Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Boston Red Sox

2012-06-11T14:11:26Z

CWest: /* Management */ update

{{MLBTeam
|name=Boston Red Sox
|logo=
|text=#bd3039
|background=#0d2b56
|location=Boston, Massachusetts
|year=1901
|colors=Red, blue, gray
|mascot=Wally the Green Monster
|champs=7
|website=http://redsox.mlb.com/
}}
[[Image:Fenway.jpg|thumb|240px|[[Fenway Park]], the Red Sox's stadium and the oldest active Major League Baseball stadium]]
The '''Boston Red Sox''' are a [[Major League Baseball]] team that play in the [[American League]] East Division. One of the oldest teams in baseball, with the oldest stadium, [[Fenway Park]]; the Red Sox are one of the most storied sports franchises of all time.

In 2009, it was shown that David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez had failed tests for performance enhancing drugs during the 2003 season. Some people, such as Dan Shaughnessy, questioned whether this illegal behavior tainted the championships the team won in 2004 and 2007. <ref>http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2009/07/31/suffering_from_roid_rage</ref>

'''AL Pennants:''' 12 (1903, 1904, 1912, 1915, 1916, 1918, 1946, 1967, 1975, 1986, 2004, 2007)

'''World Series Titles:''' 7 (1903, 1912, 1915, 1916, 1918, 2004, 2007)

==Management==
*Principal Owner: [[John Henry]]
*Chairman : [[Tom Werner]]
*CEO: [[Larry Lucchino]]
*General Manager: [[Ben Cherington]]
*Manager: [[Bobby Valentine]]

==Roster==
===Pitchers===
*48 - Scott Atchison
*51 - Daniel Bard
*19 - Josh Beckett
*11 - Clay Buchholz
*36 - Paul Byrd
*53 - Fernando Cabrera
*17 - Manny Delcarmen
*40 - John Lackey
*31 - Jon Lester
*37 - Hideki Okajima
*58 - Jonathan Papelbon
*62 - David Pauley
*56 - Ramon Ramirez
*60 - Scott Schoeneweis
*49 - Tim Wakefield

===Catchers===
*41 - Victor Martinez
*33 - Jason Varitek

===Infielders===
*29 - Adrian Beltre
*22 - Nick Green
*22 - Bill Hall
*25 - Mike Lowell
*15 - Dustin Pedroia
*16 - Marco Scutaro
*30 - Chris Woodward
*20 - Kevin Youkilis

===Outfielders===
*5 - Rocco Baldelli
*23 - Mike Cameron
*7 - J.D. Drew
*2 - Jacoby Ellsbury
*23 - Joey Gathright
*32 - Jeremy Hermida

===Designated Hitter===
*34 - [[David Ortiz]]

==Minor League Affiliates==
The Boston Red Sox's minor league affiliates are: <ref>http://www.soxprospects.com/2009.htm</ref>
*AAA - Pawtucket Red Sox
*AA - Portland Sea Dogs
*A Adv. - Salem Red Sox
*A - Greenville Drive
*SS - Lowell Spinners

==Retired Numbers==
Uniform numbers retired by the Red Sox<ref>http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/bos/history/retired_numbers.jsp</ref>

1 - Bobby Doerr

4 - Joe Cronin

6 - Johnny Pesky

8 - Carl Yastrzemski

9 - Ted Williams

27 - Carlton Fisk

42 - Jackie Robinson

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Boston]]

*[[Red Sox History]]

== External Links ==
*[http://redsox.mlb.com/ Official Site]
*[http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/ Boston Globe - Red Sox News]

{{Nb_sl_mlb_american}}
[[Category:Boston]]

New England Patriots

2012-06-11T14:10:15Z

CWest: /* New England Patriots seasons record */ update statistics

[[Image:Ptc.jpg|thumb|300px|The New England players at the 2005 [[Patriots Training Camp]].]]
The '''New England Patriots''' are a [[National Football League]] [[franchise]]. The Patriots, also known as the "Pats", are based in [[Foxboro (Massachusetts)|Foxboro]], [[Massachusetts]]. Since they are located in the eastern region of the United States the Patriots belong to the Eastern Division of [[American Football Conference]] (AFC). Originally known as the Boston Patriots, in 1971 the franchise changed its name to the New England Patriots to better reflect its representation of the entire [[New England]] region.

The Patriots have gone to five [[Super Bowl]]s and have won three. Their first Super Bowl trip was in 1985 against the [[Chicago Bears]], which they lost 42 - 10. In 1995 the Patriots made their second Super Bowl trip but fell short against the [[Green Bay Packers]] in a 35 - 21 loss. The Patriots' 2001 season ended in the teams first [[Super Bowl]] triumph when they defeated the heavily favored [[St. Louis Rams]] in a dramatic 21-17 victory. In 2003 and 2004, the Patriots once again were NFL Champions with Super Bowl victories over the [[Carolina Panthers]] and [[Philadelphia Eagles]].

In 2008 the Patriots had the chance to become the first team to go 19-0 and the second team to go undefeated in a regular and post season. However, their run came to an end at 18-0 when they lost 17-14 to the [[New York Giants]] in [[Super Bowl XLII]].

== Team ==
{{NewEnglandPatriots}}

==Team History==
[[Image:Threetimesuperbowlwinners.gif|thumb|210px|The Patriots have won three [[Super Bowl]]s in the last six years.]]
In the Patriots history as a team they have experienced both sides of being an [[National Football League]] team - the losing - and the winning. In their early history as a team, the Patriots struggled just to get a winning record. Between the years 1960 and 1984 the team only made the playoffs four times, and only won one playoff game. The winds of fortunes seemed to be turning for the Patriots in 1985 though when for the first time in the teams history the Patriots won a AFC Championship Game and played in [[Super Bowl XX]] vs the [[Chicago Bears]]. The Patriots lost the game though and for the next eight years, without a solid, reliable quarterback, the team regressed into their pre-1985 form.

In 1993, the Patriots drafted with the first pick of the [[1993 NFL Draft]], [[University of Washington]] star quarterback, [[Drew Bledsoe]]. With Bledsoe now leading the team, the Patriots improved significantly and in 1996 the Patriots returned to the Super Bowl ([[Super Bowl XXXI]] vs the [[Green Bay Packers]]). Once again the Patriots lost but they didn't fall apart as a team and they continued to be a playoff contender throughout the late 1990's.

In 2000, the history of the Patriots quietly changed forever when [[Bill Belichick]] was appointed as the head coach and the Patriots drafted [[University of Michigan]] quarterback [[Tom Brady]] in the 6th round of the NFL Draft. The following year, 2001, Tom Brady became the Patriots starting quarterback and led the Patriots to their first [[Super Bowl]] victory. Since 2001, the Patriots have been in the playoffs all but one year (2002, 9-7 record) and have won two more Super Bowls. The 2004-2005 Patriots teams also set a NFL record for most consecutive game won with 26 in a row.

In 2007, the Patriots became only the second team in NFL history to win all sixteen of their regular-season games (the first being the 1972 [[Miami Dolphins]]).

==Spying Incident==
In the Patriots 2007 regular season opener vs the [[New York Jets]], a Patriots employee, video assistant Matt Estrella, was caught video taping [[New York Jets]] defensive signals during the first quarter of the game.<ref>[http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3012989 ESPN, Chris Mortensen, September 11, 2007, "Sources: Camera confiscated after claims of Pats spying on Jets"]</ref> NFL security officials at the game confiscated Estrella's video camera and the video tape and sent it to the leagues headquarters to determine whether the Patriots were violating the NFL's videotaping policy.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/09/rules_in_focus.html Boston Globe, Mike Reiss, September 11, 2007, "Rules in focus"]</ref> Days after the incident, Patriots head coach [[Bill Belichick]] apologized for the episode stating "I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected, most of all ownership, staff and players."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/09/13/a_sorry_state/ Boston Globe, Mike Reiss, September 13, 2007, "A Sorry State, Belichick apologizes as probe continues"]</ref>

After a review of the video tape by the NFL's competition committee and commissioner [[Roger Goodell]], Bill Belichick was fined 500,000 dollars and the Patriots organization 250,000 dollars. The leagues verdict also stated the the Patriots would forfeit their 2008 NFL Draft first round pick if they made the playoffs in 2007, and if they failed to make the playoffs, their 2008 second and third round choices.<ref>[http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80251b7e&template=without-video&confirm=true NFL.com, September 13, 2007, "NFL fines Belichick, strips Patriots of draft pick"]</ref>

[[Image:Bill Belichick.JPG|210px|thumb|Patriots head coach, [[Bill Belichick]] was fined $500,000 for his role in the sideline spying incident.]]
NFL commissioner [[Roger Goodell]] wrote in his ruling, "This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid longstanding rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field. I specifically considered whether to impose a suspension on Coach Belichick. I have determined not to do so, largely because I believe that the discipline I
am imposing of a maximum fine and forfeiture of a first-round draft choice, or multiple draft choices, is in fact more significant and long-lasting, and therefore more effective, than a suspension."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/09/final_ruling.html Boston Globe, Mike Reiss, September 13, 2007, "Final Ruling"]</ref>

Belichick responded to the leagues verdict in a written statement that he accepted full responsibility for the incident and that he had been incorrect in his interpretation of the NFL's rules regarding sideline video taping.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/09/belichick_state_2.html Boston Globe, Mike Reiss, September 13, 2007, "Belichick statement"]</ref>

===Past Alleged Patriots Spying Incidents===
After the incident became public, some NFL players and coaches stated that they believed that the Patriots may have used the same type of taping methods vs their teams. The only confirmed time that it actually happened however was on November 19, 2006, in a game between the New England Patriots and [[Green Bay Packers]]. The Packers claimed that during the game they had caught the same Patriots video assistant as in the Jets game, Matt Estrella, video taping the Packers coaches making defensive signals from the Patriots sideline<ref>[http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3012989 ESPN, Chris Mortensen, September 10, 2007, "Sources: Camera confiscated after claims of Pats spying on Jets"]</ref>. Packers security staff removed Estrella and his camera from the sideline but did not did not file a complaint over the taping because according to a Green Bay official, "everyone does it".<ref>[http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1031230 Boston Herald, John Tomase, September 13, 2007, "Foes questioning Pats’ past"]</ref>

[[Pittsburgh Steelers]] wide receiver, [[Hines Ward]], stated that he believed that the Patriots may have used the NFL violating taping methods against the Steelers in the 2002 and 2004 AFC Championship games. Ward said regarding the 2002 Championship game, "They knew a lot of our calls. There’s no question some of their players were calling out some of our stuff."<ref>[http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8024a850&template=with-video&confirm=true Associated Press, September 12, 2007, "Steelers' Ward suspected Patriots spying"]</ref>

[[New York Giants]] defensive end, [[Michael Strahan]] said that the incident had tainted the Patriots three [[Super Bowl]] victory's<ref>[http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/patriots/view.bg?articleid=1031230 Boston Herald, John Tomase, September 13, 2007, "Foes questioning Pats’ past"]</ref> while [[Indianapolis Colts]] head coach, [[Tony Dungy]] compared the Patriots spying to [[Barry Bonds]] alleged use of steroids.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/09/14/dungy_compares_belichick_spy_scandal_to_bonds_steroid_accusations/ Boston Globe, Cliff Brunt, Associated Press Sports Writer, September 14, 2007, "Dungy compares Belichick spy scandal to Bonds steroid accusations"]</ref>

== New England Patriots seasons record==
[[Image:Pats2006RunningBacks.jpg|thumb|300px|The Patriots 2006 running backs unit.]]
[[Image:Patsteam1.gif|thumb|300px|Current [[Denver Broncos|Denver]] coach [[Josh McDaniels]] with the team.]]
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Wins
! Loss's
! Ties
! Playoffs
! Notes
|-
| 1960
| 5
| 9
|
|
| The [[Boston Patriots]] become one of eight teams to join the [[American Football League]] (AFL).
|-
| 1961
| 9
| 4
| 1
|
|
|-
| 1962
| 9
| 4
| 1
|
|
|-
| 1963
| 7
| 6
| 1
| 1-1
| Patriots lost in the AFL Championship game to the [[San Diego Chargers]] 51-10.
|-
| 1964
| 10
| 3
| 1
|
|
|-
| 1965
| 4
| 8
| 2
|
|
|-
| 1966
| 8
| 4
| 2
|
| Patriots running back [[Jim Nance]] rushes for 1,458 yards.
|-
| 1967
| 3
| 10
| 1
|
|
|-
| 1968
| 4
| 10
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1969
| 4
| 10
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1970
| 2
| 12
| 0
|
| Team moves from playing at [[Fenway Park]] to Boston College's Alumni Stadium.
|-
| 1971
| 6
| 8
| 0
|
|Team moves to [[Foxboro (Massachusetts)|Foxboro]] and changes its name from [[Boston Patriots]] to the New England Patriots.
|-
| 1972
| 3
| 11
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1973
| 5
| 9
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1974
| 7
| 7
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1975
| 3
| 11
| 0
|
| [[Steve Grogan]] becomes the starting quarterback for the Patriots.
|-
| 1976
| 11
| 3
| 0
|
|Patriots cornerback [[Mike Haynes]] wins the [[Defensive Rookie of the Year]] award.
|-
| 1977
| 9
| 5
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1978
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 0-1
| Patriots wide receiver [[Darryl Stingley]] paralyzed in a preseason game vs the [[Oakland Raiders]].
|-
| 1979
| 9
| 7
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1980
| 10
| 6
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1981
| 2
| 14
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1982
| 5
| 4
| 0
|
| Season was cut short by players strike
|-
| 1983
| 8
| 8
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1984
| 9
| 7
| 0
|
| [[Raymond Berry]] named as the Patriots coach.
|-
| 1985
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 3-1
| Lost in [[Super Bowl XX]] vs the [[Chicago Bears]].
|-
| 1986
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 0-1
| Patriots Hall of Fame guard [[John Hannah]] retires.
|-
| 1987
| 8
| 7
| 0
|
| [[Victor Kiam]] buys the team from original owner [[Billy Sullivan]].
|-
| 1988
| 9
| 7
| 0
|
|
|-
| 1989
| 5
| 11
| 0
|
|Head coach [[Raymond Berry]] fired.
|-
| 1990
| 1
| 15
| 0
|
| Worst season in Patriots history.
|-
| 1991
| 6
| 10
| 0
|
|60 year old [[Dick MacPherson]] becomes head coach.
|-
| 1992
| 2
| 14
| 0
|
|Businessman [[James Orthwein]] become the sole owner of the Patriots.
|-
| 1993
| 5
| 11
| 0
|
| Quarterback [[Drew Bledsoe]] is drafted by the Patriots
|-
| 1994
| 10
| 6
| 0
| 0-1
| [[Robert Kraft]] buys the Patriots
|-
| 1995
| 6
| 10
| 0
|
| Patriots third round pick [[Curtis Martin]] wins [[Offensive Rookie of the Year]].
|-
| 1996
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 2-1
| Lost [[Super Bowl XXXI]] vs the [[Green Bay Packers]]
|-
| 1997
| 10
| 6
| 0
| 1-1
| Patriots lose 7-6 in the Division Round of the playoffs vs the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]]
|-
| 1998
| 9
| 7
| 0
| 0-1
| Patriots draft [[University of Georgia]] running back [[Robert Edwards]].
|-
| 1999
| 8
| 8
| 0
|
| [[Pete Carroll]]'s last year as Patriots head coach
|-
| 2000
| 5
| 11
|
|
| First season with [[Bill Belichick]] as head coach
|-
| 2001
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 3-0
| Defeated the [[St. Louis Rams]] in [[Super Bowl XXXVI]]
|-
| 2002
| 9
| 7
| 0
|
| Could have made the playoffs with a [[New York Jets]] loss, First season in [[Gillette Stadium]]
|-
| 2003
| 14
| 2
| 0
| 3-0
| Won [[Super Bowl XXXVIII]] vs the [[Carolina Panthers]]
|-
| 2004
| 14
| 2
| 0
| 3-0
| Defeated [[Philadelphia Eagles]] in [[Super Bowl XXXIX]]
|-
| 2005
| 11
| 5
| 0
| 1-1
| Backup quarterback [[Doug Flutie]] dropped kicks an
extra point in the last game season of the regular season
|-
| 2006
| 12
| 4
| 0
| 2-1
| First 12-4 record in Patriots history
|-
| 2007
| 16
| 0
| 0
| 2-1
| First 16-0 team in NFL history; lost [[Super Bowl]] to the [[New York Giants]]
|-
| 2008
| 11
| 5
| 0
|
| QB Brady injured in season opener
|-
| 2009
| 10
| 6
| 0
| 0-1
| Team's 50th season
|-
| 2010
| 14
| 2
| 0
| 0-1
|
|-
| 2011
| 13
| 3
| 0
| 2-1
| Lost [[Super Bowl]] to the [[New York Giants]]
|-
|}

==References==
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
<references/>
</div>

== External Links ==

* [http://www.patriots.com/homepage/ Patriots Official Website]

*[http://www.patscap.com/ Unofficial Salary Cap Information]

'''''Patriots News Websites'''''

* [http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/ Boston Globe]

* [http://patriots.bostonherald.com/patriots.bg Boston Herald]

* [http://www.projo.com/patriots/?tn Providence Journal]

* [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/teams/patriots/index.html Sports Illustrated]

* [http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/team?statsId=17 Fox Sports]

* [http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/teams/patriots/index.html Sporting News]

== Source Material ==

* [http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nfl/nengalnd/patriots.html SportsEncyclopedia.com - Patriots History]

* [http://www.patriots.com/history/ Patriots.com - History Page]

* [http://www.searchboston.com/patriots.html SearchBoston.com - Patriots History Page]

* [http://nflhistory.net/patriots/ NFLHistory.net - Patriots Histoy]

* [http://www.nfl-history.com/patriots.php NFL-History.com - Patriots History]

* [http://football.about.com/cs/2003nflplayoffs/a/playoffhistnewe.htm AboutFootball.com - Patriots Playoff Record]

==See also==
*[[Miami Dolphins]]
*[[New York Jets]]
*[[Buffalo Bills]]
*[[American Football Conference]]

{{NFL Teams}}

[[Category:New England Patriots]]

[[category:National Football League]]
[[Category:Massachusetts]]

Tim Tebow

2012-06-11T14:04:43Z

CWest:

[[File:Tim Tebow.jpg|right|150px]]
'''Timothy Richard "Tim" Tebow''' (born August 14, 1987) is an [[American]] [[football]] player who initially gained fame while playing for the [[University of Florida]] Gators. He was the first sophomore to win the [[Heisman Trophy]] and led the Gators to two [[BCS]] Championships during his four years playing for UF in Gainesville, which is extremely rare.

He was selected by the [[Denver Broncos]] as the 25th pick of the first round of the 2010 NFL Draft. In 2011, with the team in last place, the Broncos decided to start Tebow as quarterback. Tebow had an impressive seven-game winning streak, and took the Broncos to the division championship and a home-game appearance in the playoffs. He led them to a stunning upset victory over the [[Pittsburgh Steelers]] (headed by Hollywood-values quarterback [[Ben Roethlisberger]]) with 316 passing yards for an average of 31.6 yards per toss, confounding his critics and causing a million searches on the internet for the meaning of [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_3|John 3:16]].<ref>The Broncos were subsequently eliminated by the team favored to win (but ended up losing) the [[Super Bowl]], the [[New England Patriots]].</ref>

The Broncos, perhaps to appease [[Colorado]] [[liberals]], found a way to trade Tebow without infuriating his numerous fans. The Broncos signed a neck-injured, elderly quarterback [[Peyton Manning]] to a deal costing nearly $100 million, and then immediately traded Tebow to the [[New York Jets]]. As the trade was finalized, on March 22, Tebow arrived in Morristown, New Jersey (near where the Jets train) amid much media publicity and fan support.

'''''Tebow is one of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Conservapedia's Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]] and was a runner-up for [[Conservative of the Year 2011]]'''''.

==Personal life==
Tebow was [[homeschooled]] until college. He is an outspoken [[pro-lifer]], and his mother had been told to have an [[abortion]] rather than to give birth to him. Tebow appeared in a pro-life television ad that aired during the 2010 [[Super Bowl]], risking retaliation against his career by [[pro-aborts]] and the [[liberal media]].<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0127/Tim-Tebow-Super-Bowl-ad-an-astonishingly-bold-stand</ref>

Tebow gives frequent interviews to the liberal media and often leaves them speechless. He answered a highly personal question at a press conference about his sex life by revealing that he practices [[abstinence]]:<ref>http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/090724&sportCat=ncf</ref>
{{cquote|I think you're stunned right now. You can't even ask a question. ... I was ready for that question, but I don't think ya'll were.}}

Tebow volunteers on mission trips, one of which in the summer of 2008 to the [[Philippines]] was chronicled in an issue of the ''ESPN Magazine''.

His faith in [[Christ]] is a well-known fact inside and outside the sports world.

==Tebowing==
Tebowing is the act of kneeling on one knee, resting your head on your fist and giving thanks. It is named for Tebow's fashion of public prayer, although some Christian critics have denounced such open practice as this, citing Matthew 6, verses 5 and 6.
''<blockquote>
And when you pray, don't be like the hypocrites. They love to pray when standing in the synagogues and in the street corners, so that they may be seen by men. I tell you truly: They will get what's coming to them. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
</blockquote>''
However, Tebow's act can be considered simply an expression of faith and thanks, rather than a prayer. That Tebow bows to God on the field does not mean that he does not also pray to him in private.

== References ==

<references/>

== External Links ==

* [http://www.timtebow.com/ Official website of Tim Tebow]
* [http://www.timtebowfoundation.org/ The Tim Tebow Foundation]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tebow, Tim}}
[[Category:Football Players]]
[[Category:Religious People]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:Pro-life]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

English language

2012-06-11T13:47:04Z

CWest: grammar

The '''English language''' (originating in [[England]]) is the predominant language of the [[United States of America|United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Australia]], and [[Canada]], <ref> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0855611.html </ref> as well as other former members of the [[British Empire]]. Due to the enormous economic, scientific, political and cultural influence of the these nations, English functions as the world's major international language.

==History and Development==

English is considered a member of the Germanic language family, one of the oldest surviving Germanic languages within the North-Sea Germanic/Ingvaeonic sub-grouping of this family, with a vocabulary based upon Saxon, Angle, and Jute descent. The language has changed considerably in its existence; predecessors to modern English are highly distinct and are often mistaken for a completely different language, as evident in Old-English and Middle English. [[French]], amongst other Romance languages, has had a large impact on the language as well, due to the conquest of England by the French speaking Normans in 1066 AD. French also had a great impact on the language as it was the Lingua-Franca, considered so up until [[World War II]] (where English itself became the Lingua-Franca), in subjects such as law, science, philosophy, and politics.

Scholars typically identify several key factors in the development of the language in regards to the insurgence of non-native terminology. These times include the influence of French, mentioned above, the commerce England had with Spain, introducing Spanish to the language, and the effect of the [[Renaissance]] and [[Enlightenment]] period, which brought Latin and Greek based words to the language. Based on the history of the English language, it is sometimes compared to a common [[Creole]] language due to the many factors that have helped it develop over hundreds of years.

After World War II, the rise of the United States as a world superpower led to English replacing French as the Lingua-Franca, becoming the world's most used language for diplomacy, commerce, science, and so forth. Because of this, English is considered the world's most important international language by many.<ref> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4080401.stm </ref>

==Spelling==
English spelling, technically phonetic based on the Latin alphabet, has changed considerably over time. Because England had vast differences in pronunciations and [[dialects]], and because there was no standardized agreement of how to represent each sound nor which Roman letters corresponded to which sound, spelling was quite variable. Standard spellings did not come about until the late seventeenth century. In or around 1828 in the United States, the lexicographer [[Noah Webster]] argued for simplifying some spellings which were no longer phonetic, such as the -our in words such as "colour". Most, though not all, of his proposed changes were adopted, such that US English spelling differs from UK English in some hundreds of instances. UK English spelling is the standard in the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, and most of the Commonwealth of Nations including Canada and Australia; US English spelling is the standard in the [[United States]] and its territories.

The term "English" may also be used to refer to a person from the United Kingdom born in the country of England, or to describe something from England or with characteristics particular to that place.

==See also==
* [[Official English]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:English language| ]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]

Russian (de facto)

2012-06-11T13:45:46Z

CWest: clearer redirect

#Redirect [[Russian language]]

Espionage

2012-06-11T13:42:30Z

CWest: undo vandalism

'''Espionage''' refers to the act of gathering information, generally using subversive means. A person who engages in espionage is called a [[spy]]. It is carried on by Intelligence bureaus operated by the military or the government, such as the [[CIA]], [[KGB]] and [[Mossad]].

The word ''Espionage'' comes from the [[French]] word ''espionage'', meaning literally "to spy". However, it was the Americans and Soviets who made the most historical use of espionage, during the [[Cold War]]. Almost all countries have used espionage, notably [[Israel]]<ref>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spyring.html</ref>, Germany during World War II, and Britain. Espionage is much less talked about today, except for ''industrial espionage'', which is what happens when one company spies on another one, or a government spy agency tries to discover corporate secrets in another country.

'''Counterintelligence''' is the business of detecting and neutralizing spies.

Famous spies include [[Mata Hari]], [[Whittaker Chambers]], [[Julius Rosenberg]] and [[Alger Hiss]].
==See also==
* [[CIA]], US main spy agency
* [[Glossary of espionage terms]]
* [[KGB]], Soviet spies
* [[Mossad]], Israel
* [[Soviet spies in America (1921-1948)]]
* [[Stasi]], East German spies
* [[Venona files]], decoding Soviet spies

==Further reading==
* John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr. ''Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Venona-Decoding-Soviet-Espionage-America/dp/0300084625/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254148086&sr=1-9 excerpt and text search]
* K. Lee Lerner and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. ''Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence and Security'' (2003)
* Norman Polmar and Thomas B. Allen. ''Encyclopedia of Espionage'' (1997)
* Trahair, Richard C. S. ''Encyclopedia of Cold War Espionage, Spies, and Secret Operations'' (2004) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Richard%20C.%20S.%20Trahair&dcontributors=Richard%20C.%20S.%20Trahair online edition]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Espionage]]

Talk:Conservapedia

2012-06-11T13:40:53Z

CWest: /* Blocked user listed as influential */

.

Where are the claims of bias? The controversial aspects? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia#Notable_incidents Even Wikipedia says] it has been controversial. --[[User:Gert3|Gert3]] 09:07, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

== Cannot edit? ==

When I view this page the "edit button" isn't there, is this a purposeful measure? I wanted to change ''...Conservapedia originally contained mostly history articles, it has grown over '''two years''' to be a general reference...'' because if Conservapedia was launched in 2006 that would make it nearly 5 years old. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:07, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
: I think that means the page has been 'protected'. Only some of the more senior users (administrators?) have access. You can ask for it to be temporarily unprotected, probably ask ASchlafly. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 22:17, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
::I think I have already bothered him enough today (I couldn't find the help index despite it being right in the menu!). Hopefully a senior user will see this. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:23, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
:::Hi Max, good catch! I made that change for you: I made it "grown over several years". If there were any other changes you wanted to make, let me know or I'll unlock the article for you. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:07, 15 March 2011 (EDT)
::::Thanks Addison! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 15:27, 15 March 2011 (EDT)

== Differences with Wikipedia Section ==

Under this section, it might be helpful to add a wiki link to this page: [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]]. One of the better differences, in my opinion, is that Conservapedia allows primary sources while Wikipedia does not. According to Wikipedia, if the liberal media has not mentioned it, then it must not exist. This is the same tactic liberals used when [[ClimateGate]] went public; they simply ignored the story and hoped it would disappear.

Secondary sources can be very helpful in explaining a more complex topic, but an encyclopedic approach would be to cite the primary and secondary sources, which Wikipedia does not allow. This means that Wikipedia is a source for less reliable, second-hand citations; unless a page is completely unrelated to politics of any kind, Wikipedia references mostly liberal opinions with a bias view discussing a primary source. Even then, Wikipedia's non-political pages still can't use primary research as a citation. In my opinion, primary sources are more encyclopedic than the opinions of HuffPo writers, MSNBC reporters and the vast liberal media machine. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 21:32, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

: Wow, that's a superb insight! I added the link as you suggested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:55, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== Blocked user listed as influential ==
In the "influential users" list, "JacobB" is still listed even though that user was blocked for inserting false information. Was leaving this user on the list intended or an oversight? [[User:CWest|CWest]] 12:41, 8 June 2012 (EDT)

The following was mailed to me by SamHB. [[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 14:29, 10 June 2012 (EDT)

I take exception to the suggestion that user JacobB was "blocked for inserting false information". That is not true. Jacob was more knowledgeable about mathematics than everyone here, past or present, put together. He was caught up in some kind of internet password spoofing incident, and the "good guys vs. traitors" mindset kicked in. I believe he was allowed to come back briefly, but he quickly lost interest and moved on to other things. In his case, grad school in mathematics. He never inserted false information. You should show some respect, OK? If his user page showing as a redlink bothers you, why not just restore the page?

Another matter. While I had bitter fights with Terry Koeckritz, I was saddened to learn of his death. I think the existing entry does not show respect the way it should. The phrase "RIP" is used in many ways, from extremely solemn (Requiescat In Pacem) to downright silly and flippant (hanging an "RIP" sign on a computer.) Someone reading his entry wouldn't really know what was intended. They could even conclude that he was simply banned. I would suggest changing the line to something like

*[[User:TK|TK]] made many substantive contributions since coming to Conservapedia in 2007, and was known for his vigilance against vandals prior to his sudden passing in December, 2010.

:I meant no disrespect. I was not the one that made the block; I only joined this site about a week ago. Personally, the red link does not bother me; I did notice it and checked the reason for the block, but I simply wanted to check with the sysops. Even if I did restore the page, it may be deleted again anyway. There has been another instance where I redid something a sysop had undone and I caught some heat for it. I do not wish for that to happen again. Also, as I did not mention anything to do with that second paragraph, I will leave that part alone without replying. [[User:CWest|CWest]] 09:40, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Second Law of Thermodynamics

2012-06-09T12:28:48Z

CWest: /* Second Law and Evolution */

{{unprotected|19 March 2007|Tsumetai}}
== Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!==

I am getting a little tired of the (pardon the immoderate language) stupid edits in relation to the second law of thermodynamics. As has been stated by a number of people on the Talk:Theory of Evolution page, the second law of thermodynamics does not disprove the theory of evolution. You are just making this site look stupid by stating that it does. I see that the person who committed the muddleheaded reversion has now protected the page. Might I respectfully suggest that the protection be removed and some scholarship prevail. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:01, 3 March 2007 (EST)

== Protection and other issues ==

The trend towards protecting articles by users in edit conflicts is worrisome. Furthermore, the protected version is simply wrong. One of the Conservapedia Commandments is that everything should be sourced. I therefore would very much like to know if there is any source for the claim that "he Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the universe tends towards a maximum" This statement is wrong at multiple levels- the 2nd Law is about closed systems (or can be stated about open systems with a some tweaking of the consequent), it says nothing about the universe. Furthermore, tending towards a maximum doesn't even mean that the entropy levels can't decrease. For example, the sequence, 1,3,2,5,4,7,6,9,8... tends towards infinity but is not an increasing sequence. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 04:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Second law also says nothing about an upper bound to the entropy of a system; the entropy of the Universe could increase without limit, in principle, making the 'maximum' part wrong too.

:To be fair to Philip, the increase of the Universe's entropy ''is'' a tendency, not an absolute. The total entropy of an isolated system can decrease; it's just hugely improbable on the scales we're used to dealing with. Quantum effects can lead to a decrease in entropy; one has to deal with a very small system over short periods of time to actually notice this, however. Arbitrarily large decreases in entropy are also possible, given sufficient time. This is true whether one is discussing the fluctuation theorems of QM, or good old-fashioned classical systems.

:But these are not, strictly speaking, parts of the second law. Second law doesn't say anything about tendency. The rest of physics just says that second law is not absolute. So I don't think using the word 'tends' in the definition is very useful.

:The main problem with the article is, of course, the part about evolution, which as Horace says is just wrong, and painfully so. It's a seductive argument to the layman; after all, entropy is all about order and disorder, and evolution clearly requires the production of order. Right?

:Wrong, of course. The second law of '''thermo'''dynamics is a statement about '''thermodynamic''' quantities; 'order' is not one. One can choose to ''define'' the term 'order' in thermodynamic terms, in which case the statement that the Universe must become, on net, more disordered over time is true, for certain definitions. But the price for that is rejecting one's intuitive understanding of what constitutes 'order' and 'disorder,' and going with the maths. By a thermodynamic definition of order, my hot chocolate is self-organizing as we speak. Therein lies the danger of describing esoteric physics in terms which carry the baggage of their lay definition. Better to stick with entropy, and check one's prejudices at the door.

:Perhaps the simplest way to illustrate this is with a different statement of the second law; the Clausius statement, which reads:

::It is impossible to construct a heat engine which, operating in a cycle, produces no effect other than the transfer of a quantity of heat from a colder to a hotter body.

