environment.
# Biodiversity on Earth is declining too rapidly to be consistent with a long-term (Old Earth) equilibrium, with the Living Planet Index (LPI) showing "a global decline of 27% between 1970 and 2005. The terrestrial index declined by 25%, freshwater by 29% (this index is calculated to 2003 due to the lack of data available for latter years), and marine by 28%."<ref>http://www.zsl.org/science/research-projects/lpi,1162,AR.html</ref>
# The [[Bible]] makes references to the [[dinosaurs]]. There is no explanation for this if dinosaurs supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago. <ref>http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/93-dinosaurs-and-the-bible</ref>

=== Geology ===
[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF).<ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref>
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging".<ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>

Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[Old Earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref>

Other examples include:

# The frequency of large [[earthquake]]s (more than 6.99 on the Richter scale) doubles roughly every 40 years,<ref>http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/</ref> rendering long-term stability impossible.
# The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them.<ref>http://www.naturalarches.org/big9.htm</ref>
# An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/11/AR2008081102290.html</ref> with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.
# The massive [[Great Lakes]] and freshwater lakes near the equator could not exist for millions of years, and several of these lakes are rapidly receding in volume; the third largest saltwater lake, Oroumieh Lake, could completely evaporate within the next five years.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110525/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_environmental_disaster</ref>
# The existence of inland saltwater lakes at high altitudes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]].
# The relative purity of underground well water, which should be a muddy slurry had millions of years of erosion taken place.
# The plentiful supply of high concentrations of underground well water, which would be expected based on familiar principles of [[entropy]] to dissipate over a long period of time.
# Earthquakes alter the Earth's rotation several times each century;<ref>http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2010872/japan_quake_changed_earths_rotation/</ref> extrapolating by orders of magnitude in time would have resulted in the occurrence of much larger earthquakes that would have destabilized the rotation<ref>A similar analysis may be performed for the likelihood of devastating collisions with meteors as time is extrapolated by orders of magnitude.</ref>
# The lack of erosion between rock layers.<ref>http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0</ref><ref>http://www.knowthebible.net/id115.html</ref>
# Levels of contamination in water are rising, as water proceeds through the [[water cycle]] it becomes progressively more contaminated. If earth (and life) had existed for billions of years, a limit would have long been reached where water (essential to life) was too contaminated for life to continue.
# [[Paraconformity]] and unconformity such as that seen at the [[Grand Canyon]] disprove the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] view of earth history.
# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.
# The ratio of strontium isotopes in seawater, which should change due to long-term erosion, has varied by only 0.35% throughout history. In fact, its value today is exactly the same as in the oldest samples, which are claimed to be from 500 million years ago.
# The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.
# The relatively recent separation of the still-moving continents from one land mass -- denied for 100 years by [[atheist]]s before they accepted it -- suggest a young earth or at least a relatively recent cataclysmic event.
# Fresh tracks of motion by stationary rocks are still visible in some areas, which have baffled Old Earth scientists for more than 60 years; Old Earth magazines refer to them as "self-moving rocks."<ref>http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/02/18/rafting-for-rocks?s_cid=rss:rafting-for-rocks</ref>
# Beaches have long been eroding far too quickly for the Old Earth theory; "between 80 and 90 percent of the sandy beaches along America’s coastlines have been eroding for decades," sometimes by as much as 50 feet per year.<ref>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-causes-beach-erosion</ref>
# Land is sinking into the oceans at a rate of at least 7 inches per century,<ref>http://www.app.com/article/20110319/NJNEWS/103190327/Global-warming-rising-seas-threaten-New-Jersey-expert-says</ref> which would have rendered most of the United States under water if the Earth were not young.
# The flow of water in the [[Colorado River]] has been declining since the early 20th century, even after usage is considered, and the man-made Lake Mead is at risk of drying up on the next decade.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13mead.html</ref>

=== Science & Discovery ===
# A stalemate of significant and valid discoveries in the last several decades.<ref>Though there has been some progress in this timeframe, many of the "discoveries" are liberal propaganda, or are scientifically weak.</ref>

=== Biblical testimony ===

The Bible contains multiples pieces of evidence showing its authenticity including [[Bible history]], [[Biblical archaeology|Bible archaeology]] and [[Bible prophecy]]. Competent and honest [[Bible exegesis]] indicates the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://creation.com/should-genesis-be-taken-literally Should Genesis be taken literally?]</ref>

''See also:'' [http://creation.com/history-questions-and-answers How reliable is biblical chronology?]