:Now, precisely which part of evolution violates ''that''? This version of the second law makes it abundantly clear that we're talking about a specific, mathematically rigorous statement about heat flow, not some general philosophical statement about order and chaos. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:51, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Oh, yes, I forgot to weigh in on the page protection issue. Tonya Harding strategy, right?

:A while ago, I [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Page_protection_policy suggested to ASchlafly] that a written policy on when page protection should be used, and for how long it should last would be helpful. Anyone else agree? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:58, 4 March 2007 (EST)

== The following is incorrect ==

From the article:

"It is impossible for the total entropy of an isolated system to decrease, therefore the universe is becoming more and more disordered. In this way the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution."

The first sentence is true, but the second is false. Evolution does not cause the total entropy in the universe to decrease, only local variations. By analogy, a fridge does not cool the universe, only a small part of it at the expense of the rest. Please correct this clear error to avoid the increasing levels of criticisms being levelled at this wiki. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:45, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:To add my thoughts on this: there are two errors in this article. First, the second law ''only'' applies to ''isolated'' systems, not to systems that are merely closed, let alone open. Then it becomes clear that the "disproving" of evolution by referring to the second law is severely flawed. There is nothing against a local decrease in entropy, as long as it is balanced by at least as large an increase elsewhere. Moreover, the assumption that evolution is directly linked to a decrease in thermodynamic entropy is not immediately obvious. I agree with Nematocyte that in its present state, this article will just serve to invite more criticism. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 09:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Strictly speaking, second law applies to all systems; for instance, consider the Clausius statement, which I posted up the page. No mention of an isolated system there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That not what my stat.mech. text says ;-). Let's put it this way: the ''entropy'' formulation only applies to isolated systems. In fact, I think that the heat engine in the Clausius formulation should itself be taken as isolated. If we allow it to be (thermally or otherwise) coupled to anything else than a hot and a cold "temperature bath", I think we could make the heat flow up the temperature gradient, at the expense of course of something happening outside the engine. Of course, these thermal reservoirs are abstractions, etc. etc. Anyway, here as well, either we should take the system (engine) as isolated, or we should take it as the entire universe. Both cases are not going to help disprove evolution at any rate. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I think even the entropy formulation will work with open systems, so long as one takes care to quantify the entropy flow through the boundary. The requirement then becomes that entropy decrease within the boundary is no greater than the net entropy flow out of the system through the boundary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think it's effectively the same as looking at an isolated system made out of two parts, inside and outside, and applying the second law to the total system. But what you propose should indeed work. I hadn't thought of doing it that way. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 13:04, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Absolutely; you can always expand the boundary of an open system to obtain an isolated one, in principle. But it's very useful to be able to work with open systems, if the boundary terms can be computed, since it allows one to ignore entropy generation in the environment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Time to unprotect ==

OK, it's been over a week now, and no one has attempted to defend the inclusion of such rubbish. Might we have the article unprotected so that those of us who actually understand elementary thermodynamics can fix it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Nothing doing sir, the numbskulls are the experts. Who said Sri Lanka became independent in the 1970s, none other than the owner of this site! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:12, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ressurection a violation? ==

I think we should add a section about the resurrection of Jesus and that it "technically" violates the second law of thermodynamics, but that since it was a miracle, it does not need to adhere to the second law. Thoughts?
:...*blinks* Are there sources that are actually saying that? *honestly curious* --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]

:I think the latter part is pretty obvious, and negates the need for the former. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Gonna back Tsumetai up on this one. Also, it's shocking and appalling that this article is protected while containing such tripe in the content of it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Not to mention the fact that in the ten days since criticisms were first raised, no one who supports the article in its current state has bothered to defend it.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. I'll leave a message on the protecting admin's Talk page, maybe it'll help. Talking on here doesn't seem to have any impact. =/ --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, of course. Many intellectuals here! Long live the stone age numbskull army!!! [[User:Zaheerabbas|Zaheerabbas]] 02:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==This law and evolution==

Timothy Wallace wrote:

*Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).

*Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law. [http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp]

Comments? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Its a considerable misunderstanding. Points:
::*The second law refers to the flow of heat, it is unclear how exactly that translates into "disorder" and "order" when applied to something like life.
::*The second law refers to closed systems, open systems are a much more complex processes and the "law" does not apply cleanly here. Life and Earth are open systems.
::*Evolution is essentially a favored random walk, these systems are able to produce violations of "disorder" all the time. For example any [[Monte Carlo method]] algorithm demonstrates this beautifully, you can reach local "maximum" and avoid "minimums" by using evolutionary algorithms and many other variations on the theme.
::*Complexity theory and Self-organizing systems also routinely violate the maxim that order can not be created from disorder. The sorts of things needed to produce an SOS or complex system are just the kinds of things we find in life.

:Life is not a good place to be trying to appeal a mathematical description of heat. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, applying the second law to evolution reflects a plain misunderstanding. Beings today are not "more perfect" than those that came before. Greater "perfection" may be a violation of the idea of entropy. However, evolved organisms are not more "perfect" than earlier organisms, since Darwin's point is that there is no biological level of "perfection." Evolved organisms don't violate entropy anymore than ''older'' organisms (a 20 year old relative to a 10 year old) do!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ames, you're disagreeing with one of the best Renaissance minds, [[William Shakespeare]]:
:*"What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals! ". - ([[Hamlet]], Act II, Scene II).

:Now, how does Evolution explain man evolving through an unguided process from one-celled organisms? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Shakespeare is not a scientist. Science and art are different. I realize they may not be for creationists, which is shocking and kind of funny. But they are different in the real world.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Discuss here before deleting information ==

OK. I deleted the "three types of systems the Second Law can apply to," because it only applies to closed systems. I also deleted the claim that it disproves evolution and relativity, because it doesn't. Evolution is nonsense, but isn't disproved by the Second Law because EARTH IS NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM. As for relativity, the Second Law has no connection to it at all. This article is about one of the key laws of science, and if it's blatant nonsense the credibility of the whole site suffers. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:47, 16 February 2012 (EST)

:There is no such thing as a perfectly closed system, so your attempt to limit the important Second Law to closed systems is misplaced. The Second Law is far more meaningful than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 16 February 2012 (EST)
::Irrelevant. The Second Law only applies to closed systems. If a system isn't closed then energy can be added, thus reducing entropy. That is the MEANING of the Second Law. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:52, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::OK, give me a statement of the Second Law that works in an open system. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 23:53, 16 February 2012 (EST)

::::Your approach would appear to limit the Second Law to something that doesn't exist. It's more meaningful than that. Its entry here explains its insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 16 February 2012 (EST)
:::::No ''ideal gas'' exists either, yet the Ideal Gas Law only applies to this non-existent hypothetical gas. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 00:00, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::The Second Law isn't an ''insight''. It's a description of energy available for work in a closed system. It doesn't have some deep ''meaning'' that can be applied to whatever you like. The Second Law is an accurate description of entropy (note: ''entropy'', not ''disorder'') in a closed system, and if ever a closed system is found then rest assured that overall entropy will not decrease inside it. But to say it disproves evolution is nonsense, especially when you yourself admit that Earth is NOT a closed system! --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:05, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::And your point is ....? Attempts to limit the Ideal Gas Law to perfectly ideal gases would be misguided also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::Uh what? How can the Ideal Gas law be applied to something that isn't an ideal gas? --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:06, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:::::::::The Ideal Gas Law has insights that extend beyond ideal gases. Ditto for the Second Law with respect to closed systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:10, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::::OK then, tell me an "insight" that the Second Law can bring to a system that is ''not'' closed. --[[User:DonauKind|DonauKind]] 00:14, 17 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::::::The entry explains this well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 17 February 2012 (EST)
After going back and re-reading the article a few times, I think I know where the confusion lies with some editors. It appears that the article is conflating the thermal definition of entropy with the information theory definition of entropy. This conflation allows the topic of "disorder" to arise. Which has absolutely nothing to do with thermaldynamics. The basic definition of thermal entropy is simply a measure of energy that is unusable to perform work in a system. How a law that breaks down in layman's terms to: "heat won't travel from a cooler body to a hotter body without an additional input of energy" or "no process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body" can be used to "disprove" evolution or relativity escapes me. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 02:19, 17 February 2012 (EST)

:Perhaps [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth#Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? |this discussion]] sheds some light on Aschlafly's misconception of the 2nd law. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:27, 17 February 2012 (EST)

The thing is, is that there is a link between thermodynamics and disorder. This is the tour de force result of statistical thermodynamics vs classical thermodynamics - i.e. that the macroscopic quantity which we can measure called "entropy" is related to the number of possible microstates the system can explore. As has been correctly pointed out, the problems start when we directly equate this with "information", or entropy as defined in information theory i.e. "Shannon entropy". This is an analogous concept, based on the fundamental information content of a system. But there isn't an equivalence between information-theoretic entropy and thermodynamic entropy. In the actual physical world, there is no need to directly connect the quantities of "disorder" and "information". This, in part, along with the more important facts that all these things apply to closed systems and the Earth is not a closed system, means that any argument based on how "entropy" disproves evolution due to some information argument is bogus. [[User:DanPW]]

== Second Law and Evolution ==

I have removed the statement about the Second Law disproving evolution. It is pretty obvious that Mr. Schlafly does not have a correct understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and with all due respect, his inaccurate contributions to this article must be removed. From what I understand, Mr. Schlafly's reasoning is based on his belief that evolution is "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state," which is not true. This has been explained in most of the above sections on this talk page, so I will not rehash arguments. I just expect a better explanation if the article is to be changed back to saying that the Second Law does disprove evolution.

I suspect that the Second Law does not disprove the theory of relativity either, but I have not looked into the arguments for or against this claim so I am leaving this in the article.

--[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 01:31, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

:Your edit was reverted because the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly, just as it bans heat spontaneously flowing to hotter locations. The theory of evolution is based on the contrary claim that random (disordered) mutations create greater order.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:35, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

::In thermodynamic terms, the concept of "order" is not usually applied to the Second Law except in rigorous terms of "molecular ordering," which you have not made a clear connection to the theory of evolution. Also, you are ignoring the fact that the Second Law only applies to a closed system (and the Earth is not a closed system), which has been explained many times above. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:02, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::And just what is this "closed system" that the 2nd Law here has to be restricted to? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:16, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::The standard thermodynamic definition of a closed system is one that cannot exchange mass with its surroundings. But in the context of Mr. Schlafly's assertions about the Second Law and evolution, his misunderstanding about the thermodynamic concept of order is even more significant. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 02:38, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::And why can't that happen on earth? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:42, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::The Earth is actually pretty close to being a closed system, but obviously it is possible for matter to leave or enter the Earth's atmosphere. But the main problem with the Second Law being used as an argument against evolution is the claim that evolution requires "disorder changing by itself into a more ordered state" (this was most recently stated on [[Talk:Main_Page]]) and the idea that "disorder" (however that is defined) is always increasing. Mr. Schlafly has not provided any substantial evidence or explanation for this, and that is why I removed the claim about evolution from the article. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:05, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You and everyone else above kept right on saying that earth is a closed system; now you're changing it to "''pretty close'' to being a closed system"? Have you ever put together logs in a fireplace and watched them burn? Which was more complex: the logs assembled, or the ashes several hours later? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:10, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::As I stated in my most recent 2 comments, the fact that the Earth is not a closed system is not as relevant to Mr. Schlafly's Second Law vs. evolution argument as is his concept of order. (And I do believe much of the discussion above on this talk page is not well focused.) I am not seeing the connection between your burning log example and evolution. Please elaborate. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 03:27, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Now it's back to being a closed system? Did "pretty close" just disappear? Answer the question about the logs. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:45, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
::::::::::The logs are more complex; in the act of burning them, matter goes from an ordered state to a more disordered one, and energy is given off. Are you going to elaborate on how this relates to evolution as Randall asked? [[User:CWest|CWest]] 08:28, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
:Andy, how do you explain the growth of a crystal (an ordered arrangement of ions) from a solution (a disordered arrangement), if "the Second Law does ban disorder becoming more orderly", as you say? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 03:39, 9 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Conservapedia

2012-06-08T16:41:10Z

CWest:

Anders Behring Breivik

2012-06-08T16:35:39Z

CWest: /* Breivik's manifesto and ideology */ (nvm, that article isn't on CP yet)

'''Anders Behring Breivik''' (born Oslo, Norway, February 13th, 1979) was accused of, and has since confessed to, murdering 77 people<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/29/501364/main20085603.shtml Death Toll in Norway Attacks Rises to 77]</ref> during a killing spree in [[Norway]] on July 22, 2011. On that day, a bomb was detonated near government buildings in the capital city of [[Oslo]], killing eight. Some 90 minutes later, Breivik went to a summer camp on the island of Utoya and began shooting, killing 69 people.

Breivik describes himself as an investor, director, manager, revolutionary conservative, and resistance fighter.<ref>''2083 - A European Declaration of Independence,''p. 1398</ref> Prosecutors have said that Breivik played the video game World of Warcraft for nearly seven hours daily. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/08/prosecutors-norwegian-mass-murderer-played-world-of-warcraft-seven-hours-a-day/ Prosecutors:Norwegian mass-murderer played World of Warcraft seven hours a day, Daily Caller, June 8, 2012]</ref>

== Attacks ==
=== Oslo bombing ===
At approximately 15:26 local time on Friday, July 22, 2011, a car bomb detonated in the political center of Oslo. Eight people were killed, and the offices of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg were damaged, along with several other government buildings. Additional undetonated explosives were also located in the area, police confirmed the next day. The explosives were believed to be comprised of fertilizer and fuel, similar to the bomb used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.<ref name="bbc timeline">[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14260297 Timeline of attacks]</ref> Norwegian police later revealed that Breivik planned to attack the royal palace and the Labour Party’s headquarters in central Oslo as well as other locations that would “hit the government.”

=== Shooting spree on the island of Utoya ===
Utoya, an island located approximately 20 miles northwest of Oslo, has been used by the Worker's Youth League (AUF), the Norwegian Labor Party's youth wing, since the 1970s for summer camps.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/23/norway.camp.youth/index.html?eref=edition How Labour Party's paradise in Utoya turned to 'hell']</ref> Between 600 to 700 people were on the island on July 22, 2011. Around 16:57 local time, a man dressed as a policeman requested passage on a local ferry over to Utoya. He stated he was there to "do research in connection with the bomb blasts".<ref name="bbc timeline"/> He was reportedly armed with a pistol and an automatic rifle.<ref name="bbc timeline"/> According to witnesses, he gathered the camp atendees around him for an announcement, then began shooting at them. The people panicked, and began running in an attempt to get away. Some tried to swim to the mainland, and were shot while still in the water.

The first reports of the shootings reached authorities at 17:26, and by 17:40, a specialized SWAT team was dispatched from Oslo to the island, arriving at 18:09.<ref name="bbc timeline"/> Local police were already at the ferry crossing, but were waiting for a boat. Difficulties arose when the police boat was loaded with the men and equipment; the boat was too small and began to take on water.<ref name="bbc timeline"/> Recreational boats were used instead, and the authorities arrived on the island at 18:26.<ref name="bbc timeline"/> By this time, the shootings had been going on for over an hour.

When the police reached the gunman, they found him standing with his hands up, and his guns several yards away on the ground.<ref name="bbc timeline"/> He didn't resist arrest, and according to police, still had a significant amount of ammunition remaining.<ref name="bbc timeline"/>

Sixty-nine people, mostly teenagers, were killed in the shooting spree, with scores of others injured. Hospital officials reported Breivik used dum-dum bullets, which are designed to cause severe internal damage because they disintegrate within the body.<ref name="bbc timeline"/>

==Charges and investigation==

Breivik has been charged with acts of terrorism, including "destabilizing or destroying basic functions of society" and "creating serious fear in the population." While appearing before a judge on July 25, 2011, Breivik admitted to his acts but pleaded not guilty to the charge of terrorism,<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/world/europe/26oslo.html?_r=1&hp Norway Suspect Denies Guilt and Suggests He Did Not Act Alone]</ref> as he believes he was acting in pre-emptive self-defense <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/24/us-norway-manifesto-idUSTRE76N0X820110724 ''Norway's mass killer pursuing anti-Islam crusade''], Reuters, Sun Jul 24, 2011</ref>

A police press conference described Breivik as “more than willing to explain himself” during interrogations on Friday that lasted from 10:00 in the morning until 18:30 in the evening. Breivik’s lawyer, Geir Lippestad,also confirmed details of Breivik’s behaviour in the hearings and solitary confinement, telling VG that he was “very taken up with details” in his explanations about technical aspects of his operations, but that he “does not recognize our society, our courts or our justice system” because “his understanding of reality is not like other people’s.” He continues to see himself “as a great general that is at war against the Muslim’s invasion of Europe.” He has also been given two novels to read which “he did not like.”

Breivik planned to attack the royal palace and the Labour Party’s headquarters in central Oslo as well as other locations that would “hit the government.” Lippestad confirmed the fact that his client had “both A and B plans” when speaking to newspaper ''Dagbladet'', adding that the attacks he carried out were “probably the B plan.”<ref>[http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/07/30/breivik-planned-palace-attack/# Breivik planned palace attack]</ref> The 32-year-old murderer also said his bombing of government buildings in Oslo and shootings at the summer camp on Utoya island for Labour's youth wing was aimed at deterring future recruitment to the Labour party, which he blames for "mass imports of Muslims," which he accuses of engaging in "demographic warfare." <ref>http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16036733</ref>

Breivik will be kept in custody for eight weeks, the first four weeks being spent in solitary confinement with no visitors, letters or access to media. If convicted on the charges against him in Norway, a possible 30-year prison sentence could be imposed. However, as a Norwegian prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence must show they are no longer a danger to society before being granted parole, some believe that it is technically possible that Breivik could spend the rest of his life in prison. The prosecution said Breivik had behaved calmly and did not seem to be affected by events. The lawyer representing Anders Behring Breivik has stated that his client is most likely insane. <ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/norway-shooting-bombing-anders-behring-breivik-insane-lawyer-says-52835 ''The Christian Post, Norway Shooting, Bombing: Anders Behring Breivik Insane, Lawyer Says''], Jul. 26 2011</ref>

Norwegian newspaper ''VG Nett'' claims Anders Behring Breivik had been put on a terrorist watchlist after illegally buying large amount of chemicals online from a Polish retailer.

The Norwegian Foreign Minister had visited the Labour Youth League summer camp on the island of Utoya Thursday, and was met with claims that Norway must recognize a Palestinian state,<ref>http://theintelhub.com/2011/07/23/breaking-camp-in-norway-where-shooting-occurred-had-just-concluded-pro-palestinian-rally-the-day-before</ref> which Breivik also opposes, as part of his nationalistic beliefs. Breivik also supports nationalistic movements in India.

==Breivik's manifesto and ideology==

Over a period of approximately three years, Breivik wrote and/or compiled a 1,518 page, partly plagiaristic manifesto titled ''2083 – A European Declaration of Independence,'' half of which he states he wrote himself. He sent this to 8,000 dedicated nationalists just before his murderous rampages began, and which was subsequently converted to a PDF file<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/07/2083manifesto.pdf Manifesto]</ref> and posted on the Internet after the attacks.

In his manifesto Breivik details how Islam invaded Europe in the past and was defeated, and expresses plans to combat, by an "armed indigenous rights movements/resistance movement" (p. 668), the latest Islamic invasion/attack in which they employ "demographic warfare." (p. 816) Breivik resistance involves raising up an army of ''Justiciar Knights,'' ''PCCTS,'' ("Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici" or "Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon" in English), commonly known as the Knights Templar,(p. 1509) which Breivik claimed had been re-formed in London in 2002.

Breivik's compendium/book presents "advanced ideological, practical, tactical, organizational and rhetorical solutions and strategies" for his war against "Islam and the cultural Marxism/multiculturalism in Western Europe," and its different political fronts, and the reestablishment of a secular "Christian" Catholic culture, and thus the restoration of Europe's cultural self-confidence (nationalism) by 2083. (pp. 4, 5, 802) Its extensive instructions include prolonged violence and the advocation of the use of drugs to enhance performance.

The manifesto also shows that Breivik was an active player of the World of Warcraft (and other computer games), and indicates that he was inspired by such themes.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/24/us-norway-manifesto-idUSTRE76N0X820110724 Norway's mass killer pursuing anti-Islam crusade]</ref>

While the manifesto contains a legal disclaimer that states certain chapters in Book 2 and Book 3 (a Declaration of pre-emptive War) were hypothetical, and "must not be confused with an actual plan, or strategy to attempt to harm any individuals...," and that the author does not condone such, (p. 766-68) yet it has become apparent that this disclaimer itself was part of his malevolent strategy.

Many [[liberal media]] articles characterized the gesture Breivik made in court as a "right-wing salute."<ref>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4259574/Breivik-makes-far-right-salute-as-trial-begins.html</ref><ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9206193/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-one-as-it-happened.html</ref><ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130364/Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-Norwegian-killer-breaks-Vlad-Impaler-video-played.html</ref><ref>http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/314866</ref> This is an attempt by [[Liberal|liberals]] to smear [[conservatism]].

==Religion and moral views==
On his Facebook profile, Breivik describes himself as a Christian. He states that he chose to be baptised into the Protestant Church of Norway at the age of 15, although he later became disenchanted with Norway's State Church. He supported “an indirect collective conversion of the Protestant church back to the Catholic” in an online post in 2009.

Deputy Police Chief Roger Andresen initially told reporters that "We have no more information than... what has been found on [his] own websites, which is that it goes towards the right and that it is, so to speak, Christian fundamentalist." <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14259356 BBC News], Europe, 23 July 2011</ref>

Likewise, some reports were quick to described Breivik as a “Christian terrorist,” based largely on his self-identity as one on his Facebook profile, and his postings to some Christian fundamentalist type websites on certain shared views.

However, in contrast to the common theological understanding of Christian fundamentalism, that of "militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism," and its emphasis on Protestant doctrine and salvation by faith,<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=bKXfuAYqI8EC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Fundamentalism+and+American+Culture&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=ygAuToT3KJTfgQfUycWlCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=anti-modernist%20Protestant&f=false George M. Marsden, "Fundamentalism and American culture]," pp. 3, 4, 110</ref> in his manifesto, Breivik referred to "Protestantism as the Marxism of Christianity". (p. 1346) He criticized salvation by faith and deplored "Christian fundamentalist theocracy" as "everything we do not want", in favor of "a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage". (p. 1346) He also commended the separation of church and state. (p. 1132)

Breivik invoked [[Roman Catholic]] canon law and the example of the [[Crusades]] for support, and looked toward a "Crusader Pope." (p. 1135) He also believed those who died in his case were worthy of an [[indulgence]], (pp. 1324-26, 46) and stated, "If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past," (p. 1345) and advocated that such take of "the [[Eucharist]] (Holy Communion/The Lord's Supper)" for the practical purpose of strength to face such death. (p. 1345)

Breivik also considered it sufficient that one be "a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist" to fight for his Christian cultural heritage, (p. 1361, 62) and held that "it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings." (p. 1403)

Breivik denied the need for a personal relationship with Christ to be a Christian, stating, “If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.” (p. 1307)

In response to the question as to why he choose an allegiance to a group with Christian values and pan-European goals instead of a purely national/regional group, Breivik stated that,
<blockquote>
"My choice has nothing to do with the fact that I am not proud of my own traditions and heritage. My choice was based purely pragmatism...A hateful ideology (white supremacist), death metal, Odinism, conspiracy theories does NOT have mass appeal...It is essential that we choose a banner that has the potential to appeal towards central and southern Europeans as well...Mass appeal should be the most essential factor in this strategy. (p. 1380,81)
</blockquote>
Responding to the issue of perceived anti-gay mentality among conservatives, Breivik stated,
<blockquote>
The multiculturalists WANT us to fit in their pre-defined stereotype. They want us to be racists, fascist, gay hating individuals because it would make their job so much easier in their effort to label us as the scum of the earth. The truth of the matter is that I personally know several gay individuals and have known several gay people during the years and I don't have any reservations against them. Why would I care what they do behind closed doors?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
However, I personally do object to the "gay media hysteria" which has been going on in Western Europe the last two decades. In many cases "alleged victim groups" are subjected to positive discrimination within politics, media and certain sectors. In those specific contexts it has become standard policy to discriminate so called "heterosexual men". Western European media, especially in the protestant countries are obsessed with cheering the gay community and other minorities they see as "preferred groups" in their so called "victim hierarchy". The glorification of "preferred groups" in the EUSSR "victim hierarchy" have gone too far. It's racist and fascist. (pp. 1357,58)
</blockquote>

In addition, Breivik stated that after 5 years in the Freemasons, he was finally accepted for rank 4-5. However, due to lack of time he decided to decline the offer and told them he would be unavailable until autumn 2011, due to extensive traveling. (p. 1431)

In an insight on his personal morality, Breivik was fond of the clubs in Hungary, though he disliked rock music. He avoided affairs with females for the sake of his mission, although he had engaged in fornication less recently, which he stated was "a relatively small sin compared to the huge amounts of grace I am about to generate with my martyrdom operation." He also revealed that he had reserved a substantial sum from his operations budget which he intend to spend on a quality prostitute just before or after he attended his final martyr's mass in Frogner Church in order to place him "biologically, mentally and spiritually at ease." (p. 1424)

While he avoided getting drunk due to the priority of his mission, he advocated the use of performance-enhancing drugs to that end, and he did enjoy getting very drunk at a birthday party. (p. 1415) He also played video games for pleasure and motivation, such as those in the "World of Warcraft" series and "Dragon Age Origins", and stated, "I regret to admit that I’ve become a notorious downloader of pirated movies, series and games etc." (p. 1418, 24, 25)

==Responses==
The attacks left the world stunned, not only due the number killed in such a manner, but because it happened in Norway, a country seen as relatively peaceful. And which was also due to the murdering being done by a blond haired, green eyed 32-year-old gunman, looking much like a Nordic ideal (he claimed Viking ancestry), who apparently had no criminal record other than traffic violations. Jens Breivik, the father of Anders Behring Breivik, who said his son cut off contact with him in 1995 (Breivik was 15-16 years old), sent his condolences to "all those who have suffered" as a result of the attacks, and said he is in "a complete state of shock and has not recovered".

Within a day, over 27,000 people signed up via Facebook for a memorial service in Oslo the next day, with numbers increasing rapidly. It was later reported that the whole country was watching the service. "Not a man in sight outside."

Geir Lippestad, Breivik's lawyer, told Norwegian media, "I think he's realized what he's done, and he views himself as sane." Lippestad continued, "He has said that he believed the actions were atrocious, but that in his head they were necessary...He wanted to hurt the Labour party and halt its recruitment in the worst possible way, referring to party members as Marxists." Extra security was planned for mosques around the U.K.

Breivik wrote of having strong links with the right-wing group, the English Defence League (EDL), which denied that Breivik had any links with them and stated that they "vehemently" opposed his actions.<ref>[http://telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8659028/Norway-shooting-July-24-as-it-happened.html Norway shootings: July 24 as it happened]</ref> Daryl Hobson, who organizes EDL demonstrations, condemned the killings, and stated that, “I spoke to him a few times on Facebook and he is extremely intelligent and articulate and very affable,” said the source. “He is someone who can project himself very well and I presume there would be those within the EDL who would be quite taken by that. It’s like Hitler, people said he was hypnotic. This guy had the same sort of effect.”<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8661139/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-had-extensive-links-to-English-Defence-League.html Norway killer Anders Behring Breivik had extensive links to English Defence League, The Telegraph, 25 Jul 2011]</ref>

Certain [[liberal]] sources, such as a Professor Juan Cole, were quick to implicate conservatives as somewhat culpable for Breivik's rampage, leading others to opine that, “The Left tends to use non-violent passive resistance, like with Gandhi and MLK, Jr.”

To which one respondent writes,

"Your above-cited quote is a good case of historical amnesia, deliberate or otherwise... You apparently have never heard of (or don’t want to acknowledge) the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and others in the U.S.; not to mention the Bolsheviks in Russia, Mao Zhe Dong in China, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, Kim Jong Il in North Korea, the FARC in Colombia, the Sendero Luminoso in Peru, The MIR in Chile, and other Leftist movements throughout the world that have used terrorism as a tactic. I think an objective tally would prove that both the Left and the Right are equal opportunity terrorists."<ref>"White Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism in Norway", Informed consent blog, posted on 07/23/2011</ref>

Fox News Host Bill O'Reilly stated that "No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith."

But [[atheist]] antagonist [[Bill Maher]] rejected that truth and asserted, "Religion ... gives people license to commit crazy acts," and warned of Christianity becoming "the violent blood-lusty religion it was under the crusades," ignoring that his own atheistic moral reasoning can justify the same or worse as false religion, while New Testament Christianity does not support such religious violence.

Republican Margaret Hoover responded to Mayer on his show by referring 50 million who were were killed in the 20th century in the name of atheism and communism (though 250 million may be more accurate<ref>[http://www.scholarscorner.com/apologia/deathtoll.html ''Atheism's Body Count - Ideology and Human Suffering'']</ref>), what she called "ideology run amok," and that Breivik only called himself a Christian, and in contrast to Islam, he was not "connected to a well -funded global terror network."<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/norway-shooting-bombing-bill-maher-insists-suspect-is-a-christian-terrorist-53116 Norway Shooting, Bombing: Bill Maher Insists Suspect Is a 'Christian Terrorist'] The Christian Post, U.S., Sat, Jul. 30 2011</ref>

The ''New York Times'' (which Breivik references a few times in his manifesto), in a opinion piece by Roger Cohen titled, ''Breivik and His Enablers,'' used the killing to implicate [[Sarah Palin]] with the attack on Representative [[Gabrielle Giffords]], while naming Republicans such as former House Speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] and Representative Peter King as "ideological fellow travelers" with Breivik, as well as "U.S. church pastors using their bully pulpits week after week to say America is a Christian nation under imminent threat from Islam." The columnist called such [[bigotry]], while he exhibited his own bigotry against the latter group of people, linking them to the actions of Breivik, and "a racist and murderous European right."<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/opinion/26iht-edcohen26.html?_r=1 "Breivik and His Enablers"] July 25, 2011</ref>

At the least, liberal journalists charged that Breivik seems to have been motivated by the view of right versus wrong that animates the "Christian worldview," which pits Marxism, multiculturalism, Islam, etc. as enemies of God and truth,<ref>[http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/4934/how_breivik%E2%80%99s_%E2%80%9Ccultural_analysis%E2%80%9D_is_drawn_from_the_%E2%80%9Cchristian_worldview%E2%80%9D/ Sarah Posner, "How Breivik’s “Cultural Analysis” is Drawn from the “Christian Worldview”"]</ref> while the same journalists fight against evangelical Christian faith, traditional morals and those who uphold them as being enemies of liberalism's deleterious social experiment that has cost America and the world greatly in souls, lives and money.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html Revealing Statistics: America in Decline; Present Costs of the War against God]</ref>

Others also cite evidence that liberalism is more prone to violence and terrorism.<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2010/03/16/liberal_violence_five_names_you_should_know/page/full Five names you should know]</ref><ref>http://pushbacknow.net/2011/01/16/history-of-liberal-violence History of liberal violence]</ref>

In contrast to the overall reaction by Islamic authorities to the acts of Muslim terrorists, the Christian community has been quick to condemn the attacks by Breivik as being contrary to authentic Christianity. Gordon Showell-Rogers, Associate International Director of the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), stated,

<blockquote>
“Norway’s strong Christian history has created a long history of peace within her borders and has been a significant contributor to Norway’s very positive impact on global peace efforts.” “Evangelical Christians globally condemn religious violence in the strongest possible terms, and are sickened when such violence is carried out in the name of Christ.”
</blockquote>

Norway's’ Pro Deutschland group concurred, saying,

<blockquote>
"As Christians and Conservatives, we want to express solidarity with the victims of the attacks of July 22. The hate that is driving Islamic assassins and fanatic individuals a la...Breivik is foreign to Christians and Conservatives."
</blockquote>

Norwegian minister. Olav Fykse Tveit, head of the World Council of Churches, representing 349 Protestant and Orthodox churches, told The Associated Press in response to the attack, "It's important to say to all Muslims wherever they are, in Europe or elsewhere in the world, that these actions in no way can express what is our Christian faith and our Christian values. It is blasphemous to make that kind of connection." <ref>[http://www.denverpost.com/fdcp?unique=1311801807723 Church's leader calls Norway rampage blasphemous] The Denver Post, 07/25/2011</ref>

It is also pointed out that while religious violence was sanctioned for Israel in a limited context, under the New Testament, the Bible does not offer any sanction for physical religious violence, such as,

* Christians killing others due to their contrary views.

* the church using violence in correcting false beliefs among church members

* the church exercising such to rule over those without

* the church exercising such to expand the physical territory of the church

A possible exception might be in order to save others from being hurt in an immediate situation, but that is hardly a religious context. And historically, rather than religious violence, many Christian Evangelical “fundamentalist” groups have chosen to be complete pacifists, while acts such as the Crusades are seen to be the result of Biblical illiteracy and of men presuming a higher authority. This led to the conclusion that those who assert that Breivik was acting consistent with the Bible may be potentially as dangerous as he is.<ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2752880/posts?page=32#32 Free Republic]</ref>

==Analysis==

Many liberal secular sources were quick to label Breivik a ''Christian extremist'', a "Christian fundamentalist with right-wing connections," or a "Christian terrorist," based upon a Facebook and a Twitter account in which he identifies himself as a Christian and a conservative.

However, rather than being product of evangelical or fundamental Bible-preaching, which historically has taught that it is fundamentally contrary to Christ to engage in religious violence, or after the manner of Breivik, further research revealed that the Christianity of Breivik was that of a "cultural Christian," one that denied the necessity of the conversionary new birth (John 3:3) and its personal relationship with Christ. (p. 1307)

Breivik also claimed to be a fan of some violent video games, and whose favorite television show was the serial killer show "Dexter."<ref>[http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/07/christian-fundamentalist-charged-death-toll-norway-soars-past-90/40321 Christian fundamentalist charged]</ref> He was also an advocate of performance enhancing drugs for his mission, and was a somewhat advanced Mason.

Although Breivik valued Christian morality in general, and had a perverse hope of glorification as a martyr, much of the value he placed upon religion was for the practical purposes of fulfilling his mission.

While Breivik could express a lucid understanding of problems due to liberalism, he also evidenced various delusions. His method of achieving a "a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage", (p. 1346) was itself immoral, and not in accordance with Scripture, as was much of his idea of a such a society itself.<ref>[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/just.how.christian.is.anders.behring.breivik/28334.htm "Just how Christian is Anders Behring Breivik?"], Christian Post, Tuesday, July 26, 2011</ref>

Breivik's goal seems to have been to bring about a repristinated Norway according to the memory of his youth and his interpretation of history, with a secular Christian but Catholic culture. He saw Islam as engaging in another invasion, this time by a birth rate far above that of the "indigenous" people, whom he compared to American Indians. (p. 688)

His antipathy toward the Islamisation of Europe apparently had beginnings far earlier, as he states that he remembers Muslim gangs in the 90's "that systematically harassed, robbed and beat ethnic Norwegian youngsters who were unfortunate enough to not have the right affiliations." (p. 1382)

Anders Breivik’s motivation for targeting of the youth camp of the Norwegian Labour Party was apparently due to its support of the Islamization of Europe, which some assert implicitly supported terrorism. The day before the massacre, Norwegian Foreign Minister Gahre-Store visited the camp and was greeted with banners calling for a boycott of Israel, and Gahre-Store responded with an anti-Israel speech to cheers from the campers. <ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/01/something-rotten-in-norway/print/Something Rotten in Norway], FrontPage magazine, August 1, 2011</ref>

However, his best friend was a man named Arsalan who was a Pakistani, 1389) and Breivik also asserted. "I don't hate Muslims at all. I acknowledge that there are magnificent Muslim individuals in Europe. In fact, I have had several Muslim friends over the years, some of which I still respect. This does not mean however that I will accept an Islamic presence in Europe. Muslim individuals who do not assimilate 100% within 2020 will be deported as soon as we manage to seize power. Although I do admit that I am disgusted by the current development, I would rather say I'm driven by my love for Europe, European culture and all Europeans. This does not mean that I oppose diversity. But appreciating diversity does not mean that you support genocide of your own culture and people by accepting for example Islamic Demographic Warfare." (p. 1382)

Breivik was anti-Nazi and also supported nationalists in India in general, who seek to make the Indian state a "Hindu nation" and its Sikh, Buddhist and Jain minorities incorporated into Hinduism, and impugned Christian missionary work among the lower caste. (p. 1475)

It therefore seems evident that what Breivik was engaged in was a culture war for the institution of a quasi-Catholic based secular culture as opposed to Islam, but his murderous means of waging such was like those of the Muslim extremists that he abhorred, and which methods afforded him little moral high ground. Also, paradoxically, his manifesto, with its guide to waging war, may have provided Muslim terrorists and other violent radicals with improved tactics, while his actions are expected to make it more difficult to peacefully support conservative values.

Although Breivik's legal disclaimer states that his manifesto is "a fictional account" by a "sci-fi writer" using a new writing style "that has the potential to shock the reader with an incredibly credible fictional plot (written in first, second and third person narrative), it seems apparent that the only part of the book intended to be fiction was his statement that "the author or distributor does not condone or agree with any of the descriptions or methods used in this book and the related chapters." (p. 767)

However, it may be speculated that Breivik's lack of distinction between fiction and reality was fostered by his indulgence in computer games. The pretense of writing fiction perhaps also allowed him to advocate and plan things that more objectively and rationally he might have not engaged in. In addition to the calculated killing, in dealing with the need for absolutely committed comrades, he stated that,

"The difference between an agent and a Justiciar Knight is that the latter will be willing to make a great sacrifice for the purpose of proper validation. Now what kind of sacrifice would be great enough to remove all doubt that the candidate is not a EU/US agent? A Justiciar Knight is willing to martyr himself for the cause while a EU/US agent will not be willing to sacrifice much. The entity should demand that the alleged Justiciar Knight in question surgically remove his penis and testicles and/or execute a fixed number of civilian children. While this requirement seems morbid, absurd and unreasonable, it is perhaps the most effective method of confirming the intentions of an individual. (p. 960)

That Breivik understood the gravity of his planned program of actions is evident from his statements in his manifesto. In the event that he had "a successful mission" and lived to "stand a multiculturalist trial," he stated that not only would all his friends and family
detest him and call him a monster, but that he would be "labeled as the biggest (Nazi-) monster ever witnessed since WW2." He wondered if he could biologically "survive the mental" pressures he expected, including physical torture, though he asserted, "I have an extremely strong psyche (stronger than anyone I have ever known)," and that "I will always know that I am perhaps the biggest champion of cultural conservatism, Europe has ever witnessed since 1950."

In the end, Breivik joins a list of other deluded souls who only wanted some form of Christianity - due to some of its positive aspects - but denied the power thereof, that is, Christ and His kingdom (and which denial paradoxically is conducive Islamic takeover), and therefore he choose "a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12)

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Breivik, Anders Behring}}

[[category: Crime]]

Anders Behring Breivik

2012-06-08T16:35:09Z

CWest: /* Breivik's manifesto and ideology */

'''Anders Behring Breivik''' (born Oslo, Norway, February 13th, 1979) was accused of, and has since confessed to, murdering 77 people<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/07/29/501364/main20085603.shtml Death Toll in Norway Attacks Rises to 77]</ref> during a killing spree in [[Norway]] on July 22, 2011. On that day, a bomb was detonated near government buildings in the capital city of [[Oslo]], killing eight. Some 90 minutes later, Breivik went to a summer camp on the island of Utoya and began shooting, killing 69 people.

Breivik describes himself as an investor, director, manager, revolutionary conservative, and resistance fighter.<ref>''2083 - A European Declaration of Independence,''p. 1398</ref> Prosecutors have said that Breivik played the video game World of Warcraft for nearly seven hours daily. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/08/prosecutors-norwegian-mass-murderer-played-world-of-warcraft-seven-hours-a-day/ Prosecutors:Norwegian mass-murderer played World of Warcraft seven hours a day, Daily Caller, June 8, 2012]</ref>

== Attacks ==
=== Oslo bombing ===
At approximately 15:26 local time on Friday, July 22, 2011, a car bomb detonated in the political center of Oslo. Eight people were killed, and the offices of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg were damaged, along with several other government buildings. Additional undetonated explosives were also located in the area, police confirmed the next day. The explosives were believed to be comprised of fertilizer and fuel, similar to the bomb used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.<ref name="bbc timeline">[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14260297 Timeline of attacks]</ref> Norwegian police later revealed that Breivik planned to attack the royal palace and the Labour Party’s headquarters in central Oslo as well as other locations that would “hit the government.”

=== Shooting spree on the island of Utoya ===
Utoya, an island located approximately 20 miles northwest of Oslo, has been used by the Worker's Youth League (AUF), the Norwegian Labor Party's youth wing, since the 1970s for summer camps.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/23/norway.camp.youth/index.html?eref=edition How Labour Party's paradise in Utoya turned to 'hell']</ref> Between 600 to 700 people were on the island on July 22, 2011. Around 16:57 local time, a man dressed as a policeman requested passage on a local ferry over to Utoya. He stated he was there to "do research in connection with the bomb blasts".<ref name="bbc timeline"/> He was reportedly armed with a pistol and an automatic rifle.<ref name="bbc timeline"/> According to witnesses, he gathered the camp atendees around him for an announcement, then began shooting at them. The people panicked, and began running in an attempt to get away. Some tried to swim to the mainland, and were shot while still in the water.

The first reports of the shootings reached authorities at 17:26, and by 17:40, a specialized SWAT team was dispatched from Oslo to the island, arriving at 18:09.<ref name="bbc timeline"/> Local police were already at the ferry crossing, but were waiting for a boat. Difficulties arose when the police boat was loaded with the men and equipment; the boat was too small and began to take on water.<ref name="bbc timeline"/> Recreational boats were used instead, and the authorities arrived on the island at 18:26.<ref name="bbc timeline"/> By this time, the shootings had been going on for over an hour.

When the police reached the gunman, they found him standing with his hands up, and his guns several yards away on the ground.<ref name="bbc timeline"/> He didn't resist arrest, and according to police, still had a significant amount of ammunition remaining.<ref name="bbc timeline"/>

Sixty-nine people, mostly teenagers, were killed in the shooting spree, with scores of others injured. Hospital officials reported Breivik used dum-dum bullets, which are designed to cause severe internal damage because they disintegrate within the body.<ref name="bbc timeline"/>

==Charges and investigation==

Breivik has been charged with acts of terrorism, including "destabilizing or destroying basic functions of society" and "creating serious fear in the population." While appearing before a judge on July 25, 2011, Breivik admitted to his acts but pleaded not guilty to the charge of terrorism,<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/world/europe/26oslo.html?_r=1&hp Norway Suspect Denies Guilt and Suggests He Did Not Act Alone]</ref> as he believes he was acting in pre-emptive self-defense <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/24/us-norway-manifesto-idUSTRE76N0X820110724 ''Norway's mass killer pursuing anti-Islam crusade''], Reuters, Sun Jul 24, 2011</ref>

A police press conference described Breivik as “more than willing to explain himself” during interrogations on Friday that lasted from 10:00 in the morning until 18:30 in the evening. Breivik’s lawyer, Geir Lippestad,also confirmed details of Breivik’s behaviour in the hearings and solitary confinement, telling VG that he was “very taken up with details” in his explanations about technical aspects of his operations, but that he “does not recognize our society, our courts or our justice system” because “his understanding of reality is not like other people’s.” He continues to see himself “as a great general that is at war against the Muslim’s invasion of Europe.” He has also been given two novels to read which “he did not like.”

Breivik planned to attack the royal palace and the Labour Party’s headquarters in central Oslo as well as other locations that would “hit the government.” Lippestad confirmed the fact that his client had “both A and B plans” when speaking to newspaper ''Dagbladet'', adding that the attacks he carried out were “probably the B plan.”<ref>[http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/07/30/breivik-planned-palace-attack/# Breivik planned palace attack]</ref> The 32-year-old murderer also said his bombing of government buildings in Oslo and shootings at the summer camp on Utoya island for Labour's youth wing was aimed at deterring future recruitment to the Labour party, which he blames for "mass imports of Muslims," which he accuses of engaging in "demographic warfare." <ref>http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16036733</ref>

Breivik will be kept in custody for eight weeks, the first four weeks being spent in solitary confinement with no visitors, letters or access to media. If convicted on the charges against him in Norway, a possible 30-year prison sentence could be imposed. However, as a Norwegian prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence must show they are no longer a danger to society before being granted parole, some believe that it is technically possible that Breivik could spend the rest of his life in prison. The prosecution said Breivik had behaved calmly and did not seem to be affected by events. The lawyer representing Anders Behring Breivik has stated that his client is most likely insane. <ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/norway-shooting-bombing-anders-behring-breivik-insane-lawyer-says-52835 ''The Christian Post, Norway Shooting, Bombing: Anders Behring Breivik Insane, Lawyer Says''], Jul. 26 2011</ref>

Norwegian newspaper ''VG Nett'' claims Anders Behring Breivik had been put on a terrorist watchlist after illegally buying large amount of chemicals online from a Polish retailer.

The Norwegian Foreign Minister had visited the Labour Youth League summer camp on the island of Utoya Thursday, and was met with claims that Norway must recognize a Palestinian state,<ref>http://theintelhub.com/2011/07/23/breaking-camp-in-norway-where-shooting-occurred-had-just-concluded-pro-palestinian-rally-the-day-before</ref> which Breivik also opposes, as part of his nationalistic beliefs. Breivik also supports nationalistic movements in India.

==Breivik's manifesto and ideology==

Over a period of approximately three years, Breivik wrote and/or compiled a 1,518 page, partly plagiaristic manifesto titled ''2083 – A European Declaration of Independence,'' half of which he states he wrote himself. He sent this to 8,000 dedicated nationalists just before his murderous rampages began, and which was subsequently converted to a PDF file<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/07/2083manifesto.pdf Manifesto]</ref> and posted on the Internet after the attacks.

In his manifesto Breivik details how Islam invaded Europe in the past and was defeated, and expresses plans to combat, by an "armed indigenous rights movements/resistance movement" (p. 668), the latest Islamic invasion/attack in which they employ "demographic warfare." (p. 816) Breivik resistance involves raising up an army of ''Justiciar Knights,'' ''PCCTS,'' ("Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici" or "Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon" in English), commonly known as the Knights Templar,(p. 1509) which Breivik claimed had been re-formed in London in 2002.

Breivik's compendium/book presents "advanced ideological, practical, tactical, organizational and rhetorical solutions and strategies" for his war against "Islam and the cultural Marxism/multiculturalism in Western Europe," and its different political fronts, and the reestablishment of a secular "Christian" Catholic culture, and thus the restoration of Europe's cultural self-confidence (nationalism) by 2083. (pp. 4, 5, 802) Its extensive instructions include prolonged violence and the advocation of the use of drugs to enhance performance.

The manifesto also shows that Breivik was an active player of the World of Warcraft (and other computer games), and indicates that he was inspired by such themes.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/24/us-norway-manifesto-idUSTRE76N0X820110724 Norway's mass killer pursuing anti-Islam crusade]</ref>

While the manifesto contains a legal disclaimer that states certain chapters in Book 2 and Book 3 (a Declaration of pre-emptive War) were hypothetical, and "must not be confused with an actual plan, or strategy to attempt to harm any individuals...," and that the author does not condone such, (p. 766-68) yet it has become apparent that this disclaimer itself was part of his malevolent strategy.

Many [[liberal media]] articles characterized the gesture Breivik made in court as a "right-wing salute."<ref>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4259574/Breivik-makes-far-right-salute-as-trial-begins.html</ref><ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/9206193/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-one-as-it-happened.html</ref><ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130364/Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-Norwegian-killer-breaks-Vlad-Impaler-video-played.html</ref><ref>http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/314866</ref> This is an attempt by [[Liberal|liberals]] to [[smear]] [[conservatism]].

==Religion and moral views==
On his Facebook profile, Breivik describes himself as a Christian. He states that he chose to be baptised into the Protestant Church of Norway at the age of 15, although he later became disenchanted with Norway's State Church. He supported “an indirect collective conversion of the Protestant church back to the Catholic” in an online post in 2009.

Deputy Police Chief Roger Andresen initially told reporters that "We have no more information than... what has been found on [his] own websites, which is that it goes towards the right and that it is, so to speak, Christian fundamentalist." <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14259356 BBC News], Europe, 23 July 2011</ref>

Likewise, some reports were quick to described Breivik as a “Christian terrorist,” based largely on his self-identity as one on his Facebook profile, and his postings to some Christian fundamentalist type websites on certain shared views.

However, in contrast to the common theological understanding of Christian fundamentalism, that of "militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism," and its emphasis on Protestant doctrine and salvation by faith,<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=bKXfuAYqI8EC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Fundamentalism+and+American+Culture&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=ygAuToT3KJTfgQfUycWlCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=anti-modernist%20Protestant&f=false George M. Marsden, "Fundamentalism and American culture]," pp. 3, 4, 110</ref> in his manifesto, Breivik referred to "Protestantism as the Marxism of Christianity". (p. 1346) He criticized salvation by faith and deplored "Christian fundamentalist theocracy" as "everything we do not want", in favor of "a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage". (p. 1346) He also commended the separation of church and state. (p. 1132)

Breivik invoked [[Roman Catholic]] canon law and the example of the [[Crusades]] for support, and looked toward a "Crusader Pope." (p. 1135) He also believed those who died in his case were worthy of an [[indulgence]], (pp. 1324-26, 46) and stated, "If there is a God I will be allowed to enter heaven as all other martyrs for the Church in the past," (p. 1345) and advocated that such take of "the [[Eucharist]] (Holy Communion/The Lord's Supper)" for the practical purpose of strength to face such death. (p. 1345)

Breivik also considered it sufficient that one be "a Christian-agnostic or a Christian atheist" to fight for his Christian cultural heritage, (p. 1361, 62) and held that "it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings." (p. 1403)

Breivik denied the need for a personal relationship with Christ to be a Christian, stating, “If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.” (p. 1307)

In response to the question as to why he choose an allegiance to a group with Christian values and pan-European goals instead of a purely national/regional group, Breivik stated that,
<blockquote>
"My choice has nothing to do with the fact that I am not proud of my own traditions and heritage. My choice was based purely pragmatism...A hateful ideology (white supremacist), death metal, Odinism, conspiracy theories does NOT have mass appeal...It is essential that we choose a banner that has the potential to appeal towards central and southern Europeans as well...Mass appeal should be the most essential factor in this strategy. (p. 1380,81)
</blockquote>
Responding to the issue of perceived anti-gay mentality among conservatives, Breivik stated,
<blockquote>
The multiculturalists WANT us to fit in their pre-defined stereotype. They want us to be racists, fascist, gay hating individuals because it would make their job so much easier in their effort to label us as the scum of the earth. The truth of the matter is that I personally know several gay individuals and have known several gay people during the years and I don't have any reservations against them. Why would I care what they do behind closed doors?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
However, I personally do object to the "gay media hysteria" which has been going on in Western Europe the last two decades. In many cases "alleged victim groups" are subjected to positive discrimination within politics, media and certain sectors. In those specific contexts it has become standard policy to discriminate so called "heterosexual men". Western European media, especially in the protestant countries are obsessed with cheering the gay community and other minorities they see as "preferred groups" in their so called "victim hierarchy". The glorification of "preferred groups" in the EUSSR "victim hierarchy" have gone too far. It's racist and fascist. (pp. 1357,58)
</blockquote>

In addition, Breivik stated that after 5 years in the Freemasons, he was finally accepted for rank 4-5. However, due to lack of time he decided to decline the offer and told them he would be unavailable until autumn 2011, due to extensive traveling. (p. 1431)

In an insight on his personal morality, Breivik was fond of the clubs in Hungary, though he disliked rock music. He avoided affairs with females for the sake of his mission, although he had engaged in fornication less recently, which he stated was "a relatively small sin compared to the huge amounts of grace I am about to generate with my martyrdom operation." He also revealed that he had reserved a substantial sum from his operations budget which he intend to spend on a quality prostitute just before or after he attended his final martyr's mass in Frogner Church in order to place him "biologically, mentally and spiritually at ease." (p. 1424)

While he avoided getting drunk due to the priority of his mission, he advocated the use of performance-enhancing drugs to that end, and he did enjoy getting very drunk at a birthday party. (p. 1415) He also played video games for pleasure and motivation, such as those in the "World of Warcraft" series and "Dragon Age Origins", and stated, "I regret to admit that I’ve become a notorious downloader of pirated movies, series and games etc." (p. 1418, 24, 25)

==Responses==
The attacks left the world stunned, not only due the number killed in such a manner, but because it happened in Norway, a country seen as relatively peaceful. And which was also due to the murdering being done by a blond haired, green eyed 32-year-old gunman, looking much like a Nordic ideal (he claimed Viking ancestry), who apparently had no criminal record other than traffic violations. Jens Breivik, the father of Anders Behring Breivik, who said his son cut off contact with him in 1995 (Breivik was 15-16 years old), sent his condolences to "all those who have suffered" as a result of the attacks, and said he is in "a complete state of shock and has not recovered".

Within a day, over 27,000 people signed up via Facebook for a memorial service in Oslo the next day, with numbers increasing rapidly. It was later reported that the whole country was watching the service. "Not a man in sight outside."

Geir Lippestad, Breivik's lawyer, told Norwegian media, "I think he's realized what he's done, and he views himself as sane." Lippestad continued, "He has said that he believed the actions were atrocious, but that in his head they were necessary...He wanted to hurt the Labour party and halt its recruitment in the worst possible way, referring to party members as Marxists." Extra security was planned for mosques around the U.K.

Breivik wrote of having strong links with the right-wing group, the English Defence League (EDL), which denied that Breivik had any links with them and stated that they "vehemently" opposed his actions.<ref>[http://telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8659028/Norway-shooting-July-24-as-it-happened.html Norway shootings: July 24 as it happened]</ref> Daryl Hobson, who organizes EDL demonstrations, condemned the killings, and stated that, “I spoke to him a few times on Facebook and he is extremely intelligent and articulate and very affable,” said the source. “He is someone who can project himself very well and I presume there would be those within the EDL who would be quite taken by that. It’s like Hitler, people said he was hypnotic. This guy had the same sort of effect.”<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8661139/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-had-extensive-links-to-English-Defence-League.html Norway killer Anders Behring Breivik had extensive links to English Defence League, The Telegraph, 25 Jul 2011]</ref>

Certain [[liberal]] sources, such as a Professor Juan Cole, were quick to implicate conservatives as somewhat culpable for Breivik's rampage, leading others to opine that, “The Left tends to use non-violent passive resistance, like with Gandhi and MLK, Jr.”

To which one respondent writes,

"Your above-cited quote is a good case of historical amnesia, deliberate or otherwise... You apparently have never heard of (or don’t want to acknowledge) the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and others in the U.S.; not to mention the Bolsheviks in Russia, Mao Zhe Dong in China, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, Kim Jong Il in North Korea, the FARC in Colombia, the Sendero Luminoso in Peru, The MIR in Chile, and other Leftist movements throughout the world that have used terrorism as a tactic. I think an objective tally would prove that both the Left and the Right are equal opportunity terrorists."<ref>"White Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism in Norway", Informed consent blog, posted on 07/23/2011</ref>

Fox News Host Bill O'Reilly stated that "No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith."

But [[atheist]] antagonist [[Bill Maher]] rejected that truth and asserted, "Religion ... gives people license to commit crazy acts," and warned of Christianity becoming "the violent blood-lusty religion it was under the crusades," ignoring that his own atheistic moral reasoning can justify the same or worse as false religion, while New Testament Christianity does not support such religious violence.

Republican Margaret Hoover responded to Mayer on his show by referring 50 million who were were killed in the 20th century in the name of atheism and communism (though 250 million may be more accurate<ref>[http://www.scholarscorner.com/apologia/deathtoll.html ''Atheism's Body Count - Ideology and Human Suffering'']</ref>), what she called "ideology run amok," and that Breivik only called himself a Christian, and in contrast to Islam, he was not "connected to a well -funded global terror network."<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/norway-shooting-bombing-bill-maher-insists-suspect-is-a-christian-terrorist-53116 Norway Shooting, Bombing: Bill Maher Insists Suspect Is a 'Christian Terrorist'] The Christian Post, U.S., Sat, Jul. 30 2011</ref>

The ''New York Times'' (which Breivik references a few times in his manifesto), in a opinion piece by Roger Cohen titled, ''Breivik and His Enablers,'' used the killing to implicate [[Sarah Palin]] with the attack on Representative [[Gabrielle Giffords]], while naming Republicans such as former House Speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] and Representative Peter King as "ideological fellow travelers" with Breivik, as well as "U.S. church pastors using their bully pulpits week after week to say America is a Christian nation under imminent threat from Islam." The columnist called such [[bigotry]], while he exhibited his own bigotry against the latter group of people, linking them to the actions of Breivik, and "a racist and murderous European right."<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/opinion/26iht-edcohen26.html?_r=1 "Breivik and His Enablers"] July 25, 2011</ref>

At the least, liberal journalists charged that Breivik seems to have been motivated by the view of right versus wrong that animates the "Christian worldview," which pits Marxism, multiculturalism, Islam, etc. as enemies of God and truth,<ref>[http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/4934/how_breivik%E2%80%99s_%E2%80%9Ccultural_analysis%E2%80%9D_is_drawn_from_the_%E2%80%9Cchristian_worldview%E2%80%9D/ Sarah Posner, "How Breivik’s “Cultural Analysis” is Drawn from the “Christian Worldview”"]</ref> while the same journalists fight against evangelical Christian faith, traditional morals and those who uphold them as being enemies of liberalism's deleterious social experiment that has cost America and the world greatly in souls, lives and money.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html Revealing Statistics: America in Decline; Present Costs of the War against God]</ref>

Others also cite evidence that liberalism is more prone to violence and terrorism.<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2010/03/16/liberal_violence_five_names_you_should_know/page/full Five names you should know]</ref><ref>http://pushbacknow.net/2011/01/16/history-of-liberal-violence History of liberal violence]</ref>

In contrast to the overall reaction by Islamic authorities to the acts of Muslim terrorists, the Christian community has been quick to condemn the attacks by Breivik as being contrary to authentic Christianity. Gordon Showell-Rogers, Associate International Director of the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA), stated,

<blockquote>
“Norway’s strong Christian history has created a long history of peace within her borders and has been a significant contributor to Norway’s very positive impact on global peace efforts.” “Evangelical Christians globally condemn religious violence in the strongest possible terms, and are sickened when such violence is carried out in the name of Christ.”
</blockquote>

Norway's’ Pro Deutschland group concurred, saying,

<blockquote>
"As Christians and Conservatives, we want to express solidarity with the victims of the attacks of July 22. The hate that is driving Islamic assassins and fanatic individuals a la...Breivik is foreign to Christians and Conservatives."
</blockquote>

Norwegian minister. Olav Fykse Tveit, head of the World Council of Churches, representing 349 Protestant and Orthodox churches, told The Associated Press in response to the attack, "It's important to say to all Muslims wherever they are, in Europe or elsewhere in the world, that these actions in no way can express what is our Christian faith and our Christian values. It is blasphemous to make that kind of connection." <ref>[http://www.denverpost.com/fdcp?unique=1311801807723 Church's leader calls Norway rampage blasphemous] The Denver Post, 07/25/2011</ref>

It is also pointed out that while religious violence was sanctioned for Israel in a limited context, under the New Testament, the Bible does not offer any sanction for physical religious violence, such as,

* Christians killing others due to their contrary views.

* the church using violence in correcting false beliefs among church members

* the church exercising such to rule over those without

* the church exercising such to expand the physical territory of the church

A possible exception might be in order to save others from being hurt in an immediate situation, but that is hardly a religious context. And historically, rather than religious violence, many Christian Evangelical “fundamentalist” groups have chosen to be complete pacifists, while acts such as the Crusades are seen to be the result of Biblical illiteracy and of men presuming a higher authority. This led to the conclusion that those who assert that Breivik was acting consistent with the Bible may be potentially as dangerous as he is.<ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2752880/posts?page=32#32 Free Republic]</ref>

==Analysis==

Many liberal secular sources were quick to label Breivik a ''Christian extremist'', a "Christian fundamentalist with right-wing connections," or a "Christian terrorist," based upon a Facebook and a Twitter account in which he identifies himself as a Christian and a conservative.

However, rather than being product of evangelical or fundamental Bible-preaching, which historically has taught that it is fundamentally contrary to Christ to engage in religious violence, or after the manner of Breivik, further research revealed that the Christianity of Breivik was that of a "cultural Christian," one that denied the necessity of the conversionary new birth (John 3:3) and its personal relationship with Christ. (p. 1307)

Breivik also claimed to be a fan of some violent video games, and whose favorite television show was the serial killer show "Dexter."<ref>[http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/07/christian-fundamentalist-charged-death-toll-norway-soars-past-90/40321 Christian fundamentalist charged]</ref> He was also an advocate of performance enhancing drugs for his mission, and was a somewhat advanced Mason.

Although Breivik valued Christian morality in general, and had a perverse hope of glorification as a martyr, much of the value he placed upon religion was for the practical purposes of fulfilling his mission.

While Breivik could express a lucid understanding of problems due to liberalism, he also evidenced various delusions. His method of achieving a "a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage", (p. 1346) was itself immoral, and not in accordance with Scripture, as was much of his idea of a such a society itself.<ref>[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/just.how.christian.is.anders.behring.breivik/28334.htm "Just how Christian is Anders Behring Breivik?"], Christian Post, Tuesday, July 26, 2011</ref>

Breivik's goal seems to have been to bring about a repristinated Norway according to the memory of his youth and his interpretation of history, with a secular Christian but Catholic culture. He saw Islam as engaging in another invasion, this time by a birth rate far above that of the "indigenous" people, whom he compared to American Indians. (p. 688)

His antipathy toward the Islamisation of Europe apparently had beginnings far earlier, as he states that he remembers Muslim gangs in the 90's "that systematically harassed, robbed and beat ethnic Norwegian youngsters who were unfortunate enough to not have the right affiliations." (p. 1382)

Anders Breivik’s motivation for targeting of the youth camp of the Norwegian Labour Party was apparently due to its support of the Islamization of Europe, which some assert implicitly supported terrorism. The day before the massacre, Norwegian Foreign Minister Gahre-Store visited the camp and was greeted with banners calling for a boycott of Israel, and Gahre-Store responded with an anti-Israel speech to cheers from the campers. <ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/01/something-rotten-in-norway/print/Something Rotten in Norway], FrontPage magazine, August 1, 2011</ref>

However, his best friend was a man named Arsalan who was a Pakistani, 1389) and Breivik also asserted. "I don't hate Muslims at all. I acknowledge that there are magnificent Muslim individuals in Europe. In fact, I have had several Muslim friends over the years, some of which I still respect. This does not mean however that I will accept an Islamic presence in Europe. Muslim individuals who do not assimilate 100% within 2020 will be deported as soon as we manage to seize power. Although I do admit that I am disgusted by the current development, I would rather say I'm driven by my love for Europe, European culture and all Europeans. This does not mean that I oppose diversity. But appreciating diversity does not mean that you support genocide of your own culture and people by accepting for example Islamic Demographic Warfare." (p. 1382)

Breivik was anti-Nazi and also supported nationalists in India in general, who seek to make the Indian state a "Hindu nation" and its Sikh, Buddhist and Jain minorities incorporated into Hinduism, and impugned Christian missionary work among the lower caste. (p. 1475)

It therefore seems evident that what Breivik was engaged in was a culture war for the institution of a quasi-Catholic based secular culture as opposed to Islam, but his murderous means of waging such was like those of the Muslim extremists that he abhorred, and which methods afforded him little moral high ground. Also, paradoxically, his manifesto, with its guide to waging war, may have provided Muslim terrorists and other violent radicals with improved tactics, while his actions are expected to make it more difficult to peacefully support conservative values.

Although Breivik's legal disclaimer states that his manifesto is "a fictional account" by a "sci-fi writer" using a new writing style "that has the potential to shock the reader with an incredibly credible fictional plot (written in first, second and third person narrative), it seems apparent that the only part of the book intended to be fiction was his statement that "the author or distributor does not condone or agree with any of the descriptions or methods used in this book and the related chapters." (p. 767)

However, it may be speculated that Breivik's lack of distinction between fiction and reality was fostered by his indulgence in computer games. The pretense of writing fiction perhaps also allowed him to advocate and plan things that more objectively and rationally he might have not engaged in. In addition to the calculated killing, in dealing with the need for absolutely committed comrades, he stated that,

"The difference between an agent and a Justiciar Knight is that the latter will be willing to make a great sacrifice for the purpose of proper validation. Now what kind of sacrifice would be great enough to remove all doubt that the candidate is not a EU/US agent? A Justiciar Knight is willing to martyr himself for the cause while a EU/US agent will not be willing to sacrifice much. The entity should demand that the alleged Justiciar Knight in question surgically remove his penis and testicles and/or execute a fixed number of civilian children. While this requirement seems morbid, absurd and unreasonable, it is perhaps the most effective method of confirming the intentions of an individual. (p. 960)

That Breivik understood the gravity of his planned program of actions is evident from his statements in his manifesto. In the event that he had "a successful mission" and lived to "stand a multiculturalist trial," he stated that not only would all his friends and family
detest him and call him a monster, but that he would be "labeled as the biggest (Nazi-) monster ever witnessed since WW2." He wondered if he could biologically "survive the mental" pressures he expected, including physical torture, though he asserted, "I have an extremely strong psyche (stronger than anyone I have ever known)," and that "I will always know that I am perhaps the biggest champion of cultural conservatism, Europe has ever witnessed since 1950."