== Recommended books ==

*[[William R. Corliss]], Anomalies in Geology: Physical, Chemical, Biological (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1989. ISBN 915554-23-2
*William R. Corliss Neglected Geological Anomalies, 1990. ISBN 915554-24-0
*William R. CorlissInner Earth: A Search for Anomalies (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1991. ISBN 915554-25-9
*William R. Corliss, Carolina Bays, Mima Mounds, Submarine Canyons (A Catalog of Geological Anomalies), 1988. ISBN 915554-22-4

== External links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth -101 evidences for a young earth and universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://www.preteristcentral.com/Debunking%20Old%20Earth%20Creationism%20&%20a%20Regional%20Flood.html Debunking the Old Earth Theory]

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Counterexamples to Evolution]]
*[[Counterexamples to the Bible]]
*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Counterexamples to Global Warming]]
*[[Radiometric dating]]
[[Category:Counterexamples]]
[[Category:geology]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Novels

2011-09-22T15:45:35Z

BrentH: Not a novel, a work of non-fiction.

Conservative novels exist, and some are immensely influential. Here is our growing list. Please add to it.
#''The Brothers Karamazov'', by [[Fyodor Dostoyevsky]]
#''Crime and Punishment'', by [[Fyodor Dostoyevsky]]
#''The First Circle'', by [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]].
#''The Moon is a Harsh Mistress'', by [[Robert Heinlein]]
#''Starship Troopers'', by [[Robert Heinlein]]
#''Lord of the Rings'' by [[J.R.R. Tolkien]]
#''The Man Who Was Thursday'', by [[G.K. Chesterton]]
#''Darkness at Noon'', by [[Arthur Koestler]]
#''The Camp of the Saints'', by [[Jean Raspail]]
#''Saving the Queen'' and the other Blackford Oakes novels, by [[William F. Buckley]]
#''State of Fear'' by [[Michael Crichton]]
#''For Whom the Bell Tolls by [[Ernest Hemingway]] U.S. Senator and 2004 presidential candidate John McCain cited this as his favorite novel.
#''The Red Badge of Courage'' by [[Stephen Crane]]
#''The Road'' by Cormac McCarthy - winner of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction
#''Nuremberg: The Reckoning'' by [[William F. Buckley, Jr]]
#''Gilead'' by [[Marilynne Robinson]]
#''The Naked and the Dead'' by [[Norman Mailer]]
#''No Country for Old Men'' by [[Cormac McCarthy]]
#''The Bonfire of the Vanities'' by [[Tom Wolfe]]
#''Midcentury'' by [[John Dos Passos]]
#''Advise and Consent'' by [[Allen Drury]]
#''American Pastoral'' by [[Philip Roth]] - winner of the 1998 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction
#''Rainbow Six'' by [[Tom Clancy]]
#''Clear and Present Danger'' by [[Tom Clancy]]
#''Red Storm Rising'' by [[Tom Clancy]]
#''The Bridges at Toko-Ri'' by [[James Michener]]
#''Animal Farm'' by [[George Orwell]]
#''1984'' by [[George Orwell]]
#''The Road to Wigan Pier'' by [[George Orwell]]
#''A Midnight Clear'' by [[William Wharton]]
#''The Thin Red Line'' by [[James Jones]]
#''Quo Vadis: A Narrative of the Time of Nero'' by [[Henryk Sienkiewicz]]
#''The Day of the Jackal'' by [[Frederick Forsyth]]
#''Master and Commander'' by [[Patrick O'Brian]]
#''To the White Sea'' by [[James Dickey]]
#''Edge of Danger'' by [[Jack Higgins]]
#''Brave New World'' by [[Aldous Huxley]]
#''The Idiot'' by [[Fyodor Dostoevsky]]
#''The Overton Window'' by [[Glenn Beck]]
#''The Fountainhead'' By [[Ayn Rand]]
#''The Great Gatsby'' by [[F. Scott Fitzgerald]]
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]