In the end, Breivik joins a list of other deluded souls who only wanted some form of Christianity - due to some of its positive aspects - but denied the power thereof, that is, Christ and His kingdom (and which denial paradoxically is conducive Islamic takeover), and therefore he choose "a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12)

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Breivik, Anders Behring}}

[[category: Crime]]

Anders Behring Breivik

2012-06-08T16:34:31Z

CWest: /* Breivik's manifesto and ideology */

Counterexamples to Evolution

2012-06-08T16:02:59Z

CWest: fix math error

[[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.<ref>http://creation.com/question-eviolution Question evolution! campaign] by [[Creation Ministries International]]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] ]]
The [[theory of evolution]] does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. '''If any of the 48 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 probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 9%.
==Counterexamples==
===Logical examples===
# 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.
# Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.
# Evolution cannot explain the 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>
# ''Pleiotropy'', the fact that a change of a single gene can have several different effects, renders the "improvement" of animals by random mutation impossible, as any mutation with a potentially beneficial effect will be coupled with one or more other potentially lethal effects.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria</ref>
# The development of feathers, which could not have conceivably "grown" from the scales of reptiles<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>
# For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going. <ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90743</ref>
# There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed ''one'' come into existence had it evolved.
# If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.
# If evolution were true, then there would be more than one species under the claimed genus ''Homo''. However, this is not the case.
# Evolution should lead to the extinction of homosexuality, as sinful homosexuals are unfit to contribute to the gene pool, yet to this day homosexuality continues to exist.
# The Theory of Evolution dictates that all organisms descended from single celled bacteria. Considering that bacteria is, and always has been, the most successful group of organisms, covering all areas of the globe in some of the most extreme environments, why would it have been advantageous to evolve into organisms that are so much more limited to the environments they can inhabit? Surely, staying as bacteria would be far more advantageous, due to their tolerence of extreme conditions, quick reproduction time, etc.
# The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] establishes that everything in the world becomes more disordered over time, in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, like an impossible [[perpetual motion machine]].
# The [[Law of Large Numbers]] states that things tend to revert to their average over time (the large number of examples), while evolution requires the opposite: that things become more complex and depart further from their average over time and large numbers of examples.

===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>]]
# The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and 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>
# 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.
# Evolution requires that random mutations can cause one [[kind]] to change into another, but this has never been observed.
# The existence of two symmetrical kidneys, which are unnecessary in most people, lacks a plausible evolutionary explanation based on functionality alone. Because evolution falsehoods mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a deceased donor in the United States is five years" and "3,916 patients waiting for a kidney in 2006 died before one became available."<ref>[http://www.scienceline.org/2009/03/04/levitan-health-living-kidney-donor-transplant/] This article observes, "As a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found, living kidney donors live as long or longer and enjoy better quality of life than the general population."</ref>
#Thousands of years of intense selective breeding should have produced a new wolf species from domesticated dogs, yet dogs and wolves remain the same species.

===Maladaptation===

# 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.
# The gradual buildup of deleterious mutations in an organism's genome as the species grows older limits the maximum lifespan of a species well under what would be required for evolution. 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 badly overcrowded in the front of the mouth.
# Human fertility is rapidly declining, disproving evolutionary improvement in humans and also suggesting a brief timeline for human existence.
# Evolutionist theory predicts that in the case of [[convergent evolution]], a particular structure such as an eye that evolves in an optimal form in one species can later evolve in a suboptimal form in a different species. No such result has ever been observed.
# Constantly mutating, drug-resistant [[pathogen]]s such as [[MRSA]] have been demonstrated to be the result of devolution rather than evolution.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Genesis-of-Germs-The,5181,224.aspx Genesis of Germs], from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> This is the exact opposite of what evolutionary theory predicts.

===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.]]
# 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.
#Lungs never would have had to develop unless the animal was already on land, in which case, they would die before reproducing.
#There is no explanation within the theory of evolution through natural selection for the mechanism in which a catapillar turns into a butterfly. Essentially the original animal is broken down and rearranged into a totally different animal, with no simmilar physical characteristics. This process cannot be explained within the theory, and points to a designer's involvement.

===Uncategorized===
# Evolution would result in modern languages having one common ancestral language, and for nearly a century linguists insisted that there must be one. There is not, and linguists now accept that there are completely independent families of languages.
# 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>
# Scientists have found proof that the first chicken came before the first egg,<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38238685/ns/technology_and_science-science/</ref> consistent with a special creation of chickens but not with a gradual descent with modifications from a proto-chicken and proto-egg.
# Despite the large (and ever increasing) number of breeds of [[dog]]s, and the fact that some pure bred lineages of dogs are reproductively isolated from other dogs, no new species of dog has evolved.<ref>http://creation.com/dogs-breeding-dogs</ref>

== Question evolution! campaign ==
[[Image:Carl weiland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] is the Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</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]]

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

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

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

Chuck Norris

2012-06-08T15:18:35Z

CWest: /* Other facts */ mistake

[[Image:chuck_norris.jpg|right|Chuck Norris publicity shot from official website.]]

'''Carlos Ray "Chuck" Norris''', born March 10, 1940 (age {{age|1940|3|10}}), is a popular American martial artist and actor, perhaps best known as the star of the popular television series, ''Walker, Texas Ranger''.<ref name="bio">[http://www.chucknorris.com/html/biog.html Official Chuck Norris Biography]</ref>

Norris, a conservative Christian, has written several books, financially supported various Republican political candidates, and has written columns for the conservative site, [[WorldNetDaily]], since 2006. Through his columns, Norris has been an outspoken critic of the [[theory of evolution]]<ref name="mania" />, the teaching of which he holds partially responsible for school shootings: "We teach our children they are nothing more than glorified apes, yet we don't expect them to act like monkeys."<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55333 "The heroes of America's academic halls"], by Chuck Norris</ref>

==Early Life==
Norris was born in Ryan, Oklahoma to Wilma and Ray Norris, and was named after his father's minister. He has two younger brothers, Weiland (who died in the Vietnam War), and Aaron. He is part Cherokee. Norris's parents divorced when he was 16, and his mother moved with him and his brothers first to Kansas, and then California. According to his biography, his father was an alcoholic who wasn't there for him while he was growing up.<ref name="norris"/>

He served with distinction from 1958 to 1962 in the USAF, where he got his nickname "Chuck" and a black belt in martial arts. In 1958 he married his wife Dianne Holechek, and had two sons (Mike and Eric) with her. They divorced in 1988. A daughter, Dina, was born in 1964 as a result of an extramarital affair.<ref>[http://www.heraldextra.com/lifestyles/article_326336dd-5f35-54a2-98a3-f0dfaa1d8cca.html Chuck Norris authors online anti-abortion tract] February 2, 2007, heraldextra.com, retrieved September 28, 2011</ref> He did not meet his daughter until she was 26 years old.

In 1998, Norris married Gena O'Kelley, a former model born in 1963. Their twins, Dakota Alan and Danilee Kelly Norris, were born in 2001.

==Martial arts career==
After his left the Air Force, Norris began competing in martial arts tournaments. He won at least 30 tournaments over his career, and held the title of World Professional Middleweight Karate Champion for six consecutive years. Some say that Norris, in 1997, became the first American to ever earn an 8th-degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do; however, there are two other Americans who earned their 8th-degree black belts before him.<ref>Chuck Sereff received his in 1990, and Edward Sell earned his in 1991. They both have since earned their 9th-degree black belt, making them the highest-ranking Westerners in the world in Tae Kwon Do.</ref> He has created his own form of martial arts, Chun Kuk Do, with the following rules:

# I will develop myself to the maximum of my potential in all ways.
# I will forget the mistakes of the past and press on to greater achievements.
# I will continually work at developing love, happiness and loyalty in my family.
# I will look for the good in all people and make them feel worthwhile.
# If I have nothing good to say about a person, I will say nothing.
# I will always be as enthusiastic about the success of others as I am about my own.
# I will maintain an attitude of open-mindedness.
# I will maintain respect for those in authority and demonstrate this respect at all times.
# I will always remain loyal to my God, my country, family and my friends.
# I will remain highly goal-oriented throughout my life because that positive attitude helps my family, my country and myself.

==Acting==
His first movie was an uncredited appearance in''The Green Berets'' in 1968. His first starring role was in ''Breaker! Breaker!'', released in 1977. He also starred in movies such as ''The Octagon'' (1980), ''An Eye for an Eye'' (1981), ''Lone Wolf McQuade'', ''Code of Silence'', ''The Delta Force'', as well as the ''Missing in Action'' film trilogy, which he dedicated to the memory of his younger brother who had died in the [[Vietnam War]].<ref name="norris">[http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/Chuck-Norris/biography/ Chuck Norris Biography] monstersandcritics.com, retrieved on September 28, 2011</ref>

In 1993 Norris started filming ''Walker, Texas Ranger'', a hit TV show that aired on CBS until 2001. In 2005, he filmed ''Walker, Texas Ranger: Trial by Fire'' for CBS's Sunday night 'Movie of the Week'.<ref name="norris"/>

==Politics and Religion==

He has written about the vast [[atheist]] conspiracy to outlaw Christianity in the United States, <ref name="outlaw">[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55668 "How to outlaw Christianity (Step 1)"], by Chuck Norris</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55789 "How to outlaw Christianity (Step 2 and 3)"], by Chuck Norris</ref> the first step of which is the acceptance of atheists in our government:

:"Though the majority of Americans continue to claim to be Christians, a Gallup poll discovered 45 percent of us would support an atheist for president. Such a survey is a clear indication that the secularization of society is alive and well."<ref name="outlaw" />
To thwart this menace of secularization, Norris has jokingly promised that if elected [[President of the United States of America|President]] he would "tattoo an American flag with the words 'In God we trust' on the forehead of every atheist," "require every member of Congress work out on the Total Gym 15 minutes each day," and "deport all [[Liberals]]." <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56107 "If I am elected president"], by Chuck Norris</ref>
Norris is active in many Christian causes, including the [[Billy Graham Evangelistic Association]] and [[Feed the Children]]<ref>[http://www.chucknorris.com/html/christian.aspx Chuck Norris Official Website: Christian]</ref>. He and his wife are the spokespersons for the [[National Council on Bible Curriculum]], which seeks to bring state certified [[Bible]] courses to public high schools nationwide<ref>[http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/21073870.html "Actor Chuck Norris and Wife Gena Join National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools Board of Directors"], ''Christian Newswire''</ref>.

Norris is a [[Republican Party|Republican]] and has donated more than $32,000 to Republican candidates and organizations since 1988. Norris once filled in for [[Sean Hannity]] on [[Hannity and Colmes]].
<ref>[http://wcbstv.com/slideshows/Conservative.Celebrities.20.824701.html Celebs Who Lean To The Right - Slide 5], ''wcbstv.com'', Accessed on April 5, 2009</ref> Norris supported [[Mike Huckabee]] for U.S. President in the 2008 Republican primary. <ref>[http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58255 My choice for president], ''WorldNetDaily'', October 21, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58502 Huckabee, not duck-n-weave], ''WorldNetDaily'', November 5, 2007</ref> Norris was also featured in a television campaign ad with Huckabee. <ref>[http://youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8 Huckchuckfacts Add on Youtube]</ref>

Norris criticized opponents of California's Proposition 8 (which outlawed gay marriage) for practicing double standards when they protested and harassed Mormons for supporting the bill while ignoring the fact "70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8."<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2008/11/18/if_democracy_doesnt_work,_try_anarchy If democracy doesn't work, try anarchy] Norris, Chuck, townhall.com, November 18, 2008, retrieved September 28, 2011</ref>
==Other facts==

Chuck Norris is also famous for endorsing the "Total Gym" exercise machine.<ref>[http://www.totalgymdirect.com/ Total Gym Website]</ref>

Chuck Norris exhibits no lack of [[machismo]] at all.

Chuck Norris is also the subject of the popular internet phenomenon known as "Chuck Norris Facts." <ref name="mania">[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52567 On Chuck Norris 'mania' sweeping the Net], ''WorldNetDaily'', October 23, 2006</ref> Which portray Chuck as the most powerful manly man in the universe. For example it is said that Chuck Norris's tears cure cancer, too bad he never cries.

==Honors==
*Numerous black belts in martial arts.
*He is an honorary US Marine (Devil Dog)
*Honorary Texas Ranger

==External links==
* [http://www.chucknorris.com/ Chuck Norris Official Website]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT: Norris, Chuck}}
[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Columnists]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Chuck Norris

2012-06-08T15:18:06Z

CWest: /* Other facts */

[[Image:chuck_norris.jpg|right|Chuck Norris publicity shot from official website.]]

'''Carlos Ray "Chuck" Norris''', born March 10, 1940 (age {{age|1940|3|10}}), is a popular American martial artist and actor, perhaps best known as the star of the popular television series, ''Walker, Texas Ranger''.<ref name="bio">[http://www.chucknorris.com/html/biog.html Official Chuck Norris Biography]</ref>

Norris, a conservative Christian, has written several books, financially supported various Republican political candidates, and has written columns for the conservative site, [[WorldNetDaily]], since 2006. Through his columns, Norris has been an outspoken critic of the [[theory of evolution]]<ref name="mania" />, the teaching of which he holds partially responsible for school shootings: "We teach our children they are nothing more than glorified apes, yet we don't expect them to act like monkeys."<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55333 "The heroes of America's academic halls"], by Chuck Norris</ref>

==Early Life==
Norris was born in Ryan, Oklahoma to Wilma and Ray Norris, and was named after his father's minister. He has two younger brothers, Weiland (who died in the Vietnam War), and Aaron. He is part Cherokee. Norris's parents divorced when he was 16, and his mother moved with him and his brothers first to Kansas, and then California. According to his biography, his father was an alcoholic who wasn't there for him while he was growing up.<ref name="norris"/>

He served with distinction from 1958 to 1962 in the USAF, where he got his nickname "Chuck" and a black belt in martial arts. In 1958 he married his wife Dianne Holechek, and had two sons (Mike and Eric) with her. They divorced in 1988. A daughter, Dina, was born in 1964 as a result of an extramarital affair.<ref>[http://www.heraldextra.com/lifestyles/article_326336dd-5f35-54a2-98a3-f0dfaa1d8cca.html Chuck Norris authors online anti-abortion tract] February 2, 2007, heraldextra.com, retrieved September 28, 2011</ref> He did not meet his daughter until she was 26 years old.

In 1998, Norris married Gena O'Kelley, a former model born in 1963. Their twins, Dakota Alan and Danilee Kelly Norris, were born in 2001.

==Martial arts career==
After his left the Air Force, Norris began competing in martial arts tournaments. He won at least 30 tournaments over his career, and held the title of World Professional Middleweight Karate Champion for six consecutive years. Some say that Norris, in 1997, became the first American to ever earn an 8th-degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do; however, there are two other Americans who earned their 8th-degree black belts before him.<ref>Chuck Sereff received his in 1990, and Edward Sell earned his in 1991. They both have since earned their 9th-degree black belt, making them the highest-ranking Westerners in the world in Tae Kwon Do.</ref> He has created his own form of martial arts, Chun Kuk Do, with the following rules:

# I will develop myself to the maximum of my potential in all ways.
# I will forget the mistakes of the past and press on to greater achievements.
# I will continually work at developing love, happiness and loyalty in my family.
# I will look for the good in all people and make them feel worthwhile.
# If I have nothing good to say about a person, I will say nothing.
# I will always be as enthusiastic about the success of others as I am about my own.
# I will maintain an attitude of open-mindedness.
# I will maintain respect for those in authority and demonstrate this respect at all times.
# I will always remain loyal to my God, my country, family and my friends.
# I will remain highly goal-oriented throughout my life because that positive attitude helps my family, my country and myself.

==Acting==
His first movie was an uncredited appearance in''The Green Berets'' in 1968. His first starring role was in ''Breaker! Breaker!'', released in 1977. He also starred in movies such as ''The Octagon'' (1980), ''An Eye for an Eye'' (1981), ''Lone Wolf McQuade'', ''Code of Silence'', ''The Delta Force'', as well as the ''Missing in Action'' film trilogy, which he dedicated to the memory of his younger brother who had died in the [[Vietnam War]].<ref name="norris">[http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/Chuck-Norris/biography/ Chuck Norris Biography] monstersandcritics.com, retrieved on September 28, 2011</ref>

In 1993 Norris started filming ''Walker, Texas Ranger'', a hit TV show that aired on CBS until 2001. In 2005, he filmed ''Walker, Texas Ranger: Trial by Fire'' for CBS's Sunday night 'Movie of the Week'.<ref name="norris"/>

==Politics and Religion==

He has written about the vast [[atheist]] conspiracy to outlaw Christianity in the United States, <ref name="outlaw">[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55668 "How to outlaw Christianity (Step 1)"], by Chuck Norris</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55789 "How to outlaw Christianity (Step 2 and 3)"], by Chuck Norris</ref> the first step of which is the acceptance of atheists in our government:

:"Though the majority of Americans continue to claim to be Christians, a Gallup poll discovered 45 percent of us would support an atheist for president. Such a survey is a clear indication that the secularization of society is alive and well."<ref name="outlaw" />
To thwart this menace of secularization, Norris has jokingly promised that if elected [[President of the United States of America|President]] he would "tattoo an American flag with the words 'In God we trust' on the forehead of every atheist," "require every member of Congress work out on the Total Gym 15 minutes each day," and "deport all [[Liberals]]." <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56107 "If I am elected president"], by Chuck Norris</ref>
Norris is active in many Christian causes, including the [[Billy Graham Evangelistic Association]] and [[Feed the Children]]<ref>[http://www.chucknorris.com/html/christian.aspx Chuck Norris Official Website: Christian]</ref>. He and his wife are the spokespersons for the [[National Council on Bible Curriculum]], which seeks to bring state certified [[Bible]] courses to public high schools nationwide<ref>[http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/21073870.html "Actor Chuck Norris and Wife Gena Join National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools Board of Directors"], ''Christian Newswire''</ref>.

Norris is a [[Republican Party|Republican]] and has donated more than $32,000 to Republican candidates and organizations since 1988. Norris once filled in for [[Sean Hannity]] on [[Hannity and Colmes]].
<ref>[http://wcbstv.com/slideshows/Conservative.Celebrities.20.824701.html Celebs Who Lean To The Right - Slide 5], ''wcbstv.com'', Accessed on April 5, 2009</ref> Norris supported [[Mike Huckabee]] for U.S. President in the 2008 Republican primary. <ref>[http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58255 My choice for president], ''WorldNetDaily'', October 21, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58502 Huckabee, not duck-n-weave], ''WorldNetDaily'', November 5, 2007</ref> Norris was also featured in a television campaign ad with Huckabee. <ref>[http://youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8 Huckchuckfacts Add on Youtube]</ref>

Norris criticized opponents of California's Proposition 8 (which outlawed gay marriage) for practicing double standards when they protested and harassed Mormons for supporting the bill while ignoring the fact "70 percent of African-Americans voted in favor of Proposition 8."<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2008/11/18/if_democracy_doesnt_work,_try_anarchy If democracy doesn't work, try anarchy] Norris, Chuck, townhall.com, November 18, 2008, retrieved September 28, 2011</ref>
==Other facts==

Chuck Norris is also famous for endorsing the "Total Gym" exercise machine.<ref>[http://www.totalgymdirect.com/ Total Gym Website]</ref>

Chuck Norris exhibits no machismo at all.

Chuck Norris is also the subject of the popular internet phenomenon known as "Chuck Norris Facts." <ref name="mania">[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52567 On Chuck Norris 'mania' sweeping the Net], ''WorldNetDaily'', October 23, 2006</ref> Which portray Chuck as the most powerful manly man in the universe. For example it is said that Chuck Norris's tears cure cancer, too bad he never cries.

==Honors==
*Numerous black belts in martial arts.
*He is an honorary US Marine (Devil Dog)
*Honorary Texas Ranger

==External links==
* [http://www.chucknorris.com/ Chuck Norris Official Website]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT: Norris, Chuck}}
[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Columnists]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Osama Bin Laden

2012-06-08T13:11:56Z

CWest: /* Photographs */

[[Image:382px-AQ00100.jpg|right|200px]]
'''Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden''' ([[Arabic language|Arabic]]: أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن‎, Usāmah bin Muḥammad bin ‘Awaḍ bin Lādin; (born March 10, 1957 - died May 2, 2011.), commonly known as '''Osama bin Laden''' (Arabic: أسامة بن لادن), was a radical [[Sunni]] [[Muslim]], and the leader of [[al Qaeda]], a worldwide [[terrorist]] group responsible for the [[September 11, 2001 attacks]], terrorist attacks on Americans in the 1990s, and other attacks on innocent civilians in Europe, Asia, and Africa.

== Family ==

Bin Laden was an Arab from a Yemeni family that made a fortune in construction in [[Saudi Arabia]]. His family disowned bin Laden in 1994 and the Saudi Arabian government revoked both his passport and citizenship. He went to [[Afghanistan]] with his network of Arab allies to fight against the Soviets in the [[Soviet-Afghan War]]. He was never aided or funded by the U.S. or the CIA.

== Terrorism and al Qaeda ==

In bin Laden's declarations and writings, he asserts that American attacks against Muslims justify reciprocation by Muslims, including the killing of innocents as a part of militaristic [[jihad]]. He refers to Islamic states headed by individuals friendly to the United States as usurper states which are disloyal to [[Islam]].

Bin Laden and his followers were based in war-torn Sudan for most of the 1990s at the invitation of [[Hassan al-Turabi]], a powerful Sudanese political leader and terrorism supporter. In the late 1990s bin Laden issued two fatahs (declarations of holy war) against the United States for the basing of troops in the Arabian Peninsula to defend against external aggression by [[Saddam Hussein]] and because of the suffering of the Iraqi people under UN economic sanctions.<ref>[http://www.kimsoft.com/2001/binladenwar.htm bin Laden's Declaration of War], 1998.</ref>

In 1998, bin Laden and [[Ayman al-Zawahiri]], then leader of the Egyptian terrorist group called the [[Islamic Brotherhood]], announced the joining of al Qaeda and the Islamic Brotherhood to form the ''World Islamic Front for the Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders''<ref> http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir011003_1_n.shtml</ref>. In 1998, the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were destroyed by suicide bombers; the United States later indicted both bin Laden and al-Zawahiri for the attacks which killed 224 people. In retaliation the United States launched [[cruise missile]]s, however, both terrorist leaders escaped. They then fled to Afghanistan, where al Qaeda set up camps that were protected by the [[Taliban]] government. When the Taliban refused to turn al Qaeda terrorists over to justice, NATO invaded and liberated Afghanistan in Oct. 2001. He was almost captured but escaped to Pakistan, where local warlords continued to harbor him. Occasionally he released a recording giving new threats.

In the 1990s, bin Laden also gave funding to Chechen terrorists fighting against Russia<ref>[http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/DJ29Ag05.html]</ref>. These terrorists were later responsible for the [[Beslan school siege of 2004]]. Chechens also fought in Afghanistan against U.S. forces on behalf of the Taliban<ref>[http://muslimvillage.net/story.php?id=370]</ref>.
Bin Laden was cited by the United States government as the most wanted terrorist.

== Abbottabad raid ==
:''Main article: [[Abbottabad raid]]''
Bin Laden was killed in a mansion outside [[Abbottabad]], a highland town 110 km. north of Islamabad, capital of [[Pakistan]]. According to news reports, the White House, and the US Military, facial recognition, and DNA evidence confirmed the identity of the man killed as Osama bin Laden. Initial reports said the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attack did not have the opportunity to surrender:[[File:P050310PS-0374POD.jpg|250px|thumb|Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism [[John Brennan]] briefs Obama prior to the assault; Brennan, a [[George W. Bush]] administration holdover, was a strong advocate of [[torture]] and put in charge of the program. <ref>http://washingtonindependent.com/20009/is-john-brennan-really-a-torture-advocate</ref><ref>http://www.newsweek.com/2009/04/02/holy-hell-over-torture-memos.html</ref><ref>http://www.democrats.com/node/20938</ref>]]
<blockquote>
"In the room with Bin Laden, a woman, Bin Laden's wife, rushed the U.S. assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed," White House spokesman Jay Carney said. "Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed." CIA Director [[Leon Panetta]] said in an interview on PBS television Tuesday that he did not believe Bin Laden had a chance to speak before he was shot in the face and killed. "To be frank, I don't think he had a lot of time to say anything," Panetta said. [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/sc-dc-0504-bin-laden-us-20110503,0,6448886.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29]
</blockquote>
which was disputed by Safia, bin Laden's 13 year old daughter who witnessed the events.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/05/05/Bin-Laden-family-narrative-surfaces/UPI-30131304608664/</ref>

<blockquote>
Safia bin Laden, one of the terrorist leader's daughters, allegedly told Pakistani interrogators that a special team of U.S. military personnel captured her father alive. She added that he was initially taken alive but executed at point-blank range on the ground floor of his compound, London's pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat reports. [http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2011/05/05/Bin-Laden-family-narrative-surfaces/UPI-30131304608664/#ixzz1LjgchIGA]

</blockquote>

Initial White House reports also stated that one of his wives who was captured in the raid identified the body as well.<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/02/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-and-assistant-president-homela</ref> Three men besides Bin Laden and a woman were killed.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2011/may/04/osama-bin-laden-compound</ref> Osama was later buried at sea in the Arabian Sea, less than a day after his death; a burial at sea leaves no marked grave (no definitive location). Several pundits have pointed out that this would prevent Islamic extremists from creating a shrine of his grave site.

=== Managed news ===
President Obama was the first senior U.S. official to disclose the operation announcing, "After a firefight, they killed Usama bin Laden and took custody of his body." In a conference call with reporters less than twenty minutes later, a trio of “senior administration officials” were asked if bin Laden was "involved in firing [a weapon] himself or defending himself," one of the briefers replied: "He did resist the assault force. And he was killed in a firefight." Elsewhere in the conference [[National Security Council]] spokesman Tommy Vietor stated: “As the President said this evening, bin Laden was killed in a firefight as our operators came onto the compound.” One of the briefers added “One woman was killed when she was used as a shield by a male combatant.”

Monday morning Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell convened a briefing featuring “senior Defense officials” and “senior intelligence officials.” One of the senior Pentagon officers said, “The American team engaged in a firefight, and as indicated last night, Usama bin Laden did resist.” The same official elaborated on the statement about a woman having been killed. The number involved had at least tripled, from solely bin Laden to “[bin Laden] and some other male combatants” and “appeared to use…women as shields” to “certainly did use women as shields.” One of the intelligence briefers said, “[bin Laden] died during a firefight.” A Pentagon official volunteered that “two women were wounded” in addition to the one killed. Finally, a Department of Defense briefer provided the first estimate of how long the gunfire lasted. “[T]hrough most of the 40 minutes during which U.S. special operators were on the compound,” he said, “they were engaged in a firefight.”

Two hours later, the president’s Assistant for Homeland Security and Counter-Terrorism, [[John Brennan]], joined White House Press Secretary [[Jay Carney]] in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room. Brennan described how he, [[Obama]], and the rest of the national security team had kept tabs on the action. “We were able to monitor the situation in real time and were able to have regular updates and to ensure that we had real-time visibility into the progress of the operation,” Brennan said. “I'm not going to go into details about what type of visuals we had or what type of feeds that were there, but it was -- it gave us the ability to actually track it on an ongoing basis.” The Al Qaeda chief, he said, “was engaged in a firefight with those that entered the area of the house,” and “was killed in that firefight.” Brennan also added the late terrorist was “hiding behind women who were put in front of him as shields” – evidence, to the White House’s eyes, of “how false [bin Laden’s] narrative has been over the years.”

===White House misinformation===

The storyline came under attack the next day. “So Brennan in his briefing yesterday made a couple of, I guess, misstatements – or statements that later appeared to be somewhat incorrect,” began the first question at Carney’s televised press briefing. The reporter listed as false both the idea that bin Laden’s wife had been used as a shield – that anyone at all had been used as a shield – and also that bin Laden had been armed, and a participant in the firefight. “Are you guys in a fog of war in this,” Carney was asked, “or what gives?”

Carney admitted that key parts of of the administrations story had been wrong.

“[W]hat is true is that we provided a great deal of information with great haste in order to inform you and, through you, the American public about the operation and how it transpired…And obviously some of the information was -- came in piece by piece and is being reviewed and updated and elaborated on.” Then Carney retreated to a prepared statement, drafted by officials at the Department of Defense, beyond which he would spend the rest of the briefing refusing to stray. “I have a narrative that I can provide to you on the raid itself,” he said. (Precisely because it emerged in such tangled form, the record of the bin Laden killing is replete with uses, by both officials and reporters alike, of the word “narrative.”)

What followed was an account of the mission, 349 words long (including Carney’s momentary stumbles), that comprised the most extensive chronicle of the raid Abbottabad which contained the crucial new detail: bin Laden was “not armed.”

“[I]f he didn’t have his hand on a gun, how was he resisting?” asked one member of the press corps. “I think resistance does not require a firearm,” Carney shot back. “But the information I gave you is what I can tell you about it. I’m sure more details will be provided as they come available.” Carney clung to the notion that the “volatile” firefight, which he said had comprised “a great deal of resistance,” had persisted “throughout the operation.” Reporters bore in on the discrepancies in “the narrative.” Carney told reporters, “Even I’m getting confused.” “Bin Laden’s wife was unarmed as well?” a reporter asked. “That is my understanding,” Carney replied. The Department of Defense account had not mentioned whether Mrs. Bin Laden was armed or not. Was anyone else in the room with bin Laden and his wife? “I don’t know that,” Carney admitted.

“In the narrative,” a reporter continued, “which of those women was being used a human shield, as Mr. Brennan suggested yesterday?” Here, at last, Carney acknowledged the haziness of “the narrative.” “[W]hat I would say about that is…to use your phrase, fog of war, fog of combat,” Carney said. “[T]here was a lot of information coming in. It is still unclear. The woman I believe you’re talking about might have been the one on the first floor who was caught in the crossfire [and killed]. Whether or not she was being used as a shield or trying to use herself as a shield or simply caught in crossfire is unclear. And we’re working on getting the details that we can.”

President Obama had earlier addressed a bipartisan dinner with congressional leaders in the East Room on Monday evening and spoke of "the capture and death" of bin Laden. The president let slip the fact that bin Laden had been subjected not only to death but also to “capture.” One of bin Laden’s daughters, Safia, breathed further life into this notion when she told ''Al-Arabiya'' that U.S. forces had indeed captured her father, and shot him dead within the first few minutes of the raid. CIA officials soon waved reporters off the claim, dismissing Obama’s remark to the lawmakers as a simple misstatement.

=== Photographs ===

On May 4, 2011, Obama announced that the post-mortem photographs of bin Laden would not be released.<ref name="cbsnews" /> One of the reasons for this was to protect American troops still stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan from possible riots that might be incited by [[Islam|Muslims]] after they saw the pictures. According to CNN, the most recognizable photo of Bin Laden was taken in a hangar after the operation was complete. However, there is a massive open head wound across both eyes, and it is considered gruesome and mangled enough that it would not be appropriate to print on the front page of a newspaper.<ref>[http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/03/even-more-on-the-photos/?hpt=T1 Even more details on the OBL photos] CNN, 05/03/2011</ref>

Republican senator and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee [[Saxby Chambliss]] of Georgia and Republican senator and member of the armed services committee [[Kelly Ayotte]] of New Hampshire claimed to have seen the post-mortem photographs of bin Laden<ref name="cbsnews">[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20059739-503544.html?tag=cbsContentWrap;cbsContent Obama: I won't release bin Laden death photos] CBS News, 05/04/2011</ref>, however the photos they viewed were actually fake.<ref>[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/04/6586256-fake-out-senators-confused-over-bin-laden-photos Fake out: Senators confused over bin Laden photos] MSNBC, 05/04/2011</ref>

=== Reactions to raid ===
In the US, news of Bin Laden's death was generally met with a mixture of relief and joy, ranging from spontaneous public gatherings to celebrate the news, to more sober reactions by victims of the September 11 attacks.

Some have withheld judgment on whether or not they believe Osama was killed, including one mother of a 9/11 victim.[[File:Osama White House Reactions 4 2 2011.jpg|thumb|Osama's death, White House Reactions on 5/2/2011.]]
<blockquote>
But for Stella Olender of Chicago, her questions aren’t politically-motivated conspiracy theories, but rather the still-fresh wounds of losing a daughter, 39-year-old Christine, who died at the World Trade Center in the Sept. 11 attacks.
“Is it true or false? I don’t know,” Olender said in a phone interview while working at her tailoring and cleaning business in the city’s Hanson Park neighborhood.
Olender said she’s particularly concerned because U.S. officials have said bin Laden’s body was buried at sea but haven’t offered any photographic proof that he was killed.
“To me, that seems strange, that they disposed of it and no one (besides) whoever was right there knows what happened, if it’s true or false, you know?” Olender said. [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-bin-laden-gone-but-not-conspiracy-theories-20110502,0,4993669.story]</blockquote>

About the compound in Abbottabad where Osama was killed, a neighboring resident said,
<blockquote>
“That house is in an army area. What kind of standards does the Pakistan army have — they’re fools? If you think they’re fools, okay, Osama’s here,” said ur-Rehman. He said that he and others in the area have concluded that bin Laden was not there and that the United States staged a “drama.” [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/bin-laden-neighbors-saw-little-amiss/2011/05/03/AF0alFjF_story.html?hpid=z2]
</blockquote>

===Presidential approval polls===
Two weeks after bin Laden was killed about half of President Obama’s approval rating bounce has disappeared. The [[Gallup poll]] put his job-approval rating at 48 percent, higher than the 43-to-44 percent weekly averages he had before the Abbottobad raid but lower than the 51 percent he scored in the week immediately after. Pollsters Glen Bolger and Jim Hobart noted “bin Laden’s death was not the game-changer some predicted it would be. The killing of bin Laden resulted in a small approval bump for the president but had little (if any) impact on his chances of being reelected." They also noted “There is no telling the impact of the White House messing up the narrative.” Pollster Charlie Cook observed news organizations focused on the actual story, rather than "the administration’s preferred message."<ref>http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/why-no-bounce-for-obama--20110519</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Islamic terrorism]]
* [[Afghanistan War]]
* [[Terrorism]]
* [[FBI Most Wanted Terrorist List]]

== External links ==
*[http://davidraygriffin.com/books/osama-bin-laden-dead-or-alive/ Osama bin Laden Dead or Alive?] by David Ray Griffin.
*[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bin-laden-conspiracy-20110503,0,3052618.story?page=2 Bin Laden's sea burial fuels conspiracy theories.]

==Further reading==
* Randal, Jonathan. ''Osama: The Making of a Terrorist'' (2004). 339 pp.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bin Laden, Osama}}
[[Category:Terrorists]]
[[Category: al-Qaeda]]
[[Category:Muslims]]
[[Category:Afghanistan War]]

September 11, 2001 attacks

2012-06-08T13:09:57Z

CWest: /* The Suspects */

[[Image:National Park Service 9-11 Statue of Liberty and WTC fire.jpg|right|300px|thumb|The view of the burning towers of the World Trade Center from Staten Island, New York City, September 11, 2001]]
[[File:Pentagon sept11.jpg|right|300px|thumb|The damage to the Pentagon, Washington D.C., September 11, 2001]]
The '''Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001''' occurred when [[al Qaeda]], [[Islam|Islamic extremists]] hijacked four transcontinental airliners and used them to strike targets in the [[United States]]; two aircraft destroyed the twin towers of the [[World Trade Center]] in [[New York City]]; the third crashed into a portion of the [[Pentagon]] in Washington, D.C.; and the fourth aircraft - in which the hijackers are believed to have targeted the White House or the Capitol Building - crashed into an empty field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after passengers fought back to re-take control.

The sheer audacity of the attack and the heavy loss of life that resulted from it caused the U.S. government to declare a [[War on Terror]] with the determination to hunt down terrorists world-wide; within two months of September 11, [[Afghanistan]] was completely occupied by American forces, driving the ruling Islamo-fascist [[Taliban]] from power and causing the head of al Qaeda and the man who personally approved the attacks - [[Osama bin Laden]] - to flee into hiding.

==The Hijacking==
All 19 hijackers boarded the planes on the morning of September 11, having carefully chosen flights whose routes would be transcontinental. Two planes flew out of Boston's Logan Airport, one flew from Washington's Dulles International Airport, and the fourth left an airport in Newark, New Jersey.

===New York City===
[[File:911rtrs 468x683.jpg|right|200px|thumb|United Airlines Flight 175 about to crash into the south tower of of the World Trade Center as the north tower burns from the crash of American Airlines Flight 11.]]
American Airlines Flight 11 left Logan Airport around 8 AM, carrying 11 crew and 81 passengers; its destination was Los Angeles, California. United Airlines Flight 175 left Logan a few minutes later, carrying 9 crew and 56 passengers, and also on a flight to Los Angeles. Both aircraft were the 767-200, manufactured by the Boeing Company.

At 8:25 AM Boston air traffic controllers heard a strange voice from Flight 11: "We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport." The plane then headed south toward New York City; at 8:46 AM the plane crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center between the 93 and 99th floors. Sixteen minutes later, at 9:03 AM, Flight 175 crashed into the south tower - at a greater speed and more oblique angle - between the 77th and 85th floors.

The impact of the crashes took out any hope of getting to victims and survivors on the affected floors and the floors above; many people desperate to get away from the smoke and fire jumped. Both towers were designed to survive the impact of a 1960s-era jet, but the Boeing 767 was larger and carried more fuel; it was determined later that the heat from the burning fuel weakened the central steel structure and supports. At 9:59 am the south tower collasped; the upper floors had lost support in the damaged area and fell - pancake style - to the ground. At 10:29 AM the north tower fell in a similar manner. The death toll was around 2,750, including more than 300 firefighters and 100 police officers and other rescue workers.

The building at 7 World Trade Center, commonly abbreviated as WTC7, also collapsed in the attacks. This collapse is frequently cited in various [[9/11 conspiracy theories|conspiracy theories]].

===Washington, D.C.===
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200, left Dulles at 8:20 AM, carrying 6 crew and 58 passengers on a flight to Los Angeles. Forty minutes later the aircraft had turned back toward Washington; at 9:37 it crashed at high-speed into the west side of the Pentagon, killing a total of 184 people. Despite being built of reinforced concrete, the aircraft was able to penetrate to the third concentric ring of the building.

===Shanksville, Pennsylvania===
[[File:ShanksvilleSept11.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Val McClatchey snapped this photo moments after Flight 93 hit the ground near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.]]
United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757-200, left Newark at 8:40 AM, with a destination of San Francisco. Unlike the other planes which had four hijackers each, Flight 93 had three; it also had passengers who, through onboard phone calls, learned of the previous hijackings and crashes and determined to wrest control of the aircraft back from the terrorists. Turned towards Washington, the plane ended up crashing in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:03 AM, the only one of the aircraft which failed to reach its target. Among the recorded conversations between the passengers and phone operators was the phrase "Let's roll" by Todd Beamer, made just before he set down his phone and took action with the other passengers involved; Beamer's last phrase would become a rallying cry in the coming war on terrorism.

===Ground Casualties===
The total loss of life is constantly being reevaluated to account for wrongly reported missing persons and, in some cases, occurrences of fraud. Estimates of more than 6,000 deaths were announced following the attacks. The current estimate is 2,996 fatalities as a direct result of the attacks. About 500 foreign nationals from over 90 countries are believed to have died in the attack.<ref> [http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/29/wtc.deaths/ "New York Reduces 9/11 Death Toll by 40"] at CNN.com, Phil Hirschkorn, 10/29/03</ref>

The Department of Defense reported the deaths of 125 people at The Pentagon. The aftermath of the World Trade Center towers collapsing created a good deal of confusion and has been the main source of discrepancies in casualty estimates. As of October 29, 2003, New York City reported 2605 deaths in the attacks, not counting the passengers and crew of the planes. <ref> [http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/29/wtc.deaths/ "New York Reduces 9/11 Death Toll by 40"] at CNN.com, Phil Hirschkorn, 10/29/03</ref>

As a matter of course, the deaths of the 19 [[suicide|hijackers]] are not included in these casualty totals.

===Economic Impact===
The material costs of the attacks are well in excess of one hundred billion US dollars. Factoring in stock market losses, loss of revenue in New York City, loss of jobs, impact on air travel, and heightened security, some estimate the cost approaches two trillion dollars.<ref>[http://www.iags.org/costof911.html The Cost of September 11] Institute for the Analysis of Global Security</ref>

Some estimates of the cost of executing the plan place it in the $400,000-$500,000 range, making it an extremely "profitable" operation for al-Qaeda. <ref>[http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm The 9/11 Commission Report]</ref>

==The Suspects==
Suspicion fell on Osama bin Laden and his [[Islam|Islamic extremist]] al-Qaeda organization almost immediately. Known to have harbored hatred for the United States since the basing of U.S. fighters and other military personnel in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, bin Laden has tried "To kill Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it," <ref>[http://awildernessvoice.com/Mohammed.html]</ref>, and often succeeding. In four previous attacks, bin Laden's operatives
*killed 6 in a bomb explosion in the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993;
*killed 19 soldiers in 1996 at a military housing complex in Saudi Arabia;
*killed more than 200 people in the simultaneous bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania;
*killed 17 sailors by putting an explosives-laden boat next to USS ''Cole'' while that destroyer was refueling in Yemen in 2000.

His personal fortune, estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars, has enabled him to finance well-coordinated operations, including the training of the hijackers in close-quarter fighting, commandeering of aircraft, and ironically to bankroll their education in American flight schools.

==Social Impacts==

Following the attacks there was a strong surge of patriotism in virtually all facets of American society. The government, being aware that the most deadly attack ever on American soil could stir up animosity against the ethnic or religious group of the perpetrators, went out of its way along with the media to separate Islam from the actions taken by its more radical adherents, referring to it at multiple times as a "religion of love". While people of Middle Eastern decent and adherents of Islam were concerned at first, the overall effect of hostility towards these groups was barely noticeable. Although there were literally millions of Muslims in America out of a total population of 300 million who could have sought out reprisals, in an entire year less than 500 cases of aggression of verbal hostility were reported. Muslims responded to the magnanimous treatment they received from Americans by seeking to construct an insulting and offensive [[Ground Zero Mosque]].

==Consequences of the Attacks on U.S. Policy==
===Domestic Policy===

The attacks were a direct or indirect cause of massive changes in United States domestic policy. Most notably, the ''Homeland Security Act of 2002'' "established a [[Department of Homeland Security]], as an executive department of the United States" <ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/bill/hsl-bill.pdf H.R. 5005 The Homeland Security Act]</ref>, a cabinet level position. One of the tools implemented by the Department is the [[Homeland Security Advisory System]], a color coded advisory system meant to "establish a comprehensive and effective means to disseminate information regarding the risk of terrorist acts to Federal, State, and local authorities and to the American people." <ref>[http://www.dhs.gov/xinfoshare/laws/ DHS Laws and Regulations] Department of Homeland Security</ref>

Another notable result of the attacks was the ''[[USA PATRIOT Act|USA PATRIOT Act of 2001]]'' ('''U'''niting and '''S'''trengthening '''A'''merica by '''P'''roviding '''A'''ppropriate '''T'''ools '''R'''equired to '''I'''ntercept and '''O'''bstruct '''T'''errorism). The act was written to expand the authority of law enforcement and the justice system in the pursuit of terrorism suspects.<ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR: ''The USA PATRIOT Act''] Library of Congress</ref>

===Foreign Policy===

In response to the attacks, the United States declared a [[War on Terror]], which comprises United States military action in [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]] as well as a significant increase in intelligence gathering and a new outlook on foreign relations.

==Conspiracy Theories==

''Main article: [[9/11 conspiracy theories]]''

[[Image:393px-WTC-remnant highres.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Remains of the South Tower, September 13, 2001.]]
Many conspiracy theories have sprouted up from the events of September 11, 2001, including the "Loose Change" movies seen on YouTube.<ref>[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061002/alterman Lying About 9/11? Easy as [[ABC]]], Eric Alterman, ''The Nation'', September 14, 2006 (October 2, 2006 issue).</ref> These movies have been comprehensively disproven by independent experts.<ref>[http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html "Debunking The 9/11 Myths"] ''Popular Mechanics'', Mar. 2005 Cover Story</ref> Prominent endorsers of such theories include talk show host [[Rosie O'Donnell]] as well as actor [[Charlie Sheen]]. A third of the American public has bought into the idea of some sort of role by federal officials. {{fact}} This view is much more common among those who get their news solely from the internet and is rare for those who read newspapers or watch the news on regular television. {{fact}}

==See Also==
*[[Suicide bomber: a personal account]]

==Sources==
*[http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf The 9/11 Commission Report]
*[http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers], [[National Institute of Standards and Technology|NIST]].
*[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/index.html September 11: Chronology of Terror] at CNN.com
*[http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm Federal Bureau of Investigations PENTTBOM Press Release]
*[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/main.html Lists of Victims] at CNN.com

==Additional Information==
*[http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive The Internet Archive's file of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, and BBC broadcasts for Sept 11-13, 2001]
*[http://www.televisionarchive.org/ Television Archive of news broadcasts for 9/11]

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

{{Terrorism}}
[[category:United States History]]
[[Category:Riots and terrorist incidents in the United States]]
[[Category:Afghanistan War]]

United States of America

2012-06-08T13:08:05Z

CWest: /* Geography */

{{Country
|name =''United States of America''
|map =US map.PNG
|map2 =Loc of United States.png
|established=1776
|flag =50 star flag.png
|arms =United States arms.png
|capital =Washington, D.C.
|government =Constitutional Republic
|language =English
|official =n
|president =Barack Hussein Obama
|area =3,718,695 sq mi
|pop =313,232,000 (2011)
|gdp-year = $15 trillion (2011)
|gdp-pc =$48,029 (2011)
|currency =United States Dollar (USD)
}}
The '''United States of America'''<ref>(''conventional short form'': '''United States'''; ''abbreviation'': '''US''' or '''USA'''; sometimes also referred to as '''the States''' or simply as '''America''')</ref> is the most [[conservative]], prosperous and free nation in the world, based on one of the longest-running [[Constitution]]s in history. Located in [[North America]], this nation consists of a federal union of fifty individual states, along with territories and a capital district. Founded originally as 13 colonies in the [[British Empire]], Britain's American colonies broke with the mother country on July 4, 1776 with the [[Declaration of Independence]].<ref>IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776. [http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America], ushistory.org, (Accessed August 2010).</ref> The new nation became recognized as the United States of America following the [[American Revolutionary War|War of Independence]] in 1783. Shortly thereafter, in 1787, the [[United States Constitution]] was written; grounded on [[Republican form of government|republican]] political principles and [[Judeo-Christian]] values, the Constitution remains in effect today, albeit with several amendments since then. The Americans created political parties and, since abolishing [[slavery]] in a bloody [[American Civil War|civil war]] (1861-65), instituted a form of government guided by the rule of law rather than the desires of a majority of voters. According to the U.S. Constitution written by America's [[Founding Fathers]], the United States is a [[Constitutional Republic]]. It is not a true [[Democracy|democracy]], but is a form of one.

America's capitalist economy grew rapidly, becoming the largest in the world by the 1870s. During the 19th and 20th centuries, 37 new states were added to the original 13 as the nation expanded across the North American continent and acquired a number of overseas possessions. After defeating Communism in the [[Cold War]], the U.S. emerged as the world's only [[superpower]], boasting the largest economy and most powerful military. It exerts enormous cultural and intellectual influence worldwide, and in return is the target of the enemies of democracy and [[capitalism]].

The capital of the United States of America is [[Washington, DC]].

== People ==
[[File:Php3sfokfPM.jpg|220px|left|At Washington, DC.]]
Population: 310,232,863 (July 2010 est.) Population growth rate: 0.97% (2010 est.) Labor force: 153.9 million (2010 est.).

Ethnic groups: white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate) note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean persons of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin including those of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican Republic, Spanish, and Central or South American origin living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.); about 15.1% of the total US population is Hispanic <ref> [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html CIA - The World Factbook.] </ref>

In 2010, around 400,000 [[illegal immigrants]] were deported. The Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, estimates 11.5 million to 12 million "unauthorized migrants" live in the US today. <ref> [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0516/p01s02-ussc.html Illegal immigrants in the US: How many are there?] </ref>

Although the diverse group of immigrants that has come to the U.S. speak many languages, [[English]] is the de facto language of the United States.
==Geography==

[[File:Colorado.jpg|thumb|[[Colorado]].]]
North America, bordering both the North [[Atlantic Ocean]] and the North [[Pacific Ocean]], is between [[Canada]] and [[Mexico]]. In addition to the boundaries of the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean, the United States is otherwise bounded by the [[Bering Sea]], the Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Two of the fifty states, Alaska and Hawaii (an archipelago), are not contiguous with any of the other states. Puerto Rico, which is largely self governing, is part of the U.S., as are several smaller territories in the Pacific Ocean, such as Guam. Each of the 50 states has a large degree of sovereignty, but the boundaries are debated and shift slightly every year.

At over 3.7 million square miles (over 9.6 million km²), the U.S. (including its non-contiguous and overseas states and territories) is the third largest country by total area (after Russia and Canada). It is the world's third most populous nation, with over 350 million people (after China and India).

Mt. McKinley, Alaska, is the highest point in North America and Death Valley, California, is the lowest point on the continent. <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html CIA World Factbook], ''North America :: United States'', Updated on February 23, 2011, (Accessed on February 23, 2011).</ref>

==History==

===American Revolution===
{{main|American Revolution}}
[[File:Washington-deleware.jpg|thumb|left|Washington, Chief of the Continental Army, is shown crossing the Delaware River.]]
The American Revolution exploded from fears the British Empire was trying to restrict the historic rights and liberties of Americans. The British victory in the French and Indian War ended the threat that foreign powers might attack the colonies; Britain's protection was no longer needed. At the same time Britain decided to assert its powers by imposing [[taxes]]. The taxes (as on stamps, sugar, and tea) were not large but the principle was simple: Americans insisted their own [[Legislature|legislatures]] could impose taxes but not [[Parliament]], because Americans were not represented there. "No taxation without representation!" and "[[Don't tread on me]]" became common phrases in America by the American people, but the British refused over and over again to accept it. London sent in troops when Boston protested vehemently, and Americans organized shadow governments in every colony.

The Americans were adopting a new political philosophy, called [[republicanism]], which stressed civic virtue, fear of corruption, and disdain for [[aristocracy]] (there were no aristocrats in America apart from occasional British visitors). Republicanism alerted Americans to their constitutional rights as Englishmen – one right was that the people, through their elected officials, set the taxes and upheld law. Constitutionally, to Americans their "elected officials" were not represented in the British Parliament, it meant having their own colonial legislatures. The British replied haughtily toward this desire from the Americans, going so far as to suggest America was "virtually represented" by the British Parliament in some way or form.

====Boston Tea Party====
{{main|Boston Tea Party}}

The British Parliaments idea of representation in America fueled their desire to increase taxes on the Americans. The tax on stamps in 1765 incited near rebellion, as the 13 separate colonies began meeting together and sharing their grievances. The stamp tax was repealed but others followed, especially the tax on tea. In response, Americans boycotted tea and merchants refused to order it, except in Boston. There, a well-organized group of patriots dumped the tea in the harbor, historically known as the [[Boston Tea Party]]. These events infuriated London, so they sent troops to North America and stripped [[Massachusetts]] of its self government and suspended the historic rights the colonists were so proud of.

====Thirteen Colonies====
{{main|Thirteen Colonies}} [[Image:Pop1750.jpg|right|thumb|400px]]

The thirteen original colonies began organizing shadow governments, called "Committees of Correspondence," which prepared the Americans for the day "patriots" (or "Whigs," as they called themselves) could assume all functions of local government. That day came when the British sent troops from Boston to seize gunpowder in attempt to dismantle a potential revolt, and the American patriots gathered there to defend their liberty. These patriots were known as the American "Minute men," a well trained militia, and had planned for this day at Lexington and Concord. When the militia clashed with the elite British troops they soundly defeated them, prompting an historic backlash from Britain. The American Revolution had begun.

The thirteen colonies, organized as the "[[First Continental Congress]]," became a national government as the shadow governments in each colony took control and ousted all royal officials. Congress set up a [[Continental Army]] and gave command to an American hero and Virginia's leader, [[George Washington]]. George Washington took charge in Boston, and he forced the British to leave in the spring of 1776. All 13 colonies were at this point in control of the American Patriots, and they listened as [[Tom Paine]] explained ''Common Sense'' principles, proudly boasting of America's strength and its power as a new nation. America, in its own right as an individual nation no longer needed nor wanted a foreign [[King]]. Congress called on the colonies to become States and to write new State constitutions. On July 4, 1776, Congress unanimously declared the independence of a new nation, the United States of America.

====France in the American Revolutionary War====
[[File:Marquis de Lafayette.jpg|thumb|[[Marquis de Lafayette]].]]
King [[George III]] could not abide the insolent Americans and he sent his small army and large navy to America in attempt to reconquer his lost colonies. They were able to recapture [[New York City]], but the King's failure to spread elsewhere greatly outweighed this small victory. The powerful Royal navy gave the British command of the seas and the ability to land troops anywhere and capture any specific place, but the shortage of British soldiers, and the very long 3000 mile supply line, meant that the British could only hold a few points at any one time. Hiring German soldiers (Hessians) was necessary, but they were not enough, for the Patriots always had more available soldiers. The British expectations that Loyalist would rise up and overthrow the Patriots was a [[chimera]]; the Loyalists did provide some help to British invasion forces, but were never strong enough to operate on their own or control any territory.

[[France]], humiliated by Britain in the 1760s, was stronger in the late 1770's than it was a decade earlier and wanted revenge against the British for their past woes. Thus, the French secretly armed and financed the Americans. Lafayette, a French general in the American Revolutionary War, served in the Continental Army under George Washington. He convinced France to send their first naval and land forces to the Americas and participated in defending Richmond, Virginia from Benedict Arnold and in the battle of Yorktown, Virginia; Lafayette contributed in no slight degree toward the grand result.

In 1777, the British sent a large army to invade [[New York]] and cut off the revolutionary states of [[New England]]. The plan was a disaster as the American militia captured the entire British invasion force at Saratoga. Encouraged by diplomat [[Benjamin Franklin]], the French recognized the United States as an independent nation, signed a treaty of alliance, and entered the war against Britain. Later, the treaty extended to [[Spain]] and the [[Netherlands]] as allies to America; Britain's diplomacy was disjointed that it had no allies at all, and was militarily matched or surpassed by America and its new allies. The British invasion of the South in 1780-81 was designed to bring out Loyalist support, but it failed and the second major British army was captured at the [[Battle of Yorktown]]. The British Parliament revolted at their reckless king and his incompetent government and sued for peace, which was achieved on terms favorable to the U.S. in 1783. About 20% of the Loyalists moved to [[Canada]], but many stayed in America, and the new peaceful nation resumed its rapid growth.

===New Nation===
[[File:Bierstadt Looking Down Yosemite-Valley 1865.jpg|thumb|[[Albert Bierstadt]], ''Looking Down Yosemite-Valley'', 1865.]]
In 1783, when the Treaty of Paris concluded the war of independence, the American population totalled some three million citizens and slaves living on about one million square miles of land. Tens of thousands of [[Native Americans]] also lived in the [[Northwest Territory]] and the Southwest.

The Thirteen original states are [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Maryland]], [[Massachusetts]] (including [[maine]]), [[New Hampshire]], [[New Jersey]], [[New York]], [[North Carolina]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Rhode Island]], [[South Carolina]] and [[Virginia]]. In 1790, an agreement between supporters of Jefferson and those of [[Alexander Hamilton]] resulted in the creation of the [[District of Columbia]] from part of [[Maryland]]; it has served as the national capital since 1800. The remainder of the 1783 territory was eventually organized as the states of [[Ohio]], [[Indiana]], [[Michigan]], [[Illinois]], [[Wisconsin]], [[Kentucky]], [[Tennessee]], [[Mississippi]] and [[Alabama]].

===Expansion===
[[File:U.S. Territorial Acquisitions PD WC.jpg|thumb|left|Territorial acquisitions such as the Thirteen Colonies, the Louisiana Purchase, and British and Spanish Cession.]]
In 1803, [[French]] emperor [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] took advantage of a lull in his war with Great Britain to sell the [[Louisiana Territory]] to the United States, more than doubling the nation's land area. This territory would later be organized as the states of [[Minnesota]], [[North Dakota]], [[South Dakota]], [[Montana]], [[Wyoming]], [[Nebraska]], [[Iowa]], [[Missouri]], [[Arkansas]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], and [[Louisiana]] proper. President Jefferson commissioned [[Lewis and Clark]] to explore the new territory from 1802 to 1804.

The U.S. seized, then purchased [[Florida]] from Spain in 1819. [[Texas]] joined the United States in 1845 after winning its revolution against Mexico.
[[File:Map Leading Group by County US.jpg|thumb|Map Leading Group by County, 2000.]]
After victory the [[Mexican American War]] of 1846-48, the U.S. purchased via the [[Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo]] territory that became the states of [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Utah]], [[Colorado]], [[New Mexico]] and [[Arizona]]. In 1846 the U.S. and Britain agreed that the 49th Parallel (degree of latitude) would serve as the boundary between the U. S. and [[British Columbia]] (now part of Canada). The American portion became the states of [[Washington]], [[Oregon]] and [[Idaho]].

In 1867, the U.S. purchased [[Alaska]] from [[Russia]]. It became a state in 1959.

Hawaii became an independent republic in 1894 and voluntarily joined the U.S. in 1898, becoming a state in 1960.

As a result of the [[Spanish-American War]], the United States took control of the [[Philippines]] and annexed [[Puerto Rico]] and [[Guam]]. The Philippines became independent in 1946, after the U.S. reconquered the islands from Japan in World War II. [[Puerto Rico]] has occasionally held referendum that ratified its continuing unique "Commonwealth" status as part of the United States. The residents of Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens. Guam continues as a U.S. owned territory with full citizenship for its inhabitants. The people of Puerto Rico and Guam have a vote in presidential primaries and a voice, but not a vote, in Congress.

==The Constitution and Politics in the United States==

[[Image:76485685i79.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The drafting committee presenting the [[Declaration of Independence]] to the [[Continental Congress]], painted by John Trumbull 1817–1819.]]

Between 1776 and 1788, the United States was governed according to the [[Articles of Confederation]]. The Founding Fathers formally established the current structure of the United States by ratification of the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1788. Since 1789, that constitution has been the basic governing document. America's Founding Fathers understood that a democracy is always in flux and given to “mob rule,”<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/27/the-coming-g20-riots-the-spread-of-mob-rule/comment-page-1/ The coming G20 riots & the spread of mob rule], ''Michelle Malkin'', March 27, 2009.</ref> while a republic is fixed and stable, resting on “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Because of the uncertainty of democracy, [[Benjamin Rush]] — a signer of the Declaration of Independence — wrote: “A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils.”<ref>AWR Hawkins. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/america-a-republic-not-a-democracy/ America: A Republic, Not a Democracy], ''Pajamas Media'', September 03, 2009.</ref>

Sovereignty in America comes from the citizenry, and the basic political values are called "[[republicanism]]," (not to be confused with the [[Republican Party]],) especially the commitment to civic virtue and civic duty, and opposition to corruption and aristocracy. Popular political parties emerged in the United States in the 1790s; currently the two major political parties are the [[Democratic Party]], and the [[Republican Party]]. Minor parties are of little importance overall but can be useful in pushing certain topics to the public eye.

=== The Role of Religion in Government ===
{{main|Religion and U.S. Government}}

==Government==
{{main|United States Federal Government}}

[[Image:56eugyjnm.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[White House]], the official home and workplace of the [[President of the United States]] of America.]]

===Executive Branch===

*Chief of state: The [[President of the United States]] is both the chief of state and head of government
*Head of government: President of the United States; [[Vice President of the United States]]
*Cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the president with Senate approval
*Elections: The president and vice president serve four-year terms (eligible for a second term)

===Legislative Branch===

The United States legislative branch of government is a [[bicameral]] Congress, which consists of the [[United States Senate|Senate]] (100 seats, 2 members are elected from each state by popular vote to serve six-year terms; one-third are elected every two years) and the [[House of Representatives]] (435 seats; members are directly elected by popular vote to serve two-year terms).

===Judicial Branch===
{{main|Supreme Court of the United States}}

The United States [[Supreme Court]] consists of nine justices, nominated by the president and confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Members of the Supreme Court are appointed to serve for life; the judicial branch extends to the United States Courts of Appeal, the United States District Courts, and State and County Courts. The primary role of the nine justices of the Supreme Court is to assure the United States government does not attempt to surrender, sell or transfer the people's unalienable rights given by [[God]]. The Supreme Court has the power to consider the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

== Economy ==

The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $47,400. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to enter their rivals' home markets than foreign firms face entering US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II.

The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Unfortunately, china remains both the banker and salesman to the united state's role as buyer, and debtor. This will not end well for the United States, republican president or not. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The war in March-April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq, required major shifts in national resources to the military. Soaring oil prices between 2005 and the first half of 2008 threatened inflation and unemployment, as higher gasoline prices ate into consumers' budgets. Imported oil accounts for about 60% of US consumption. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.

The merchandise trade deficit reached a record $840 billion in 2008 before shrinking to $506 billion in 2009, and ramping back up to $630 billion in 2010. The global economic downturn, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, investment bank failures, falling home prices, and tight credit pushed the United States into a recession by mid-2008. GDP contracted until the third quarter of 2009, making this the deepest and longest downturn since the Great Depression. To help stabilize financial markets, the US Congress established a $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in October 2008. The government used some of these funds to purchase equity in US banks and other industrial corporations, much of which had been returned to the government by early 2011.

In January 2009 the US Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed a bill providing an additional $787 billion fiscal stimulus to be used over 10 years - two-thirds on additional spending and one-third on tax cuts - to create jobs and to help the economy recover. Approximately two-thirds of these funds were injected into the economy by the end of 2010. In March 2010, President Obama signed a health insurance reform bill into law that will extend coverage to an additional 32 million American citizens by 2016, through private health insurance for the general population and Medicaid for the impoverished. In July 2010, the president signed the DODD-FRANK Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a bill designed to promote financial stability by protecting consumers from financial abuses, ending taxpayer bailouts of financial firms, dealing with troubled banks that are "too big to fail," and improving accountability and transparency in the financial system - in particular, by requiring certain financial derivatives to be traded in markets that are subject to government regulation and oversight.

In November 2010, in an attempt to keep interest rates from rising and snuffing out the nascent recovery, the US Federal Reserve Bank (The Fed) announced that it would purchase $600 billion worth of US Government bonds by June 2011.

The United States is the leading industrial power in the world, highly diversified and technologically advanced; [[petroleum]], [[steel]], motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, [[electronics]], food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining.
<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html CIA - The world Factbook]</ref>

==Flag Description==
[[Image:50 star flag.png|left|thumb|150px|The [[Flag of the United States of America]]]]
{{main|Flag of the United States of America}}

Thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white; there is a blue rectangle in the upper hoist-side corner bearing 50 small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars; the 50 stars represent the 50 states, the 13 stripes represent the 13 original colonies; known as Old Glory; the design and colors have been the basis for a number of other flags, including [[Chile]], [[Liberia]], [[Malaysia]], and [[Puerto Rico]].

{{Clear}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also==
[[File:Lawrence The Migration of the Negro.jpg|thumb|The Migration of the Negro by [[Jacob Lawrence]], 1940-1941.]]
*[[Pledge of Allegiance]]
*[[Famous American artists]]
*[[List of 50 states]]
*[[Americas]]
*[[America (continent)]]
*[[Columbia]]
*[[Gallery of American Masterpieces]]

==External links==
*[[CIA]] - [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html The World FactBook]
*[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/616563/United-States United States.]
*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/america.htm America]
*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/flags_of_us_states.htm Flags of the U.S. States]
*[http://www.pibmug.com/files/map_test.swf Interactive map test of the 50 U.S. states]
*[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h445.html U.S. History]
*[http://www.theroot.com/buzz/who-owns-united-states Who Owns the United States?]
*[http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Wealth, Income, and Power.] by G. William Domhoff, University of California Santa Cruz.

{{USstates}}

[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:United States of America]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

United States of America

2012-06-08T13:07:23Z

CWest: /* Economy */ tried to organize giant block of text a bit

{{Country
|name =''United States of America''
|map =US map.PNG
|map2 =Loc of United States.png
|established=1776
|flag =50 star flag.png
|arms =United States arms.png
|capital =Washington, D.C.
|government =Constitutional Republic
|language =English
|official =n
|president =Barack Hussein Obama
|area =3,718,695 sq mi
|pop =313,232,000 (2011)
|gdp-year = $15 trillion (2011)
|gdp-pc =$48,029 (2011)
|currency =United States Dollar (USD)
}}
The '''United States of America'''<ref>(''conventional short form'': '''United States'''; ''abbreviation'': '''US''' or '''USA'''; sometimes also referred to as '''the States''' or simply as '''America''')</ref> is the most [[conservative]], prosperous and free nation in the world, based on one of the longest-running [[Constitution]]s in history. Located in [[North America]], this nation consists of a federal union of fifty individual states, along with territories and a capital district. Founded originally as 13 colonies in the [[British Empire]], Britain's American colonies broke with the mother country on July 4, 1776 with the [[Declaration of Independence]].<ref>IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776. [http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America], ushistory.org, (Accessed August 2010).</ref> The new nation became recognized as the United States of America following the [[American Revolutionary War|War of Independence]] in 1783. Shortly thereafter, in 1787, the [[United States Constitution]] was written; grounded on [[Republican form of government|republican]] political principles and [[Judeo-Christian]] values, the Constitution remains in effect today, albeit with several amendments since then. The Americans created political parties and, since abolishing [[slavery]] in a bloody [[American Civil War|civil war]] (1861-65), instituted a form of government guided by the rule of law rather than the desires of a majority of voters. According to the U.S. Constitution written by America's [[Founding Fathers]], the United States is a [[Constitutional Republic]]. It is not a true [[Democracy|democracy]], but is a form of one.

America's capitalist economy grew rapidly, becoming the largest in the world by the 1870s. During the 19th and 20th centuries, 37 new states were added to the original 13 as the nation expanded across the North American continent and acquired a number of overseas possessions. After defeating Communism in the [[Cold War]], the U.S. emerged as the world's only [[superpower]], boasting the largest economy and most powerful military. It exerts enormous cultural and intellectual influence worldwide, and in return is the target of the enemies of democracy and [[capitalism]].

The capital of the United States of America is [[Washington, DC]].

== People ==
[[File:Php3sfokfPM.jpg|220px|left|At Washington, DC.]]
Population: 310,232,863 (July 2010 est.) Population growth rate: 0.97% (2010 est.) Labor force: 153.9 million (2010 est.).

Ethnic groups: white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate) note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean persons of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin including those of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican Republic, Spanish, and Central or South American origin living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.); about 15.1% of the total US population is Hispanic <ref> [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html CIA - The World Factbook.] </ref>

In 2010, around 400,000 [[illegal immigrants]] were deported. The Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, estimates 11.5 million to 12 million "unauthorized migrants" live in the US today. <ref> [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0516/p01s02-ussc.html Illegal immigrants in the US: How many are there?] </ref>

Although the diverse group of immigrants that has come to the U.S. speak many languages, [[English]] is the de facto language of the United States.
==Geography==

[[File:Colorado.jpg|thumb|[[Colorado]].]]
North America, bordering both the North [[Atlantic Ocean]] and the North [[Pacific Ocean]], is between [[Canada]] and [[Mexico]]. In addition to the boundaries of the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean, the United States is otherwise bounded by the [[Bering Sea]], the Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Two of the fifty states, Alaska and Hawaii (an archipelago), are not contiguous with any of the other states. Puerto Rico, which is largely self governing, is part of the U.S., as are several smaller territories in the Pacific Ocean, such as Guam. Each of the 50 states has a large degree of sovereignty, but the boundaries are debated and shift slightly every year.

At over 3.7 million square miles (over 9.6 million km²), the U.S. (including its non-contiguous and overseas states and territories) is the third largest country by total area (after Russia and Canada). It is the world's third most populous nation, with over 350 million people (after China and India).

Mt. McKinley is highest point in North America and Death Valley the lowest point on the continent. <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html CIA World Factbook], ''North America :: United States'', Updated on February 23, 2011, (Accessed on February 23, 2011).</ref>

==History==

===American Revolution===
{{main|American Revolution}}
[[File:Washington-deleware.jpg|thumb|left|Washington, Chief of the Continental Army, is shown crossing the Delaware River.]]
The American Revolution exploded from fears the British Empire was trying to restrict the historic rights and liberties of Americans. The British victory in the French and Indian War ended the threat that foreign powers might attack the colonies; Britain's protection was no longer needed. At the same time Britain decided to assert its powers by imposing [[taxes]]. The taxes (as on stamps, sugar, and tea) were not large but the principle was simple: Americans insisted their own [[Legislature|legislatures]] could impose taxes but not [[Parliament]], because Americans were not represented there. "No taxation without representation!" and "[[Don't tread on me]]" became common phrases in America by the American people, but the British refused over and over again to accept it. London sent in troops when Boston protested vehemently, and Americans organized shadow governments in every colony.

The Americans were adopting a new political philosophy, called [[republicanism]], which stressed civic virtue, fear of corruption, and disdain for [[aristocracy]] (there were no aristocrats in America apart from occasional British visitors). Republicanism alerted Americans to their constitutional rights as Englishmen – one right was that the people, through their elected officials, set the taxes and upheld law. Constitutionally, to Americans their "elected officials" were not represented in the British Parliament, it meant having their own colonial legislatures. The British replied haughtily toward this desire from the Americans, going so far as to suggest America was "virtually represented" by the British Parliament in some way or form.

====Boston Tea Party====
{{main|Boston Tea Party}}

The British Parliaments idea of representation in America fueled their desire to increase taxes on the Americans. The tax on stamps in 1765 incited near rebellion, as the 13 separate colonies began meeting together and sharing their grievances. The stamp tax was repealed but others followed, especially the tax on tea. In response, Americans boycotted tea and merchants refused to order it, except in Boston. There, a well-organized group of patriots dumped the tea in the harbor, historically known as the [[Boston Tea Party]]. These events infuriated London, so they sent troops to North America and stripped [[Massachusetts]] of its self government and suspended the historic rights the colonists were so proud of.

====Thirteen Colonies====
{{main|Thirteen Colonies}} [[Image:Pop1750.jpg|right|thumb|400px]]

The thirteen original colonies began organizing shadow governments, called "Committees of Correspondence," which prepared the Americans for the day "patriots" (or "Whigs," as they called themselves) could assume all functions of local government. That day came when the British sent troops from Boston to seize gunpowder in attempt to dismantle a potential revolt, and the American patriots gathered there to defend their liberty. These patriots were known as the American "Minute men," a well trained militia, and had planned for this day at Lexington and Concord. When the militia clashed with the elite British troops they soundly defeated them, prompting an historic backlash from Britain. The American Revolution had begun.

The thirteen colonies, organized as the "[[First Continental Congress]]," became a national government as the shadow governments in each colony took control and ousted all royal officials. Congress set up a [[Continental Army]] and gave command to an American hero and Virginia's leader, [[George Washington]]. George Washington took charge in Boston, and he forced the British to leave in the spring of 1776. All 13 colonies were at this point in control of the American Patriots, and they listened as [[Tom Paine]] explained ''Common Sense'' principles, proudly boasting of America's strength and its power as a new nation. America, in its own right as an individual nation no longer needed nor wanted a foreign [[King]]. Congress called on the colonies to become States and to write new State constitutions. On July 4, 1776, Congress unanimously declared the independence of a new nation, the United States of America.

====France in the American Revolutionary War====
[[File:Marquis de Lafayette.jpg|thumb|[[Marquis de Lafayette]].]]
King [[George III]] could not abide the insolent Americans and he sent his small army and large navy to America in attempt to reconquer his lost colonies. They were able to recapture [[New York City]], but the King's failure to spread elsewhere greatly outweighed this small victory. The powerful Royal navy gave the British command of the seas and the ability to land troops anywhere and capture any specific place, but the shortage of British soldiers, and the very long 3000 mile supply line, meant that the British could only hold a few points at any one time. Hiring German soldiers (Hessians) was necessary, but they were not enough, for the Patriots always had more available soldiers. The British expectations that Loyalist would rise up and overthrow the Patriots was a [[chimera]]; the Loyalists did provide some help to British invasion forces, but were never strong enough to operate on their own or control any territory.

[[France]], humiliated by Britain in the 1760s, was stronger in the late 1770's than it was a decade earlier and wanted revenge against the British for their past woes. Thus, the French secretly armed and financed the Americans. Lafayette, a French general in the American Revolutionary War, served in the Continental Army under George Washington. He convinced France to send their first naval and land forces to the Americas and participated in defending Richmond, Virginia from Benedict Arnold and in the battle of Yorktown, Virginia; Lafayette contributed in no slight degree toward the grand result.

In 1777, the British sent a large army to invade [[New York]] and cut off the revolutionary states of [[New England]]. The plan was a disaster as the American militia captured the entire British invasion force at Saratoga. Encouraged by diplomat [[Benjamin Franklin]], the French recognized the United States as an independent nation, signed a treaty of alliance, and entered the war against Britain. Later, the treaty extended to [[Spain]] and the [[Netherlands]] as allies to America; Britain's diplomacy was disjointed that it had no allies at all, and was militarily matched or surpassed by America and its new allies. The British invasion of the South in 1780-81 was designed to bring out Loyalist support, but it failed and the second major British army was captured at the [[Battle of Yorktown]]. The British Parliament revolted at their reckless king and his incompetent government and sued for peace, which was achieved on terms favorable to the U.S. in 1783. About 20% of the Loyalists moved to [[Canada]], but many stayed in America, and the new peaceful nation resumed its rapid growth.

===New Nation===
[[File:Bierstadt Looking Down Yosemite-Valley 1865.jpg|thumb|[[Albert Bierstadt]], ''Looking Down Yosemite-Valley'', 1865.]]
In 1783, when the Treaty of Paris concluded the war of independence, the American population totalled some three million citizens and slaves living on about one million square miles of land. Tens of thousands of [[Native Americans]] also lived in the [[Northwest Territory]] and the Southwest.

The Thirteen original states are [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Maryland]], [[Massachusetts]] (including [[maine]]), [[New Hampshire]], [[New Jersey]], [[New York]], [[North Carolina]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Rhode Island]], [[South Carolina]] and [[Virginia]]. In 1790, an agreement between supporters of Jefferson and those of [[Alexander Hamilton]] resulted in the creation of the [[District of Columbia]] from part of [[Maryland]]; it has served as the national capital since 1800. The remainder of the 1783 territory was eventually organized as the states of [[Ohio]], [[Indiana]], [[Michigan]], [[Illinois]], [[Wisconsin]], [[Kentucky]], [[Tennessee]], [[Mississippi]] and [[Alabama]].

===Expansion===
[[File:U.S. Territorial Acquisitions PD WC.jpg|thumb|left|Territorial acquisitions such as the Thirteen Colonies, the Louisiana Purchase, and British and Spanish Cession.]]
In 1803, [[French]] emperor [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] took advantage of a lull in his war with Great Britain to sell the [[Louisiana Territory]] to the United States, more than doubling the nation's land area. This territory would later be organized as the states of [[Minnesota]], [[North Dakota]], [[South Dakota]], [[Montana]], [[Wyoming]], [[Nebraska]], [[Iowa]], [[Missouri]], [[Arkansas]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], and [[Louisiana]] proper. President Jefferson commissioned [[Lewis and Clark]] to explore the new territory from 1802 to 1804.

The U.S. seized, then purchased [[Florida]] from Spain in 1819. [[Texas]] joined the United States in 1845 after winning its revolution against Mexico.
[[File:Map Leading Group by County US.jpg|thumb|Map Leading Group by County, 2000.]]
After victory the [[Mexican American War]] of 1846-48, the U.S. purchased via the [[Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo]] territory that became the states of [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Utah]], [[Colorado]], [[New Mexico]] and [[Arizona]]. In 1846 the U.S. and Britain agreed that the 49th Parallel (degree of latitude) would serve as the boundary between the U. S. and [[British Columbia]] (now part of Canada). The American portion became the states of [[Washington]], [[Oregon]] and [[Idaho]].

In 1867, the U.S. purchased [[Alaska]] from [[Russia]]. It became a state in 1959.

Hawaii became an independent republic in 1894 and voluntarily joined the U.S. in 1898, becoming a state in 1960.

As a result of the [[Spanish-American War]], the United States took control of the [[Philippines]] and annexed [[Puerto Rico]] and [[Guam]]. The Philippines became independent in 1946, after the U.S. reconquered the islands from Japan in World War II. [[Puerto Rico]] has occasionally held referendum that ratified its continuing unique "Commonwealth" status as part of the United States. The residents of Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens. Guam continues as a U.S. owned territory with full citizenship for its inhabitants. The people of Puerto Rico and Guam have a vote in presidential primaries and a voice, but not a vote, in Congress.

==The Constitution and Politics in the United States==

[[Image:76485685i79.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The drafting committee presenting the [[Declaration of Independence]] to the [[Continental Congress]], painted by John Trumbull 1817–1819.]]

Between 1776 and 1788, the United States was governed according to the [[Articles of Confederation]]. The Founding Fathers formally established the current structure of the United States by ratification of the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1788. Since 1789, that constitution has been the basic governing document. America's Founding Fathers understood that a democracy is always in flux and given to “mob rule,”<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/27/the-coming-g20-riots-the-spread-of-mob-rule/comment-page-1/ The coming G20 riots & the spread of mob rule], ''Michelle Malkin'', March 27, 2009.</ref> while a republic is fixed and stable, resting on “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Because of the uncertainty of democracy, [[Benjamin Rush]] — a signer of the Declaration of Independence — wrote: “A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils.”<ref>AWR Hawkins. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/america-a-republic-not-a-democracy/ America: A Republic, Not a Democracy], ''Pajamas Media'', September 03, 2009.</ref>

Sovereignty in America comes from the citizenry, and the basic political values are called "[[republicanism]]," (not to be confused with the [[Republican Party]],) especially the commitment to civic virtue and civic duty, and opposition to corruption and aristocracy. Popular political parties emerged in the United States in the 1790s; currently the two major political parties are the [[Democratic Party]], and the [[Republican Party]]. Minor parties are of little importance overall but can be useful in pushing certain topics to the public eye.

=== The Role of Religion in Government ===
{{main|Religion and U.S. Government}}

==Government==
{{main|United States Federal Government}}

[[Image:56eugyjnm.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[White House]], the official home and workplace of the [[President of the United States]] of America.]]

===Executive Branch===

*Chief of state: The [[President of the United States]] is both the chief of state and head of government
*Head of government: President of the United States; [[Vice President of the United States]]
*Cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the president with Senate approval
*Elections: The president and vice president serve four-year terms (eligible for a second term)

===Legislative Branch===

The United States legislative branch of government is a [[bicameral]] Congress, which consists of the [[United States Senate|Senate]] (100 seats, 2 members are elected from each state by popular vote to serve six-year terms; one-third are elected every two years) and the [[House of Representatives]] (435 seats; members are directly elected by popular vote to serve two-year terms).

===Judicial Branch===
{{main|Supreme Court of the United States}}

The United States [[Supreme Court]] consists of nine justices, nominated by the president and confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Members of the Supreme Court are appointed to serve for life; the judicial branch extends to the United States Courts of Appeal, the United States District Courts, and State and County Courts. The primary role of the nine justices of the Supreme Court is to assure the United States government does not attempt to surrender, sell or transfer the people's unalienable rights given by [[God]]. The Supreme Court has the power to consider the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

== Economy ==

The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $47,400. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to enter their rivals' home markets than foreign firms face entering US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II.

The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Unfortunately, china remains both the banker and salesman to the united state's role as buyer, and debtor. This will not end well for the United States, republican president or not. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The war in March-April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq, required major shifts in national resources to the military. Soaring oil prices between 2005 and the first half of 2008 threatened inflation and unemployment, as higher gasoline prices ate into consumers' budgets. Imported oil accounts for about 60% of US consumption. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.

The merchandise trade deficit reached a record $840 billion in 2008 before shrinking to $506 billion in 2009, and ramping back up to $630 billion in 2010. The global economic downturn, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, investment bank failures, falling home prices, and tight credit pushed the United States into a recession by mid-2008. GDP contracted until the third quarter of 2009, making this the deepest and longest downturn since the Great Depression. To help stabilize financial markets, the US Congress established a $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in October 2008. The government used some of these funds to purchase equity in US banks and other industrial corporations, much of which had been returned to the government by early 2011.

In January 2009 the US Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed a bill providing an additional $787 billion fiscal stimulus to be used over 10 years - two-thirds on additional spending and one-third on tax cuts - to create jobs and to help the economy recover. Approximately two-thirds of these funds were injected into the economy by the end of 2010. In March 2010, President Obama signed a health insurance reform bill into law that will extend coverage to an additional 32 million American citizens by 2016, through private health insurance for the general population and Medicaid for the impoverished. In July 2010, the president signed the DODD-FRANK Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a bill designed to promote financial stability by protecting consumers from financial abuses, ending taxpayer bailouts of financial firms, dealing with troubled banks that are "too big to fail," and improving accountability and transparency in the financial system - in particular, by requiring certain financial derivatives to be traded in markets that are subject to government regulation and oversight.

In November 2010, in an attempt to keep interest rates from rising and snuffing out the nascent recovery, the US Federal Reserve Bank (The Fed) announced that it would purchase $600 billion worth of US Government bonds by June 2011.

The United States is the leading industrial power in the world, highly diversified and technologically advanced; [[petroleum]], [[steel]], motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, [[electronics]], food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining.
<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html CIA - The world Factbook]</ref>

==Flag Description==
[[Image:50 star flag.png|left|thumb|150px|The [[Flag of the United States of America]]]]
{{main|Flag of the United States of America}}

Thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white; there is a blue rectangle in the upper hoist-side corner bearing 50 small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars; the 50 stars represent the 50 states, the 13 stripes represent the 13 original colonies; known as Old Glory; the design and colors have been the basis for a number of other flags, including [[Chile]], [[Liberia]], [[Malaysia]], and [[Puerto Rico]].

{{Clear}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also==
[[File:Lawrence The Migration of the Negro.jpg|thumb|The Migration of the Negro by [[Jacob Lawrence]], 1940-1941.]]
*[[Pledge of Allegiance]]
*[[Famous American artists]]
*[[List of 50 states]]
*[[Americas]]
*[[America (continent)]]
*[[Columbia]]
*[[Gallery of American Masterpieces]]

==External links==
*[[CIA]] - [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html The World FactBook]
*[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/616563/United-States United States.]
*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/america.htm America]
*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/flags_of_us_states.htm Flags of the U.S. States]
*[http://www.pibmug.com/files/map_test.swf Interactive map test of the 50 U.S. states]
*[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h445.html U.S. History]
*[http://www.theroot.com/buzz/who-owns-united-states Who Owns the United States?]
*[http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Wealth, Income, and Power.] by G. William Domhoff, University of California Santa Cruz.

{{USstates}}

[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:United States of America]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

United States of America

2012-06-08T12:59:17Z

CWest:

{{Country
|name =''United States of America''
|map =US map.PNG
|map2 =Loc of United States.png
|established=1776
|flag =50 star flag.png
|arms =United States arms.png
|capital =Washington, D.C.
|government =Constitutional Republic
|language =English
|official =n
|president =Barack Hussein Obama
|area =3,718,695 sq mi
|pop =313,232,000 (2011)
|gdp-year = $15 trillion (2011)
|gdp-pc =$48,029 (2011)
|currency =United States Dollar (USD)
}}
The '''United States of America'''<ref>(''conventional short form'': '''United States'''; ''abbreviation'': '''US''' or '''USA'''; sometimes also referred to as '''the States''' or simply as '''America''')</ref> is the most [[conservative]], prosperous and free nation in the world, based on one of the longest-running [[Constitution]]s in history. Located in [[North America]], this nation consists of a federal union of fifty individual states, along with territories and a capital district. Founded originally as 13 colonies in the [[British Empire]], Britain's American colonies broke with the mother country on July 4, 1776 with the [[Declaration of Independence]].<ref>IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776. [http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America], ushistory.org, (Accessed August 2010).</ref> The new nation became recognized as the United States of America following the [[American Revolutionary War|War of Independence]] in 1783. Shortly thereafter, in 1787, the [[United States Constitution]] was written; grounded on [[Republican form of government|republican]] political principles and [[Judeo-Christian]] values, the Constitution remains in effect today, albeit with several amendments since then. The Americans created political parties and, since abolishing [[slavery]] in a bloody [[American Civil War|civil war]] (1861-65), instituted a form of government guided by the rule of law rather than the desires of a majority of voters. According to the U.S. Constitution written by America's [[Founding Fathers]], the United States is a [[Constitutional Republic]]. It is not a true [[Democracy|democracy]], but is a form of one.

America's capitalist economy grew rapidly, becoming the largest in the world by the 1870s. During the 19th and 20th centuries, 37 new states were added to the original 13 as the nation expanded across the North American continent and acquired a number of overseas possessions. After defeating Communism in the [[Cold War]], the U.S. emerged as the world's only [[superpower]], boasting the largest economy and most powerful military. It exerts enormous cultural and intellectual influence worldwide, and in return is the target of the enemies of democracy and [[capitalism]].

The capital of the United States of America is [[Washington, DC]].

== People ==
[[File:Php3sfokfPM.jpg|220px|left|At Washington, DC.]]
Population: 310,232,863 (July 2010 est.) Population growth rate: 0.97% (2010 est.) Labor force: 153.9 million (2010 est.).

Ethnic groups: white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate) note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean persons of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin including those of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican Republic, Spanish, and Central or South American origin living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.); about 15.1% of the total US population is Hispanic <ref> [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html CIA - The World Factbook.] </ref>

In 2010, around 400,000 [[illegal immigrants]] were deported. The Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, estimates 11.5 million to 12 million "unauthorized migrants" live in the US today. <ref> [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0516/p01s02-ussc.html Illegal immigrants in the US: How many are there?] </ref>

Although the diverse group of immigrants that has come to the U.S. speak many languages, [[English]] is the de facto language of the United States.
==Geography==

[[File:Colorado.jpg|thumb|[[Colorado]].]]
North America, bordering both the North [[Atlantic Ocean]] and the North [[Pacific Ocean]], is between [[Canada]] and [[Mexico]]. In addition to the boundaries of the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean, the United States is otherwise bounded by the [[Bering Sea]], the Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. Two of the fifty states, Alaska and Hawaii (an archipelago), are not contiguous with any of the other states. Puerto Rico, which is largely self governing, is part of the U.S., as are several smaller territories in the Pacific Ocean, such as Guam. Each of the 50 states has a large degree of sovereignty, but the boundaries are debated and shift slightly every year.

At over 3.7 million square miles (over 9.6 million km²), the U.S. (including its non-contiguous and overseas states and territories) is the third largest country by total area (after Russia and Canada). It is the world's third most populous nation, with over 350 million people (after China and India).

Mt. McKinley is highest point in North America and Death Valley the lowest point on the continent. <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html CIA World Factbook], ''North America :: United States'', Updated on February 23, 2011, (Accessed on February 23, 2011).</ref>

==History==

===American Revolution===
{{main|American Revolution}}
[[File:Washington-deleware.jpg|thumb|left|Washington, Chief of the Continental Army, is shown crossing the Delaware River.]]
The American Revolution exploded from fears the British Empire was trying to restrict the historic rights and liberties of Americans. The British victory in the French and Indian War ended the threat that foreign powers might attack the colonies; Britain's protection was no longer needed. At the same time Britain decided to assert its powers by imposing [[taxes]]. The taxes (as on stamps, sugar, and tea) were not large but the principle was simple: Americans insisted their own [[Legislature|legislatures]] could impose taxes but not [[Parliament]], because Americans were not represented there. "No taxation without representation!" and "[[Don't tread on me]]" became common phrases in America by the American people, but the British refused over and over again to accept it. London sent in troops when Boston protested vehemently, and Americans organized shadow governments in every colony.

The Americans were adopting a new political philosophy, called [[republicanism]], which stressed civic virtue, fear of corruption, and disdain for [[aristocracy]] (there were no aristocrats in America apart from occasional British visitors). Republicanism alerted Americans to their constitutional rights as Englishmen – one right was that the people, through their elected officials, set the taxes and upheld law. Constitutionally, to Americans their "elected officials" were not represented in the British Parliament, it meant having their own colonial legislatures. The British replied haughtily toward this desire from the Americans, going so far as to suggest America was "virtually represented" by the British Parliament in some way or form.

====Boston Tea Party====
{{main|Boston Tea Party}}

The British Parliaments idea of representation in America fueled their desire to increase taxes on the Americans. The tax on stamps in 1765 incited near rebellion, as the 13 separate colonies began meeting together and sharing their grievances. The stamp tax was repealed but others followed, especially the tax on tea. In response, Americans boycotted tea and merchants refused to order it, except in Boston. There, a well-organized group of patriots dumped the tea in the harbor, historically known as the [[Boston Tea Party]]. These events infuriated London, so they sent troops to North America and stripped [[Massachusetts]] of its self government and suspended the historic rights the colonists were so proud of.

====Thirteen Colonies====
{{main|Thirteen Colonies}} [[Image:Pop1750.jpg|right|thumb|400px]]

The thirteen original colonies began organizing shadow governments, called "Committees of Correspondence," which prepared the Americans for the day "patriots" (or "Whigs," as they called themselves) could assume all functions of local government. That day came when the British sent troops from Boston to seize gunpowder in attempt to dismantle a potential revolt, and the American patriots gathered there to defend their liberty. These patriots were known as the American "Minute men," a well trained militia, and had planned for this day at Lexington and Concord. When the militia clashed with the elite British troops they soundly defeated them, prompting an historic backlash from Britain. The American Revolution had begun.

The thirteen colonies, organized as the "[[First Continental Congress]]," became a national government as the shadow governments in each colony took control and ousted all royal officials. Congress set up a [[Continental Army]] and gave command to an American hero and Virginia's leader, [[George Washington]]. George Washington took charge in Boston, and he forced the British to leave in the spring of 1776. All 13 colonies were at this point in control of the American Patriots, and they listened as [[Tom Paine]] explained ''Common Sense'' principles, proudly boasting of America's strength and its power as a new nation. America, in its own right as an individual nation no longer needed nor wanted a foreign [[King]]. Congress called on the colonies to become States and to write new State constitutions. On July 4, 1776, Congress unanimously declared the independence of a new nation, the United States of America.

====France in the American Revolutionary War====
[[File:Marquis de Lafayette.jpg|thumb|[[Marquis de Lafayette]].]]
King [[George III]] could not abide the insolent Americans and he sent his small army and large navy to America in attempt to reconquer his lost colonies. They were able to recapture [[New York City]], but the King's failure to spread elsewhere greatly outweighed this small victory. The powerful Royal navy gave the British command of the seas and the ability to land troops anywhere and capture any specific place, but the shortage of British soldiers, and the very long 3000 mile supply line, meant that the British could only hold a few points at any one time. Hiring German soldiers (Hessians) was necessary, but they were not enough, for the Patriots always had more available soldiers. The British expectations that Loyalist would rise up and overthrow the Patriots was a [[chimera]]; the Loyalists did provide some help to British invasion forces, but were never strong enough to operate on their own or control any territory.

[[France]], humiliated by Britain in the 1760s, was stronger in the late 1770's than it was a decade earlier and wanted revenge against the British for their past woes. Thus, the French secretly armed and financed the Americans. Lafayette, a French general in the American Revolutionary War, served in the Continental Army under George Washington. He convinced France to send their first naval and land forces to the Americas and participated in defending Richmond, Virginia from Benedict Arnold and in the battle of Yorktown, Virginia; Lafayette contributed in no slight degree toward the grand result.

In 1777, the British sent a large army to invade [[New York]] and cut off the revolutionary states of [[New England]]. The plan was a disaster as the American militia captured the entire British invasion force at Saratoga. Encouraged by diplomat [[Benjamin Franklin]], the French recognized the United States as an independent nation, signed a treaty of alliance, and entered the war against Britain. Later, the treaty extended to [[Spain]] and the [[Netherlands]] as allies to America; Britain's diplomacy was disjointed that it had no allies at all, and was militarily matched or surpassed by America and its new allies. The British invasion of the South in 1780-81 was designed to bring out Loyalist support, but it failed and the second major British army was captured at the [[Battle of Yorktown]]. The British Parliament revolted at their reckless king and his incompetent government and sued for peace, which was achieved on terms favorable to the U.S. in 1783. About 20% of the Loyalists moved to [[Canada]], but many stayed in America, and the new peaceful nation resumed its rapid growth.

===New Nation===
[[File:Bierstadt Looking Down Yosemite-Valley 1865.jpg|thumb|[[Albert Bierstadt]], ''Looking Down Yosemite-Valley'', 1865.]]
In 1783, when the Treaty of Paris concluded the war of independence, the American population totalled some three million citizens and slaves living on about one million square miles of land. Tens of thousands of [[Native Americans]] also lived in the [[Northwest Territory]] and the Southwest.

The Thirteen original states are [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Maryland]], [[Massachusetts]] (including [[maine]]), [[New Hampshire]], [[New Jersey]], [[New York]], [[North Carolina]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Rhode Island]], [[South Carolina]] and [[Virginia]]. In 1790, an agreement between supporters of Jefferson and those of [[Alexander Hamilton]] resulted in the creation of the [[District of Columbia]] from part of [[Maryland]]; it has served as the national capital since 1800. The remainder of the 1783 territory was eventually organized as the states of [[Ohio]], [[Indiana]], [[Michigan]], [[Illinois]], [[Wisconsin]], [[Kentucky]], [[Tennessee]], [[Mississippi]] and [[Alabama]].

===Expansion===
[[File:U.S. Territorial Acquisitions PD WC.jpg|thumb|left|Territorial acquisitions such as the Thirteen Colonies, the Louisiana Purchase, and British and Spanish Cession.]]
In 1803, [[French]] emperor [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] took advantage of a lull in his war with Great Britain to sell the [[Louisiana Territory]] to the United States, more than doubling the nation's land area. This territory would later be organized as the states of [[Minnesota]], [[North Dakota]], [[South Dakota]], [[Montana]], [[Wyoming]], [[Nebraska]], [[Iowa]], [[Missouri]], [[Arkansas]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], and [[Louisiana]] proper. President Jefferson commissioned [[Lewis and Clark]] to explore the new territory from 1802 to 1804.

The U.S. seized, then purchased [[Florida]] from Spain in 1819. [[Texas]] joined the United States in 1845 after winning its revolution against Mexico.
[[File:Map Leading Group by County US.jpg|thumb|Map Leading Group by County, 2000.]]
After victory the [[Mexican American War]] of 1846-48, the U.S. purchased via the [[Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo]] territory that became the states of [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Utah]], [[Colorado]], [[New Mexico]] and [[Arizona]]. In 1846 the U.S. and Britain agreed that the 49th Parallel (degree of latitude) would serve as the boundary between the U. S. and [[British Columbia]] (now part of Canada). The American portion became the states of [[Washington]], [[Oregon]] and [[Idaho]].

In 1867, the U.S. purchased [[Alaska]] from [[Russia]]. It became a state in 1959.

Hawaii became an independent republic in 1894 and voluntarily joined the U.S. in 1898, becoming a state in 1960.

As a result of the [[Spanish-American War]], the United States took control of the [[Philippines]] and annexed [[Puerto Rico]] and [[Guam]]. The Philippines became independent in 1946, after the U.S. reconquered the islands from Japan in World War II. [[Puerto Rico]] has occasionally held referendum that ratified its continuing unique "Commonwealth" status as part of the United States. The residents of Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens. Guam continues as a U.S. owned territory with full citizenship for its inhabitants. The people of Puerto Rico and Guam have a vote in presidential primaries and a voice, but not a vote, in Congress.

==The Constitution and Politics in the United States==

[[Image:76485685i79.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The drafting committee presenting the [[Declaration of Independence]] to the [[Continental Congress]], painted by John Trumbull 1817–1819.]]

Between 1776 and 1788, the United States was governed according to the [[Articles of Confederation]]. The Founding Fathers formally established the current structure of the United States by ratification of the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1788. Since 1789, that constitution has been the basic governing document. America's Founding Fathers understood that a democracy is always in flux and given to “mob rule,”<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/27/the-coming-g20-riots-the-spread-of-mob-rule/comment-page-1/ The coming G20 riots & the spread of mob rule], ''Michelle Malkin'', March 27, 2009.</ref> while a republic is fixed and stable, resting on “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Because of the uncertainty of democracy, [[Benjamin Rush]] — a signer of the Declaration of Independence — wrote: “A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils.”<ref>AWR Hawkins. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/america-a-republic-not-a-democracy/ America: A Republic, Not a Democracy], ''Pajamas Media'', September 03, 2009.</ref>

Sovereignty in America comes from the citizenry, and the basic political values are called "[[republicanism]]," (not to be confused with the [[Republican Party]],) especially the commitment to civic virtue and civic duty, and opposition to corruption and aristocracy. Popular political parties emerged in the United States in the 1790s; currently the two major political parties are the [[Democratic Party]], and the [[Republican Party]]. Minor parties are of little importance overall but can be useful in pushing certain topics to the public eye.

=== The Role of Religion in Government ===
{{main|Religion and U.S. Government}}

==Government==
{{main|United States Federal Government}}

[[Image:56eugyjnm.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[White House]], the official home and workplace of the [[President of the United States]] of America.]]

===Executive Branch===

*Chief of state: The [[President of the United States]] is both the chief of state and head of government
*Head of government: President of the United States; [[Vice President of the United States]]
*Cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the president with Senate approval
*Elections: The president and vice president serve four-year terms (eligible for a second term)

===Legislative Branch===

The United States legislative branch of government is a [[bicameral]] Congress, which consists of the [[United States Senate|Senate]] (100 seats, 2 members are elected from each state by popular vote to serve six-year terms; one-third are elected every two years) and the [[House of Representatives]] (435 seats; members are directly elected by popular vote to serve two-year terms).

===Judicial Branch===
{{main|Supreme Court of the United States}}

The United States [[Supreme Court]] consists of nine justices, nominated by the president and confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Members of the Supreme Court are appointed to serve for life; the judicial branch extends to the United States Courts of Appeal, the United States District Courts, and State and County Courts. The primary role of the nine justices of the Supreme Court is to assure the United States government does not attempt to surrender, sell or transfer the people's unalienable rights given by [[God]]. The Supreme Court has the power to consider the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

== Economy ==

The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $47,400. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to enter their rivals' home markets than foreign firms face entering US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Unfortunately, china remains both the banker and salesman to the united state's role as buyer, and debtor. This will not end well for the United States, republican president or not. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The war in March-April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq, required major shifts in national resources to the military. Soaring oil prices between 2005 and the first half of 2008 threatened inflation and unemployment, as higher gasoline prices ate into consumers' budgets. Imported oil accounts for about 60% of US consumption. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups. The merchandise trade deficit reached a record $840 billion in 2008 before shrinking to $506 billion in 2009, and ramping back up to $630 billion in 2010. The global economic downturn, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, investment bank failures, falling home prices, and tight credit pushed the United States into a recession by mid-2008. GDP contracted until the third quarter of 2009, making this the deepest and longest downturn since the Great Depression. To help stabilize financial markets, the US Congress established a $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in October 2008. The government used some of these funds to purchase equity in US banks and other industrial corporations, much of which had been returned to the government by early 2011. In January 2009 the US Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed a bill providing an additional $787 billion fiscal stimulus to be used over 10 years - two-thirds on additional spending and one-third on tax cuts - to create jobs and to help the economy recover. Approximately two-thirds of these funds were injected into the economy by the end of 2010. In March 2010, President Obama signed a health insurance reform bill into law that will extend coverage to an additional 32 million American citizens by 2016, through private health insurance for the general population and Medicaid for the impoverished. In July 2010, the president signed the DODD-FRANK Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a bill designed to promote financial stability by protecting consumers from financial abuses, ending taxpayer bailouts of financial firms, dealing with troubled banks that are "too big to fail," and improving accountability and transparency in the financial system - in particular, by requiring certain financial derivatives to be traded in markets that are subject to government regulation and oversight. In November 2010, in an attempt to keep interest rates from rising and snuffing out the nascent recovery, the US Federal Reserve Bank (The Fed) announced that it would purchase $600 billion worth of US Government bonds by June 2011.

Leading industrial power in the world, highly diversified and technologically advanced; [[petroleum]], [[steel]], motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, [[electronics]], food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining.
<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html CIA - The world Factbook]</ref>

==Flag Description==
[[Image:50 star flag.png|left|thumb|150px|The [[Flag of the United States of America]]]]
{{main|Flag of the United States of America}}

Thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white; there is a blue rectangle in the upper hoist-side corner bearing 50 small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars; the 50 stars represent the 50 states, the 13 stripes represent the 13 original colonies; known as Old Glory; the design and colors have been the basis for a number of other flags, including [[Chile]], [[Liberia]], [[Malaysia]], and [[Puerto Rico]].

{{Clear}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also==
[[File:Lawrence The Migration of the Negro.jpg|thumb|The Migration of the Negro by [[Jacob Lawrence]], 1940-1941.]]
*[[Pledge of Allegiance]]
*[[Famous American artists]]
*[[List of 50 states]]
*[[Americas]]
*[[America (continent)]]
*[[Columbia]]
*[[Gallery of American Masterpieces]]

==External links==
*[[CIA]] - [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html The World FactBook]
*[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/616563/United-States United States.]
*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/america.htm America]
*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/flags_of_us_states.htm Flags of the U.S. States]
*[http://www.pibmug.com/files/map_test.swf Interactive map test of the 50 U.S. states]
*[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h445.html U.S. History]
*[http://www.theroot.com/buzz/who-owns-united-states Who Owns the United States?]
*[http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Wealth, Income, and Power.] by G. William Domhoff, University of California Santa Cruz.

{{USstates}}

[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:United States of America]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Human being

2012-06-08T12:56:21Z

CWest:

{{merge|Homo sapiens}}
[[File:Human.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|
 
 
(picture obtained [http://www.flickr.com/photos/imelda/322994273/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en License agreement]) ]]
"'''Human being'''" is a term for a [[homo sapiens|human]] that emphasizes the role of a human not merely as a social animal, but a thinking person. Judaism, Christianity and Islam hold that human beings were created in the image of [[God]]<ref>"Male and female He created them." (Genesis 1)</ref>.

The academic study of human beings falls under any of the following fields of study, which collectively are known as the "Social Sciences":
*[[Anthropology]]
*[[Psychology]]
*[[Sociology]]
*[[Economics]]
*[[Political science]]
*[[History]]
*[[Geography]]

==Origins of human behavior==
[[Philosophy]] and [[religion]] have long considered the origin of human behavior.

Much of [[Christianity|Christian]] theology holds that, while created in God's image, humanity is essentially [[sin]]ful, and, by embracing [[Jesus Christ]] as a savior, can be rescued from this sin. St. Paul wrote, "Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for human beings, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish." (I Corinthians 15:35-44)

[[Moral naturalism]] rejects divine revelation as the source of human behavior, ethics, and morals, holding that they emerged from natural causes. The nature of these natural causes is widely debated, ranging from features inherent in the nervous system of humans to natural pressures that led to emergence of the best course for survival as a society, much as instincts emerge as the best course for survival among animals in the wild.

Humans are either [[male]] or [[female]]. They each have their own separate roles in society, as [[God]] intended. The first male was [[Adam]] and the first female was [[Eve]].
==References==
<references />

[[Category:Philosophy]][[Category:Human Beings]]

Talk:Shockofgod

2012-06-07T18:55:18Z

CWest:

==Typos==
I just wanted to point out a few typos in this page, because it is linked to on the front page. In the second sentence, "'''cummulatively,'''" should be "'''cumulatively'''" if I'm not mistaken. Also, in the first section after the Table of Contents, "'''In June of 2011, Shockofgoddeclared'''" should have a space before "'''declared'''." That's all I can find at the moment; please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 20:35, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:Hi everyone. Could someone please address the aforementioned copy-editing mistakes? Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 10:49, 2 December 2011 (EST)
::These typos have been left uncorrected for over 6 months, as Kevin pointed out. Can an admin please fix them? :) [[User:CWest|CWest]] 14:55, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

==Word to substance ratio==
The definition of the word [https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=accurate+definition accurate] includes the word "correct" in it. Therefore, the word-to-substance ratio of Shockofgod's request for "proof and evidence that [[atheism]] is accurate and correct" could be improved if the words "and correct" were omitted. [[User:CWest|CWest]] 14:55, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

Nazi Party

2012-06-07T18:47:01Z

CWest: /* Foundations */

[[Image:Flag of Nazi Germany.png|thumb|200px|'''The flag of Nazi Germany''' featuring the notorious reverse swastika]]
The '''Nazi Party''' ('''NSDAP''', formally the ''Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei'' or in English ''National Socialist German Workers' Party''<ref> "Nazi" comes from the first word in the party's name, '''Na'''tionalso'''zi'''alistische.
</ref>) was a [[totalitarian]] movement and [[political party]] in [[Germany]] from 1919-1945. It was controlled after 1922 by [[Adolf Hitler]]. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany and took control of the government and most sectors of Germany's society and economy. The Nazi regime in Germany 1933-45 called itself the '''[[Third Reich]]'''.<ref>The German ''Drittes Reich'' means "Third Empire", after the [[Holy Roman Empire]] of 900-1806 and the [[German Empire]] of 1871-1918.</ref> The Nazis rearmed Germany, conquered the neighbors, murdered six million Jewish civilians and an estimated 15 million other 'undesirables' in the [[Holocaust]] and was finally destroyed in [[World War II]] by the [[Allies]] (the [[United States]], [[Britain]] and the [[Soviet Union]], along with smaller countries). Like Hitler, the Nazis have become synonymous with evil in the modern world.

The [[socialism]] Hitler advocated is much closer to that of Soviet [[communism]] than [[liberals]] are willing to admit, or than many people realize,<ref>[http://mises.org/story/1937 Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian] - George Reisman - Mises Institute.</ref> especially those who think in terms of "[[right wing]]" and "[[left wing]]" politics.

==Foundations==

[[Adolf Hitler]] exploited the myth of the “Stab in the Back,” the belief that the [[World War I]] had been lost because “disloyal” elements within Germany – [[Jews]] and [[Marxism|Marxists]] – had undermined the war effort. As [[William Shirer]] put it in ''The Rise and Fall of the [[Third Reich]]'',

<blockquote>
"To him, as to almost all Germans, it was ‘monstrous’ and undeserved. The German army had not been defeated in the field. It had been stabbed in the back by the traitors at home.

Thus emerged for [[Hitler]], as or so many Germans, a fanatical belief in the legend of the ‘stab in the back’ which, more than anything else, was to undermine the Weimar Republic and pave the way for Hitler’s ultimate triumph.”
<ref name=rise>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book One, “The Rise of Adolf Hitler.” </ref>
</blockquote>

The origin of the Nazi Party itself was a small group called The German Workers' Party, founded by a locksmith named Anton Drexler who, in 1918, had set up a “Committee of Independent Workmen” in reaction to the [[Marxism]] of the free trade unions.<ref name=rise /> A year later The German Workers Party was formed when this merged with another group, the Political Workers' Circle. <ref>Shoah Resource Center, http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205946.pdf </ref> <ref>Germanculture.com, http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/weekly/aa012400b.htm</ref>

It was Adolf Hitler, who joined the party and was put in charge of propaganda in 1920, who transformed this small group into what we now know as the Nazi Party through his great skill in politics and public speaking. That same year the words “National Socialist” were added to the party name and it became “The National Socialist German Workers Party” (NSDAP). This is the most obvious proof that the Nazis were [[liberal]], despite liberals' claims otherwise. The Storm Troopers (Sturmabteilung, [[Brownshirts|SA]]) in their distinctive brown uniforms, were organized first to kick out hecklers at Nazi meetings, then to break up the meetings of other parties. The hakenkreuz (literally: ''hooked cross''), or the [[swastika]], was adopted in the party’s flag. By the following summer, Hitler himself had taken over as leader (de: Führer) of the party.

*Here we have the core of Nazism: (i) a very strong dose of German anti-semitism (with a paranoid belief in a conspiracy between Jewish financiers who control the capitalist economy and steal from the Germans, Jewish liberal intellectuals who preach humanism and enfeeble the Germans, and Jewish communists who seek to enslave the Germans; (ii) a belief in the German nation and the "aryan" German race as an entity with a special, heroic destiny; (iii) war as the ultimate test of national strength and worth; and (iv) conquest--with extermination or removal of the resident population--to create more "living space" or the German people and larger fields for the German farmers. Add to this (a) the "leadership principle"--a hatred of parliamentary institutions, and a belief that a good political order sees an inspired leader giving people vision and commands (rather than see parliamentarians haggle and compromise on behalf of interest groups)--(b) the use of terror to obtain obedience, and (c) the desire to make sure that all of society's organizations serve the national cause, and you have Nazism. <ref>http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Alternatives12.html</ref>

==Anti-Semitism==

The Nazis were highly [[Anti-Semitism|anti-Semitic]] and blamed the Jews for many of the problems in Germany, such as the defeat in [[World War I]].
The Nazis passed the [[Nuremberg Laws]] in 1935 which stated that:
* Young German women could not work for Jews in the domestic services.
* Jews were no longer citizens of Germany (this meant that they had no protection from the police and so were susceptible to attack)
* Jewish doctors were not allowed to treat Germans/Aryans
* Jews could not marry Germans/Aryans
They made laws against Jews ("Rassengesetze", ''race laws'') which places successively tighter restrictions on the rights of Jews to own property, use public services, live in some areas, enter public spaces and eventually required Jews wear a [[Star of David]] on their clothing.
The Jews were mistreated, persecuted, and killed by the Nazis.
The Nazi state also persecuted other political opponents, such as [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]. State-run hospitals secretly euthanized the very old, the sick, mentally ill and the disabled. Some [[homosexuality|homosexuals]]<ref>Hans Peter Bleuel, ''Sex and Society in Nazi Germany'', (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1973).</ref>came under increasing scrutiny and persecution in the later years of the regime, although other homosexuals were ardent supporters of Adolf Hitler and played an important role in his regime <ref>[http://www.whale.to/b/reisman.html The Pink Swastika as Holocaust Revisionist History by Judith A. Reisman]</ref>.
The Nazis exterminated at least 11 million civilians by rounding them up, transporting them to concentration camps and then murdering them there. About 6 million of these were Jews (see [[Holocaust]]).

==Religion==
Nazis rejected Christianity as spoiled by Judaism, but did support a new pro-Nazi Protestant church that had a few followers. The Nazis tried to minimize the influence of Protestant and Catholic churches, while promoting as pre-Christian German paganism. Adolf Hitler was raised Roman Catholic as a youth, but he began to despise the church and all of Christianity as too pacifist or a "religion for weaklings".

=== Alfred Rosenberg ===

Dr. Alfred Rosenberg, the party's official philosopher, announced the philosophic basis of the Nazi campaign. In his ''The Myth of the Twentieth Century'' he scorns the Old Testament, and while he takes Jesus more seriously, he concludes,<ref>Time (Sept 03, 1934)</ref>
:The religion of Jesus was undoubtedly the preaching of love . . . but the German religious movement, which wishes to develop into a people's church, must declare that it unconditionally subordinates the ideal of neighborly love to the ideal of national honor . . . The churches, handed over to it again, will, little by little, put the fiery spirit of the hero . . . in place of the crucifixion."

The outspoken pagan Rosenberg drew up a thirty-point program for the ''National Reich Church'', created in 1936, which contains the following statements,

*"The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be national churches of the German Reich.
*"The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably...the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800...
*"The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.
*"The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany...'"
*"On the altars there must be nothing but 'Mein Kampf' (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.
*"On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels...and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika."<ref>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William L. Shirer, P. 240</ref>

When a Manchester Guardian correspondent attended a Berlin meeting of the German People's Church, he found it a noisy, enthusiastic, a theological free-for-all. One Dr. Krause exclaimed, "The lives and utterances of great Germans must be considered equal to the Bible as revelations..."

=== Pagan cults ===

Throughout Germany strange little pagan cults were seen to arise, such as the pantheistic Nordic Religious Community.

Youth Leader Hartmann-Lautenbacher stated, "Besides the rock of Jesus Christ there is another: Adolf Hitler. It remains to be seen which of the two is stronger. On the one sit the old women. On the other stands the young generation."

Youth Press Agent August Hoppe exhorted war against Christianity, and a return to pagan roots.

Similar to what some see today in the West, Youth Leader Joachim Benedicte stated, "...The religious faith of the German people must be decided by political elements, the Storm Troops and the Hitler Youth."<ref>Religion: Nazis v. Jesus Christ, Time. 9-03-1934</ref>

As in Communism, the State, or ''Fatherland'' came to be deified, in the name of which Hitler justified his autocratic decision to kill - for political purposes - a large number of S.A. leaders while they were at a resort, during the "Night of the Long Knives."

Rather than initially attacking Christian faith outright, the Nazi party promoted itself as "positive Christianity," and vigorously opposed what they call "negative Christianity", both terms being Nazi inventions which could mean whatever the local Nazi leader chooses them to mean. In their Manifesto of their "anxieties and fears", the German Evangelical Church quoted Rosenberg as saying, "The general ideas of the Roman and of the Protestant churches are negative Christianity and do not, therefore, accord with our soul." The Manifesto concludes: "When, within the compass of the Nazi view of life, an anti-Semitism is forced on the Christian that binds him to hatred of the Jew, the Christian injunction to love one's neighbor still stands...The Evangelical conscience is most heavily burdened by the fact that there are still concentration camps in Germany that describes itself as a country in which Justice is administered..."<ref>Time magazine, Aug. 10, 1936, Foreign News: Churchmen to Hitler</ref>

=== Religious persecution ===

Overall however, the spiritual condition of Germany may be seen to have been weak by and during the time of Hitler's rise to power. Protestant churches in Germany had become largely institutionalized, and its power to effect political change decreased. The Catholic Institution had been pressured into a Concordant with Hitler, which the latter continually broke. Loyalties were torn as [[national socialism]] became the cause, and churches were pressured to submit to its ethos.<ref>''A history of national socialism, Cross against Swastika'', by Konrad Heiden</ref><ref>''Pius XII and the Nazis'', by Darlene Shelton</ref>Jews were overall seen negatively, stubborn and ungrateful.<ref>''Martin Luther and "The Jews" A Reappraisal'', by Dr. Christopher Probst</ref> After their rise to power the Nazis sought to purge the national German Evangelical Church of converted Jews, as well to make the church ideologically submissive to the state. By entertaining the Nazi doctrine of Aryan racial superiority and persecution of Jews, they militated against the authoritative position of the Scriptures. Largely in reaction to such the [[Confessing Church]] emerged. This Protestant church was not recognized by the Nazi's, and was persecuted and finally forced underground, as many members and leaders, such as [[Martin Niemöller]], were particularly active in protesting against euthanasia and the persecution of the Jews.<ref>The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2008; Confessing Church</ref><ref>Encyclopædia Britannica, 2009, Confessing Church</ref>

Measures taken against the Christian Churches were an integral part of [[National Socialism]]. An [[OSS]] report to the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal]] Stated,
:"The Nazi conspirators, by promoting beliefs and practices incompatible with Christian teaching, sought to subvert the influence of the Churches over the people and in particular over the youth of Germany. They avowed their aim to eliminate the Christian Churches in Germany and sought to substitute therefore Nazi institutions and Nazi beliefs and pursued a programme of persecution of priests, clergy and members of monastic orders whom they deemed opposed to their purposes and confiscated Church property."<ref>Claire Hulme & Dr. Michael Salter, [http://www-camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/RJLR_3_1_2.pdf ''The Nazi's Persecution as a War Crime: The OSS Response Within the Nuremeberg Trial's Process''], Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, n.d.</ref>

Though Christians sometime hold Hitler to be an atheist, and atheists often assert he was a Christian, the best evidence shows him to be neither, in particular failing to be the latter, especially in the Biblical sense of the word (being both the source and most authoritative definition of it). In contrast, evidence reveals that while Hitler shared with many atheists a dramatically skewed idea of what Christianity is, and or made political use of the term, he was quite the contrary to being a Christian.<ref>[http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Holocaust-Bible-Scriptural-Anti-Semitism/dp/0982277601 Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Bible: A Scriptural Analysis..., by Joe Keysor]</ref>

The resource site Adherents.com states,

There is no question that Hitler was a Nazi. Nazism was clearly his most important religious affiliation, not in the positive way the word “religion” is often defined, but in the general sense that any philosophy or belief system which is most important in a person’s life is that person’s “religion,” regardless of whether or not it is universally labelled as a “religion.” Hitler was also born into a Catholic family, but he rejected Catholicism and in most ways he rejected Christianity in general. On occasion we have read people claim that “Hitler was a Catholic” or “Hitler was a Christian” in a meaningful way, implying that Christianity or Catholicism was the primary impetus for his Nazi reign. Such claims are simply vitriolic attacks occasionally voiced by ideologically-inclined anti-Christian, anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi people. Historians agree that Hitler was pointedly anti-Christian. We are not aware of any published sources from acknowledged academic historians or writers that identify Adolf Hitler as significantly Catholic or Christian in his motivations as an adult.”<ref>http://www.adherents.com/people/ph/Adolf_Hitler.html</ref>

=== Hossbach Memorandum ===

In the Hossbach Memorandum, Hitler blamed Christianity for the fall of Rome (rather than such being a judgment due to its degradation, and persecution of Christians and its message), stating: "It was only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age which appear in every country, which caused ancient Rome to succumb to the onslaught of the Germans." <ref>[http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/hossbach.asp]</ref>

Additionally, Albert Speer records that Hitler lamented, “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion." and that Islam would have more compatible for them than Christianity.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=XLSa_RIDHMUC&dq=Albert+Speer,+Inside+the+Third+Reich,&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=551HSrzDDcm0twf6x7TbBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5 Inside the Third Reich, p. 96]</ref>

In another statement attributed to Hitler, he predicts, “I’m going to become a religious figure. Soon I’ll be the great chief of the Tartars. Already Arabs and Moroccans are mingling my name with their prayers.”<ref>Adolf Hitler, cited in Waite, Robert, Adolf Hitler: The Psychopathic God (NY: Basic Books, 1977) p. 261) (Lutzer, pp. 62-63.)</ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2132855/posts?page=101#101]

=== Hitler's Table Talk ===

Clear but disputable evidence reveals Hitler as promoting a form of paganism, which the Nazi party clearly sought to promote. ''Hitler's Table Talk'' is a series of informal, private conversations among Hitler and his closest associates, as recorded by (anti-Catholic) Martin Bormann. The ex tempore remarks excerpted below are attributed to Hitler:<ref>Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953</ref>

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941

*"[[National Socialism]] and religion cannot exist together....

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....

*"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday

*"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday

*"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....

*"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity <is> the liar...

*"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night

*"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

21st October, 1941, midday

*"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....

*"The decisive falsification of Jesus' [who he asserts many times was never a Jew] doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....

*"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunized against the disease." (p 118-119)

14th December, 1941, midday

*"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....

*"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner

*"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday

*"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)

Miscellaneous other quotes include,

*"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it."

*"Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline."

*"We'll see to it that the churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth."

*"Indeed, it's most important that the higher belief should be well established in them before the lower belief has been removed. We must finally achieve this."

*"We do not want to educate anyone in atheism."

*"The observatory I'll have built at Linz, on the Pöstlingberg, I can see it in my mind ... In future, thousands of excursionists will make a pilgrimage there every Sunday. They'll thus have access to the greatness of our universe. The pediment will bear this motto: 'The heavens proclaim the glory of the everlasting.' It will be our way of giving men a religious spirit, of teaching them humility — but without the priests."

*"The final state must be: in St. Peter's Chair, a senile officiant; facing him, a few sinister old women, as gaga and as poor in spirit as anyone could wish."

*"For my part, in his place [the Duce] I'd have taken the path of revolution. I'd have entered the Vatican and thrown everybody out — reserving the right to apologize later: 'Excuse me, it was a mistake!' But the result would have been, they'd have been outside!"
[[Image:Nazi.jpg|thumb|right|250px|"With our flags is our victory"]]
*"But a pope, even a criminal one, who protects great artists and spreads beauty around him, is nevertheless more sympathetic to me than the protestant minister who drinks from the poisoned spring."

*"I have six Divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn't prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls."

*"The soul and the mind migrate, just as the body returns to nature. Thus life is eternally reborn from life. As for the 'why' of all that, I feel no need to rack my brains on the subject. The soul is unplumbable."<ref>Hitler on Religion: http://library.flawlesslogic.com/religion.htm</ref>

Hitler, much like atheists, is seen to not only have scorned corruptions of Christian faith, but the whole faith as well. Having loosed himself from the moral authority of the Bible (though misappropriating it's "badge" at times for his own purposes) he was much free to be guided by his own "golden compass", which is ultimately the atheistic basis for determining morality. Tragically however, while an innate sense of right can be right, Hitler's compass pointed south rather than north.

==Economic planning==

[[James Burnham]], a former [[Trotskyite]] who served with the [[Office of Strategic Services]] (OSS) during the World War II and later contributed to the ''[[National Review]]'', described the Nazi regime's [[economic planning]]. Burnham pointed out how the original "workers revolution" of [[Marxism]] had in fact become a managerial revolution in all societies were Socialism had been embraced. Writing in 1940, Burnham noted,

{{Cquote|Outright state ownership and operation, advancing in all fields, are particularly ascendant in the extensive areas of new enterprise opened up during the Nazi rule....virtually all economic enterprise is subject to rigid state control; and it is control which we have seen to be decisive in relation to the instruments of production. Legal forms, even income privileges, are in the end subordinate to ''de facto'' control.

Even where private owners still exist in Germany, the decisions about "their" property are not in their hands. They do not decide what to make or not to make. They do not establish prices or bargain about wages. They are not at liberty to buy the raw materials they might choose nor to seek the most profitable markets. They cannot, as a rule, decide how to invest or not invest their surplus funds. In short, they are no longer owners, no longer effective [[capitalist]]s...

The regulation of production in Germany is no longer left to the market. What is to be produced, and how much, is decided, deliberately, by groups of men, by the state boards and bureaus and commissions. It is they that decide whether a new plant shall be built or an old plant retired, how raw materials shall be allotted and orders distributed, what quotas must be fulfilled by various branches of industry, what goods shall be put aside for export, how prices shall be fixed and credit and exchange extended. There is no requirement that these decisions of the bureaus must be based on any profit aim in the capitalist sense. If it is thought expedient, for whatever reason, to produce, for example, an ersatz rubber or wool or food, this will be done even if the production entails, from a capitalist point of view, a heavy loss. Similarly, in order to accumulate foreign exchange or to stimulate some political effect in a foreign nation, goods will be exported regardless of loss. A factory may be compelled to shut down, even though it could operate at a high profit. Banks and individuals are forced to invest their funds with no reference to the private and voluntary opinions about "risks" from a profit standpoint. It is literally true to say that the Nazi economy, already, is not a "profit economy."

The workers, on their side, are no longer the "free proletarians" of capitalism. Under Nazism the workers are indeed, free from unemployment. At the same time they cannot, as individuals or through their own independent organizations, bargain for wages or change jobs at will. They are assigned to their tasks, and their labor conditions are fixed, by the decisions of the state bureaus and commissions. Millions of them are allotted to the vast state enterprises. ...With the reduction in the area of private enterprise and the increase of state enterprise, goes also a corresponding reduction in the social position of the private capitalists. So far as control over the instruments of production goes, the capitalists are already near the bottom. As to income privilege: a recent estimate by a New York statistician gives as a mere 5% the share of the German national income going to profits and interest. This is a substantial reduction from the 1933 figures, in spite of a huge increase in the total national income, which, under capitalism, would normally be accompanied by a percentage increase in profits. ...f the German capitalists' 5%, the greater part is appropriated by the state as taxes and "contributions." ...

...how seldom we find a manager among the voluntary or forced exiles from Nazi Germany! There are artists and writers among the exiles, ideologists and politicians, unassailable foes of the new regime, storekeepers and professionals and teachers, and not a few capitalists, both Jews and Christians. But almost never a manager....Germany is to-day a managerial state in an early stage. Structurally, it is less advanced along managerial lines than Russia; ...though structurally less advanced...Its industrial and technological foundation is far stronger; the rising managerial class is much larger, better trained, more able...

...The first part of the second world war, up to the fall of France in June, 1940, was in reality the continuation of the strategic extension begun in 1935. This phase, the consolidation of the European base, was completed with France's surrender. It is completed irreversibly and can no longer be undone whatever the outcome of the succeeding phases of the war, which are really other wars. This consolidation fundamental to the world politics of managerial society, is not going to be dissolved, not even if the present German regime is utterly defeated. The day of a Europe carved into a score of sovereign states is over; if the states remain, they will be little more than administrative units in a larger collectivity. <ref>James Burnham, ''The Managerial Revolution'', Indiana University Press, Bloomingham 1966, pgs. 222-226, 232.</ref>}}

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==See Also==
*[[Anti-Semitism]]
*[[Adolf Hitler]]
*[[National Socialism]]

==External links==
*[http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Alternatives12.html Marxism, Fascism, Nazism] - Brad DeLong, Associate Professor of Economics, University of California at Berkeley
*Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Bible: A Scriptural Analysis of Anti-Semitism, National Socialism, and the Churches in Nazi Germany, by Joe Keysor
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:German History]]
[[Category:Holocaust]]
[[Category:Political Parties]]
[[Category:Fascist States]]
[[Category:Nazis]]
[[Category:Anti-Semitism]]
[[Category:Racist Organizations]]
[[Category:Oppression]]

Ronald Wilson Reagan

2012-06-07T16:36:40Z

CWest: /* Dealing with the Soviets */

{{Officeholder
|name=Ronald Wilson Reagan
|image=Reagan large 4.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse= Jane Wyman Nancy Davis Reagan
|religion=[[Presbyterian]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=40th
|terms=January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989
|vp=[[George H. W. Bush]]
|preceded=[[Jimmy Carter]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[George H. W. Bush]]
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=33rd
|state=California
|terms=January 2, 1967 – January 6, 1975
|preceded=Edmund G. "Pat" Brown, Sr.
|former=y
|succeeded=Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown, Jr.
}}
}}
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' (February 6, 1911 - June 5, 2004), served as the 40th [[President of the United States of America]] from 1981 to 1989. He was the 33rd Governor of [[California]] (1967–1975), following a successful career in film and television. He has been widely recognized as one of the greatest American Presidents and the main inspiration for the conservative movement from the 1970s to the present.

Reagan was a [[movement conservative]], and succeeded in moving the nation to the right in terms of reducing federal regulation and lowering taxes--and indeed in promoting the conviction that government was the problem and private enterprise the solution. He cut taxes but despite his proposals, spending and the federal deficit went up. After a short sharp recession early in his first term, the economy was strong by 1984. Proclaiming "It's Morning Again in America", Reagan carried 49 of 50 states to win reelection. He moved the [[Supreme Court]] and the federal courts to the right with his appointments.

Reagan's [[Supply-side economics|supply-side economic]] policies were based on the libertarian ideas of [[Milton Friedman]] and the [[Chicago School of Economics]]. "Reaganomics" was based on the idea that tax cuts will spur savings and investment. Reagan was strongly opposed to the concept of big government, advocating a reduction in the size and budget of the federal government. During his terms in office, he faced a divided Congress split between Republican and Democratic control for six of his eight years as President. Reagan was known for forging alliances with "[[Blue Dog]]" (conservative) Democrats to overcome the apparent majority led by Democratic Speaker [[Tip O'Neill]].

In foreign affairs Reagan rejected détente with the [[Soviet Union]], but not with [[China]]. His massive defense buildup forced the Soviets to confront their crumbling financial base. He rejected the legitimacy of Communism and in the [[Reagan Doctrine]] systematically challenged and eventually destroyed Soviet strength in the Third World. After 1986 the new leadership of [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] who tried desperately to rescue Communism by cutting its losses; they came to terms with Reagan; the Communist empire collapsed in 1989 a few months after Reagan left office, and Communism was abolished (and Gorbachev repudiated) by Russia in 1991. Reagan is thus credited with achieving victory in the Cold War.<ref> Knopf (2004)</ref>

Always distrustful of nuclear weapons, Reagan proposed SDI, a space-based system to defend against nuclear missiles. The inability of the Soviet Union to match this new technological breakthrough forced it to agree to Reagan's terms for ending the Cold War. In leading the rollback of Communism in Europe, he battled powerful liberal forces that called instead for détente (peaceful relations) with Communism. As the Soviet system faltered and Gorbachev accepted Reagan's terms, ensured an unprecedented level of nuclear disarmament. His signature phrase in dealing with Communists was "trust, but verify."

In his most famous challenges to Communism, Reagan went to the Berlin Wall and gave the Soviets the American terms for ending the Cold War: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" The Soviets were forced to agree, and watched their empire collapse overnight in late 1989, a few months after Reagan was succeeded as president by his Vice President [[George H.W. Bush]].

As a great communicator, and leader of the Republican party, he added a new base of "Reagan Democrats" (blue collar workers who were social conservatives), religious [[evangelical]]s, and [[neoconservative]]s; his success became the model for Republicans into the 21st century.

Not only was Ronald Reagan a smart individual on the surface, he also contributed many new [[insight]]s to the general public not yet available before.<ref>Tear Down This Wall, Laffer Curve, etc. See [[conservative insights]]</ref>

== Reagan's Conservatism ==
In a speech, immediately after assuming the presidency in 1981, he outlined his philosophy. After listing "intellectual leaders like Russell Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, James Burnham, Ludwig von Mises" as the ones who "shaped so much of our thoughts," he discussed only one of these influences at length:

*It's especially hard to believe that it was only a decade ago, on a cold April day on a small hill in upstate New York, that another of these great thinkers, [[Frank Meyer]], was buried. He'd made the awful journey that so many others had: He pulled himself from the clutches of "The [communist] God That Failed,'' and then in his writing fashioned a vigorous new synthesis of traditional and libertarian thought -- a synthesis that is today recognized by many as modern conservatism.

*It was Frank Meyer who reminded us that the robust individualism of the American experience was part of the deeper current of Western learning and culture. He pointed out that a respect for law, an appreciation for tradition, and regard for the social consensus that gives stability to our public and private institutions, these civilized ideas must still motivate us even as we seek a new economic prosperity based on reducing government interference in the marketplace.

*Our goals complement each other. We're not cutting the budget simply for the sake of sounder financial management. This is only a first step toward returning power to the States and communities, only a first step toward reordering the relationship between citizen and government. We can make government again responsive to the people by cutting its size and scope and thereby ensuring that its legitimate functions are performed efficiently and justly. <ref>[http://acuf.org/issues/issue13/040606news.asp Ronald Reagan's Conservative Legacy, ACUF]</ref>

==Early Life==
[[File:Reagan_graduation.jpg|right|160px|thumb| 1932 photo taken after his graduation from Eureka College]]
Reagan was born in Tampico, [[Illinois]], the second son of John (Jack) Edward and Nelle Wilson Reagan. The family finally settled in Dixon, Illinois in 1920 after years of moving from town to town. Jack Reagan nicknamed his younger son “Dutch", claiming he looked like “a fat little Dutchman.”<ref> http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/facts.html</ref> Reagan's father was a working class Irish Catholic, and an active Democrat. Unemployed during the [[Great Depression]], Jack Reagan held a minor position in the [[WPA]] during the [[New Deal]]. Reagan recalled numerous alcoholic episodes that cost his father many job opportunities. Nelle Reagan, a devout member of the [[Disciples of Christ]], greatly influenced her son, who remained a lifelong Protestant.

He attended [[Eureka College]], a small Disciples school where he developed a reputation as a "jack of all trades", excelling in campus politics, sports and theater. Reagan was a member of the football and track teams, the basketball cheerleading squad, captain of the swimming team, yearbook editor and was elected student body president. Reagan was a political liberal at that point and led a student revolt against the college president. In his first year at Eureka, the president of the college tried to cut back the faculty. Reagan helped organize a student strike. He received his degree in economics in 1932.

To pay for college, Reagan worked many low wage jobs such as cooking hamburgers and washing tables. He also worked as a lifeguard at Lowell Park on the Rock River in Dixon for seven summers, where he saved seventy-seven swimmers from drowning.<ref> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/reagan/ Timeline of Ronald Reagan’s Life</ref>

After college Reagan became a radio sports announcer in Iowa. Although he was originally only hired to announce the [[University of Iowa]] football games, he became so popular in the Midwest he began covering Chicago Cubs baseball games at Wrigley Field. He also wrote sports columns in the Des Moines ‘’Dispatch’’.

===Reagan as Disciple===
Reagan took religious values into the presidency that he learned from his [[Disciples of Christ]] background at home and at Eureka College, a Disciples school. He was strongly influenced by Ben Hill Cleaver, the minister of the First Christian Church<ref>The formal name of the denomination is the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).</ref> in Dixon, Illinois, during the 1920s, and by Reagan's mother, Nelle, an active member of the church. At many points the positions taken by the Disciples Church of Reagan's youth coincided with the words, if not the beliefs of the latter-day Reagan. These positions included faith in Providence, the association of America's mission with God's will, belief in progress, trust in the work ethic and admiration for those who achieved wealth, an uncomfortableness with literature and art that questioned the family or challenged notions of proper sexual behavior, the presumption that poverty is an individual problem best left to charity rather than the state, sensitivity to problems involving alcohol and drugs, and reticence to use government to protect civil rights for minorities. Reagan's experiences in the church and with the Cleavers provided early training in public speaking and offered a way of learning in which acting played a central part. Reagan's use of the jeremiad and his fusing of Judeo-Christianity and patriotism into a civil religion also have their roots in this early period. For her part, Nelle was a pillar of the church and the one who provided stability to the shaky Reagan family when the head was drunkard and a poor provider. She helped spark her son's interest in acting and believed the stage could be a force for noble purposes.<ref> Stephen Vaughn, "The Moral Inheritance of a President: Reagan and the Dixon Disciples of Christ." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 1995 25(1): 109-127. 0360-4918 </Ref>

==Hollywood==
[[File:Reagan1953.jpg|thumb|left|250px|1953 film starring Reagan and Dorothy Malone]]
In 1937 Reagan traveled to [[Hollywood]] to cover the Chicago Cubs's spring training games and look at prospects in the film industry. Warner Brothers studio offered him a one year contract with a starting salary of $200 a week. He then became famous starring in numerous "B" movies, where he typically played a supporting character rather then the leading role. In 1941 Reagan gave a well received performance in the [[Academy Award|Oscar]] nominated film ''Kings Row''. During the war Reagan was in the Air Force; he was assigned to make training films. He resumed his Hollywood career on release in 1946.

Reagan's movie career faded in the late 1940s but he made a successful transition to television, especially as a host, and became a celebrity on the speakers' circuit. He traveled the country as a motivation speaker for General Electric, attracting highly appreciative audiences for his polished, witty speeches based on a wide reading in current events and libertarian economic principles. Reagan also starred in the 1960s television series Death Valley Days. By 1964 he had appeared in over 50 films.

===Union president===
Reagan jumped into union politics, and was elected to five terms as president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], a labor union for movie actors and part of the [[AFL]]. As SAG President he traveled across the country giving speeches on behalf of actors. Until the 1950s Reagan was an avid liberal Democrat who strongly supported the [[New Deal]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] and the [[Fair Deal]] of [[Harry S. Truman]]. He often campaigned on behalf of the [[New Deal Coalition]]. There was talk of running Reagan for president of the AFL itself.<ref> Ronald Reagan, [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743400259/ref=sib_dp_srch_bod?v=search-inside&keywords=truman ''An American Life'' (1990) p 132]</ref>

Reagan was thus the only president to lead a [[labor union]], a bastion of liberalism. Reagan himself was a registered Democrat well into the 1950s, but as head of the Screen Actors Guild he fought against Communist infiltration. In 1947 he testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Peggy Noonan wrote, "Even in his zeal to purge the communist influence from [[Hollywood]], he fought those who engaged in witch hunts and defended those who had been falsely accused of involvement."

While remaining a Democrat Reagan became increasingly conservative in the 1950s. After actively supporting [[Richard Nixon]]'s campaign for president in 1960, Reagan switched political parties and officially became a Republican in 1962. He realized that he had diverged greatly from the tax-and-spend liberalism of the Democratic Party.

[[Image:Reagantheater.jpg‎|right|thumb|225px|Ronald Reagan and General Electric Theater. 1954-62.]]

==1964==

Conservatives nationwide saw Reagan as their new star when his campaigning for Senator [[Barry Goldwater]] in 1964 was better received than Goldwater's own speeches. He raised an unprecedented eight million dollars for Goldwater. Despite Goldwater's defeat, Reagan's 1964 "[[Time for Choosing]]" speech helped launch his political career and made him became a probable candidate for governor of California.

==Governor of California (1967-1975)==

[[Image:Reagangovernor.jpg‎|left|thumb|275px|Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan at the Victory celebration for California Governor at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles, California 11/8/66.]] In the 1966 gubernatorial campaign, conservatives generally supported Reagan over George Christopher, the Republican mayor of [[San Francisco]]. Reagan defeated Christopher, and incumbent [[liberal]] [[Democrat]] [[Pat Brown]] in the general election, taking fifty-three of California's fifty-eight counties. Reagan's strategists wanted to emphasize libertarian support for smaller government and less taxation, as the state verged on a revolt against high property taxes. As student and black unrest exploded in the headlines, Reagan's call for [[Law and order]] won the votes of former liberals. Reagan's victory marked the end of New Deal liberalism in California.<ref> Dallek, Matthew. "Liberalism Overthrown." ''American Heritage'' (1996) 47(6): 39+ Fulltext online at Ebsco </ref>

Reagan inherited an enormous budget deficit from the Brown administration. In his first year as Governor, Reagan froze government spending and cut ten percent of the spending budget in each department of the government. At the end of his two terms the $194 million deficit had been transformed into a $550 million dollar surplus. The ''San Francisco Chronicle'' editorialized, "We exaggerate very little when we say that Reagan has saved the state from bankruptcy.<ref>http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1980</ref>

When coming into office there was a growing number of anarchist protesters at the University California at Berkeley over the United States' involvement in the [[Vietnam War]]. The protests would become violent. Reagan sent the state police and later the national guard to handle the riots. It allowed him to showcase his populist themes of morality, [[Law and order]], strong leadership, and defense of traditional values. Reagan was reelected in 1970, after firing the president of the state university and sending in armed force to confront student demonstrators. Reagan's handling of this crisis helped to make him into a national politician known for strength and courage. <ref> Gerard DeGroot, "Reagan's Rise." ''History Today'' (1995) 45(9): 31-36. Issn: 0018-2753 Fulltext online at Ebsco</ref>

Governor Reagan briefly tested the presidential waters in 1968, but drew back when he saw [[Richard Nixon]]'s strength.

Welfare spending was a major issue in the 1970 election; with 10% of the nation's population, California had 16% of its welfare recipients. Reagan promised to cut the welfare spending by rooting out fraud and abuse, by requiring recipients to take jobs, and by collecting from dead-beat fathers. Democrats in the legislature supported a much more liberal bill, which advocated the welfare rights of the poor. Reagan personally worked out a compromise that passed and won considerable praise and some criticism. Its savings to taxpayers proved small, but it represented an important political achievement for both parties. Reagan benefited as well, emerging from the compromise as a more experienced and effective politician.<ref> Burbank (1991)</ref>

Reagan supported and signed laws to liberalize [[abortion]] in California (before the Supreme Court issued ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''), but later turned strongly against abortion.

Reagan's gubernatorial style, which carried over into his presidency, was expansive in looking only at the big picture, and choosing talented staffers who were given the power to handle all the details. Reagan seldom paid attention to the minute details of his own policies. Reagan was a powerful communicator, through press conferences and public appearances, with an uncanny knack for precise timing to make the maximum impact.<ref> Hamilton and Biggart, (1984); Ritter (1992)</ref>

Liberals across the country were puzzled by Reagan, and decided that he was a weak reactionary who would be easy to defeat if he ran for president. California liberals explained they were all wrong, that Reagan was the most formidable Republican since Eisenhower.

In 1970, he was re-elected by a landslide. But in 1974, he chose not to seek a third term and was succeeded by liberal Democrat [[Jerry Brown]].

===Highlights as governor===
*Called in the [[National Guard]] to restore order when People's Park protesters began attacking police, and restored order to California's chaotic university campuses.<ref>http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048</ref> Reagan authorized the use of violent force against the peaceful protesters in Berkeley,<ref>University of California, Berkeley - Police Department. [http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048 History Topic: People's Park] August 2006</ref> saying, "If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with."<ref> ''San Francisco Chronicle'', early morning edition, May 15 1969</ref> In the resulting chaos, police fired buckshot into the crowd, fatally wounding one bystander and blinding another, and injuring hundreds of others.

*Led a comprehensive and far-reaching revision of California's massive public assistance programs, actually increasing benefits to the truly needy.

*Worked well with the Democrats to forge consensus on a variety of issues.

*Legalized the shooting of illegal Immigrants, though the law was soon overturned by democrats after he left

==Presidential Campaigns==

===1976===

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1976]]''

After [[Richard Nixon]]'s resignation in 1974, the weak [[Gerald Ford]] became president, and Reagan challenged him in the 1976 Republican Party primaries. The main issue was détente with the Soviets as promoted by Ford and Secretary of State [[Henry Kissinger]]. Ford won the first 13 primaries, then Reagan came roaring back. He criticized the federal government and politicians for being too large, too powerful, and too involved in American society. Reagan, however, named liberal eastern Senator Richard Schweiker as his running mate. Control of the convention came down to the Mississippi delegation, which swung the nomination to Ford. However, given how difficult it is to run against an incumbent President in a Primary, Reagan's campaign was surprisingly strong. After Ford was defeated in the general election, Reagan retired to his ranch in California and continued to give speeches across the country. There was little doubt that Reagan was the dominant Republican for the next election, and he easily won the nomination in 1980.

===1980===

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1980]]''

Before the general election, Reagan faced a Republican primary challenge from the more moderate [[George H. W. Bush]]. Bush was highly established and respected as having served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, ambassador to People's Republic of China and the United Nations, former chairman of the National Republican Committee, and two-term Congressman from [[Texas]]. Bush referred to Reagan's economic policies as "voodoo economics." After Bush won a surprising victory in the [[Iowa]] State primary, Reagan surged ahead after he outwitted Bush in the New Hampshire debate. He later won the primary, and ironically named George H. W. Bush as his running mate.

Reagan was able to crusade against the failures of incumbent Democrat, President [[Jimmy Carter]]. There was runaway [[stagflation]], soaring [[interest rates]], persistent [[unemployment]], a series of humiliations abroad, and a weakened [[military]] in the face of growing Soviet superpower. As Reagan put it, "I'm told I can't use the word depression. Well, I'll tell you the definition. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." The most pressing foreign policy crisis was that [[Iran]]ian President [[Ayatollah Khomeini]] was holding fifty- two Americans hostage. All of Carter's diplomatic attempts had failed.

Reagan feared that the [[Soviet Union]]'s military had become much more powerful then the United States'. He proposed stronger defense systems and a larger military. Carter fought back, lashing out at Reagan as a dangerous radical who would unleash nuclear war. A liberal Republican [[John Anderson]] ran a third party campaign which received 7% of the popular vote. Reagan won a landslide victory - receiving 51% of the popular vote and winning 44 of 50 states. In the 20th century, only two presidents received a larger electoral majority: Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 and Richard Nixon in 1972. <ref>[http://www.trivia-library.com/c/biography-of-us-president-ronald-reagan-part-8-campaign.htm Biography of U.S. President Ronald Reagan]</ref> His long coattails brought in the first Republican Senate in years, but the Democrats still controlled the House. The election marked the last hurrah of the New Deal era, the final collapse of the [[New Deal Coalition]] and indeed the end of liberalism as a coherent policy.<ref> Busch 2005</ref>

==Presidency (1981-1989)==
[[Image:Reaganfamily-red-rr-.jpg|right|thumb|325px|President & Mrs. Reagan with their extended family.]]

Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the 40th President of the United States on January 20, 1981. On that same day Ayatollah released the hostages after keeping them in captivity for 444 days.

Once in office, Reagan showed he was playing hardball. When the Federal [[Air Traffic Controllers]] struck illegally, Reagan gave them 48 hours before he fired all who hadn't gone back to work (11,359).

Reagan rebuffed liberals who complained he was killing the New Deal. Noting that he voted for FDR in 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944, as well as Truman in 1948, Reagan said he was trying to repeal the "[[Great Society]]'' enacted by liberals in the mid-1960s.<ref>David Gergen, [http://books.google.com/books?id=68rBxuO7EsMC&pg=PA351&dq=reagan+%22great+society%22+roosevelt+truman&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES ''Eyewitness to Power'' (2000) p 351]</ref>

===Administration===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Office
! Name
! Term
|-
| [[President]]
| Ronald Reagan
| 1981-1989
|-
| [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]]
| [[George H.W. Bush]]
| 1981-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of State]]
| [[Alexander Haig]]
| 1981-1982
|-
|
| [[George Shultz]]
| 1982-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Treasury]]
| [[Donald Regan]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[James Baker]]
| 1985-1988
|-
|
| [[Nicholas Brady]]
| 1988-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Defense]]
| [[Caspar Weinberger]]
| 1981-1987
|-
|
| [[Frank C. Carlucci]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Attorney General]]
| [[William Smith]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[Edwin Meese III]]
| 1985-1988
|-
|
| [[Richard Thornburgh]]
| 1988-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of the Interior]]
| [[James G. Watt]]
| 1981-1983
|-
|
| [[William P. Clark, Jr.]]
| 1983-1985
|-
|
| [[Donald Hodel]]
| 1985-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Agriculture]]
| [[John Rusling Block]]
| 1981-1986
|-
|
| [[Richard E. Lyng]]
| 1986-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Commerce]]
| [[Howard M. Baldrige, Jr.]]
| 1981-1987
|-
|
| [[C. William Verity, Jr.]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Labor]]
| [[Raymond J. Donovan]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[William E. Brock]]
| 1985–1987
|-
|
| [[Ann Dore McLaughlin]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Health and Human Services]]
| [[Richard S. Schweiker]]
| 1981–1983
|-
|
| [[Margaret Heckler]]
| 1983-1985
|-
|
| [[Otis R. Bowen]]
| 1985-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Education]]
| [[Terrel Bell]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[William Bennett]]
| 1985-1988
|-
|
| [[Lauro Cavazos]]
| 1988-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Housing and Urban Development]]
| [[Samuel R. Pierce, Jr.]]
| 1981-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Transportation]]
| [[Drew Lewis]]
| 1981-1983
|-
|
| [[Elizabeth Dole]]
| 1983-1987
|-
|
| [[James H. Burnley IV]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Energy]]
| [[James B. Edwards]]
| 1981-1982
|-
|
| [[Donald Paul Hodel]]
| 1982-1985
|-
|
| [[John S. Herrington]]
| 1985-1989
|-
|}

===Assassination Attempt===

On March 30, 1981, Reagan was shot near the heart after giving a routine speech.<ref> The assassin was [[John Hinckley]], a mentally disturbed man who didn't shoot Reagan for political reasons, but instead did to impress an actress he had never met.</ref> Surgeons at George Washington University Hospital saved his life and despite his age he recovered quickly. White House Press Secretary [[James Brady]] was shot in the head, became permanently disabled; Brady then became an icon of the anti-gun movement.

The assassination attempt came at a critical moment and disarmed the opposition in Congress, enabling Reagan to pass his major legislation even though the Democrats controlled the House.

===1984 Reelection===

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1984]]''

In 1984, Reagan was re-elected in a landslide, winning every state except Mondale's home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible), and received 58.8%. of the popular vote. <ref>[http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/scores.html#1984 National Archives]</ref> <ref>[http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1984 Leip, David: 1984 Presidential Election Results.]</ref>

During his second term, he helped end the Cold War with the help of Margaret Thatcher and some assistance from Pope John Paul II and Mikhail Gorbachev by recognizing the weakness of the Soviet economy, and spent them out of existence by their not being able to compete with defense spending.

==Domestic policy==
===Economy===
[[Image:Reagan_desk.jpg‎|left|thumb|275px|President Reagan working at his desk in the oval office, 05/06/82.]]
As President, Ronald Reagan enacted his theory of "[[Reaganomics]]." His four major policy objectives were the following<ref>http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html</ref>:

*Reduce the growth of government spending.
*Reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital.
*Reduce government regulation of the economy.
*Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

Fueled by an over spending [[Congress]] that steadfastly refused Reagan's budget proposals, the national debt increased 160% during his two terms in office. However, the economic growth that resulted from tax cuts made deficits as a percentage of [[GDP]] lower than what they had been in during the previous decade of stagflation. The period of high [[inflation]] and [[unemployment]] when Reagan took office was over after eight years of his Presidency. In 1986 Reagan signed the [[Tax Reform Act]], which obtained an overhaul of the income tax code and eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. The [[income tax]] rates of the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without [[recession]] or [[depression]].<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html</ref>

====PATCO Strike====
[[File:Time-8-17-81.jpg|thumb|250px| ''Time'' Aug 17, 1981. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949316,00.html read story]]]On 3 August 1981, 13,000 air traffic controllers, members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), walked off the job. PATCO had supported Reagan in the 1980 election but now was making exorbitant demands regarding high raises, early retirement, and reduced hours. The Federal Aviation Administration made a generous offer but PATCO said no and called a strike. PATCO assumed it would shut down all air traffic and paralyze the economy, forcing the government to surrender, but they misjudged Ronald Reagan. Under federal law, the strike was illegal. Reagan ordered the strikers as a group to return to work. Some returned but most did not; he ordered individual strikers to return, and again most refused. Reagan was ready; secretly the Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis had readied military replacements. It was the first time in over 50 years in a major strike that replacements were used. Two days later, the president fired 11,000 strikers, and they never were rehired. The planes were flying and labor unions suffered their worst defeat since the 1920s. Reagan's dramatic action energized corporations to resist union demands, and sped up the rapid decline in union membership and the political power of union bosses.<ref>"Turbulence in the Tower," [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949316,00.html ''Time'' Aug. 17, 1981]; Paul L. Butterworth, et al., "More than a Labor Dispute: The PATCO Strike of 1981," ''Essays in Economic & Business History'' 2005 23:125-139</ref>

===Social Security Reform 1983===
Mounting concerns that rising Social Security benefits were causing a long-term deficit and were growing too fast resulted in a bipartisan compromise in 1983. Brokered by conservative [[Alan Greenspan]] and liberal [[Claude Pepper]], the agreement lowered benefits over the next 75 years and brought the system into balance. Key provisions included a gradual increase over 25 years in the retirement age from 65 to 67, to take account of longer life expectancy. (People could retire younger, but at a reduced rate of benefits.) Millions of people were added to the system, especially employees of state governments and of nonprofit organizations.<ref> 1983 Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform (1983) [http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/gspan5.html online version]; "Claude Pepper and Social Security Reform - 1981-1983," [http://www.claudepeppercenter.fsu.edu/webexhibits/socialsecurityreform/socialsecurityreform1981to1983.htm online exhibit]; Paul Charles Light, ''Artful Work: The Politics of Social Security Reform'' (1985)</ref>

===Supreme Court Appointments===
Reagan had maintained the promise he made in his 1980 presidential campaign to appoint the first women to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. On July 7, 1981, he named little-known Arizona judge [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Liberals, who had been ready for a knock-down battle, were stunned and meekly voted for her. Some Pro-Life groups were worried about her abortion position, which was unknown. She was confirmed by the Senate by a 99–0 vote on September 21 and took her seat September 25.

In 1987, Reagan nominated conservative judge [[Robert Bork]] to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice [[Lewis Powell]]. Senate liberals attacked Bork as being too conservative. Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] criticized him, saying,
:''"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."''<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5DF1E3EF936A35754C0A961948260</ref>

The U.S. Senate rejected Bork's confirmation on a 42-58 vote. Reagan turned to the much less controversial Californian [[Anthony Kennedy]] he was confirmed on a 97-0 vote.

===War on Drugs===
As President, Reagan declared a "war on drugs", which would be policies put forward by the United States and other countries to reduce illegal drug trade. In 1986, President Reagan signed the very prominent Anti-Drug Abuse Act which granted $97 million to build new [[prison]]s, $200 million for drug [[education]] and $241 million for treatment. Overall, $1.7 billion to fight the drug crisis.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/</ref> First Lady [[Nancy Reagan]] started a slogan, "Just Say No" to drug use. The term was used in television advertising, and today there are many "Just Say No" drug clinics. As a result of the policies, [[marijuana]] use dropped from 33% of high-school seniors in 1980 to 12% in 1991.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/kleber.html</ref>

==Foreign policy==

===Strategic Defense Initiative===

Reagan's 1983 [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] became popularly known as "[[Star Wars]]", the name given to it by critics because they thought it was pure fantasy like the popular [[George Lucas]] films. This plan was never fully instituted. Although billions of dollars were spent on development, no space-based missile defense was tested successfully during Reagan's terms in office. However, the main goal was achieved of forcing the Soviets to realize they could no longer compete in the Cold War.

The threat the Soviet Union felt from the SDI initiative forced them to negotiate an end to the arms race, according to many involved with diplomacy at the time and can be seen by following Gorbachev's repeated public insistences that the SDI program be discontinued. [[Henry Kissinger]] wrote:
:''I know it's an axiomatic view of the Left around the world that missile defense is sinful, and that it's desirable to keep each nation as vulnerable as possible. But that's a debatable premise. The U.S. must defend itself against ''whoever'' has missiles that would threaten the United States. And you don't have to be able to name an enemy.''<ref>[http://www.doublestandards.org/dreifus1.html]</ref>

Reagan was president at the time of the shooting down of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]. He termed the shootown of an innocent straying passenger plane with 269 passengers and crew, including Congressman [[Larry McDonald]], a "massacre" and the ensuing rage over the tragedy both world-wide and in the U.S. provided support for the deployment of cruise and Pershing ll missiles in West Europe- just six minutes flying time from Moscow.

===Soviet Union===
Shortly after taking office in 1981 Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 11-82, (NSDD 11-82), that explicitly made U.S. defense spending a form of economic warfare against the Soviets. The directive was known more unofficially as the Reagan Initiative.
[[Image:Photo 4 250.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Reagan and Gorbachev at Reykjavik]]
The United States would "exploit and demonstrate the enduring economic advantages of the West to develop a variety of [arms] systems that are difficult for the Soviets to counter, impose disproportionate costs, open up new areas of major military competition and obsolesce previous Soviet investment or employ sophisticated strategic options to achieve this end. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI), or "Star Wars" as the media referred to it, was a costly high tech research and development program designed to make arms spending a "rising burden on the Soviet economy."<ref>Peter Schweizer , [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28929.html ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism''], New York: Doubleday, 2002.</ref>
The Reagan Initiative was also concerned with aiding nations in active conflict with the Soviet Union. One such group was the [[mujahideen]] of Afghanistan who were given anti-aircraft missiles to fight the Soviet invaders.

A report by the CIA of the critical domestic economic problems and social discontent Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev provided a look what the sources of his principal dilemma-the very reforms needed to deal with the problems would threaten preservation of the [[nomenklatura]] and put at risk Gorbachev’s ability to maintain the power to bring about [[Perestroika]].<ref>CIA Assessments of the Soviet Union: [https://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/russia/enter.html Chapter 5, Enter Gorbachev ], Douglas J. MacEachin, CIA Publications, 1996.</ref> Gorbachev requested a Summit with Reagan in Reykjavik in October 1986 to discuss the stresses competition from the Reagan’s defense posture was having on Soviet military spending and economy, and Gorbachev’s ability to carryout his plans of restructuring Communist control. Gorbachev told the [[Politburo]] in preparation for the Summit, "Our goal is to prevent the next round of arms race. If we do not do this ... will pulled into an arms race beyond our power, and we will lose this race, for we are presently at the limit of out capabilities."<ref>Notes of Politburo Meeting 4 October 1986, [http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/ Gorbachev's instructions for the group preparing for Reykjavik]</ref>
===Dealing with the Soviets===
Gorbachev, weakened by his nation's economic malaise, frightened by SDI, and committed to reforming the Soviet system before it collapsed, realized he had to end the Cold War to save Communism. Reagan proved willing to deal, but had to face three sources of criticism inside the U.S. The political right represented by the ''[[National Review]]'' and columnists such as [[George F. Will]] feared it was all a Soviet trap. Reagan used his enormous influence within the conservative movement to disarm these critics before disarming the Russians. Second were the "realists", led by Nixon and Henry A. Kissinger, who thought Reagan was going too far. The third group comprised segments of the intelligence community and military; they did not believe that the Soviet Union was as weak as Reagan and secretary of state, George P. Shultz, believed. Reagan, reelected in a landslide and at the peak of his power, pushed ahead with a series of agreements that effectively weakened the Soviet Empire and made it clear America had the initiative.<ref>James Mann, ''The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan'' (2009)</ref>

By the late 1980s, the Soviet Union began unilateral force cuts and troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe, and by May 1989 an unprecedented series of disclosures by senior Soviet officials revealed actual reductions in defense spending for the 1986-1990 and 1991-1995 Five Year Plan periods.<ref> Christopher Wilkinson NATO Review, [http://www.nato.int/docu/review/1991/9102-4.htm Soviet Defense Spending], NATO's Economics Directorate No. 2 - April 1991, Vol. 39 p. 16-22</ref> Genrikh Grofimenko, a former adviser to [[Leonid Brezhnev]], said "Ninety-nine percent of the Russian people believe that [the US] won the Cold War because of your president's insistence on SDI".<ref>Peter Schweizer, ''Reagan’s War''.</ref>

Reagan also brought about the collapse of the [[Berlin Wall]], which was a symbol of [[communism]] and oppressed the [[freedom]] of East Berliners that wanted to move to West Berlin.

===[[Containment]] and the Iranian initiative===
[[Image:C26887-26.jpg|right|250px|thumb|President Reagan being sworn in for second term in the rotunda at the U.S. Capitol, 1/21/85]] In 1985, after Reagan won reelection to his second term, the focus turned from reviving the domestic economy to several foreign policy matters which had been lingering throughout the decade. One such matter involved Iran, a long time ally of the Western Allies since 1941 that had experienced an Islamic Revolution in 1979 after President Carter announced [[Human Rights]] had superseded [[Containment]] as the primary focus of American foreign policy. Since 1980, Iran had been enmeshed in a brutal trench war with neighboring Iraq which was emerging as a potent military threat in the region to other allies. Members of the National Security Council staff, along with CIA Director [[William Casey]], persuaded Reagan much could be gained and several problems could be addressed simultaneously with an overture to Iran to restore relations.

The objective of the plan was fourfold:
#Take steps to restore good relations with the [[Islamic Republic of Iran]] which was becoming increasingly hostile to the West;
#Take measures to convince Iran that Israel could become a friend and ally;
#Insurance against Iraq becoming too strong which would become a threat to [[Kuwait]] or [[Saudi Arabia]];
#Provide funding for other operations to continue the policy of containment in the Western Hemisphere, most notably [[Nicaragua]], and the violence the Soviet/Cuban/Nicaragua connection was creating in [[El Salvador]] and [[Honduras]].

There were humanitarian aspects to the proposal as well; (1) the [[Iran-Iraq War]] had stalemated for nearly six years and Reagan was advised that he was in the unique position as President to help facilitate bringing a senseless war with much suffering to an end; (2) the suffering of the people of the Central American Republics at the hands of Soviet-inspired subversion which had in the decade of the '80s established a beachhead in North America; (3) Iran perhaps could be persuaded to use its good offices to influence hostage takers in [[Lebanon]] who had held several Western prisoners, many of them Christian Missionaries, for several years.

Reports had filtered back to Reagan that children as young as nine years old had been used by Iran to clear minefields.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), ''Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84''], Globalsecurity.org, retrieved 20 March 2007.</ref> In weighing Iraq's delicate Sunni/Shia balance and the growing threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, the NSC staff and Casey recognized the dangers of an Iraqi collapse as well as the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing its ruthless and inhumane tactics.<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq53.pdf NSDD 139, 5 April 1984].</ref>

The [[Boland amendment]], a Vietnam era-style Congressional impingement on the legitimate foreign policy prerogatives of the Executive via the power of the purse, was used to deny Reagan's recommitment to the [[Truman Doctrine]] which had been adhered to by every President, Democratic and Republican alike since Truman, with the exception of [[President Carter]] whose [[human rights]] policy had brought one of the active belligerents, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], to power. In three of the active Soviet fronts, [[Afghanistan]], [[Nicaragua]], and [[El Salvador]], some Congressional Democratic leaders were openly sympathetic to Soviet foreign policy.<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/591eifow.asp ''One Weekend in April, A Long Time Ago ... What John Kerry thought about the Sandinista in Nicaragua''], Hugh Hewitt, The Weekly Standard, 09/09/2004.</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060331222819/www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/7/234527.shtml ''Kerry: 'I'm Proud I Stood Against Reagan''] Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, 7 June 2004.</ref> So the decision was made to fund [[Containment]] of Soviet objectives on an active front in North America with sales of TOW missiles to Iran. Israel provided the TOWs because the [[Boland Amendment]] forbade direct US funding and it was a welcome opportunity for Israel to build bridges to a much needed friend in the Middle East.

The operation was known as the "[[Iran-Contra affair]]." After word got out about the operation in November 1986, investigations were made, leading to the convictions of several members of the Reagan administration. President Reagan himself testified before the Tower Commission that he had poor recollection of the details of the operation due in part to the heavy pain medications he had been on in that period.

===Cold War victory===
[[Image:300px-ReaganBerlinWall.jpg‎|right|275px|thumb|"Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"]] Reagan is credited for ending the [[Cold War]] in victory for the United States. Historian Tony Judt in ''Postwar'' credits Soviet leader [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], while the political scientist Jan Kubik presents a viewpoint that credits [[Pope John Paul II]].<ref>[http://praguepost.com/articles/2007/02/28/letters-to-the-editor.php]</ref> Other historians contend structural weaknesses within the Communist bloc meant Reagan's actions were inconsequential to the end of [[communism]]. This is the view adopted by [[Russia]]ns themselves, and many political historians, citing ''[[perestroika]]'' and ''[[glasnost]]'' as beginning an inevitable slow fading of central power, and a collapse by irreconcilable differences between the central Soviet [[Politburo]] and the constituent republics, especially the [[Ukraine]].<ref>David Remnick, "Lenin's Tomb</ref> In the end, the consensus seems to point to all of the above, that hastened the demise of the Soviet Union; Internal factors, religious pressure brought by the Pope, Gorbachev's "Perestroika" and the united front of Ronald Reagan and [[Margaret Thatcher]], leading [[NATO]] and [[the West]] to embed a [[SDI|missile defense system]] in [[Western Europe]], and the economic superiority of [[Capitalism]], which simply out-spent and out-performed that of the Communist one.

One thing that cannot be quantified is Reagan's ability to give [[hope]], his never-ending optimism that good would indeed triumph over evil. Many see that as key to bringing extra confidence to those locked behind the "[[Iron Curtain]]" to press even harder for reforms.

Columnist Cal Thomas wrote about it like this:

{{cquote|'''''He proved he was right about the big things.'' Faced with editorial denunciations at home and massive demonstrations in [[Europe]] against his plan to put missiles there to offset a [[Soviet]] threat, Reagan went ahead and did it anyway. The Soviets could not keep pace with the buildup or Reagan's proposed missile defense system (derided by insincere and dangerous critics as "[[Star Wars]]"). ''When those critics could not bring themselves to admit they were wrong, they unpersuasively claimed the Soviet Union fell under its own weight.'' More accurately, Reagan pushed it onto "the ash heap of history," with the able assistance of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and [[Pope John Paul II]]. What Reagan did more than anything else - and it will be his lasting legacy - is replace [[despair]] with hope. Most people, even his detractors, felt a glow from being in his presence.

'''''He was the kindest, most gracious president I have met, and I have met them all since JFK. In his presence you felt he was interested in you and not himself. He was a good man.''''' <ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2004/06/07/ronald_reagans_wonderful_life]</ref>}}

[[Brian Mulroney]], the [[Canada|Canadian]] Prime Minister, Eulogized Reagan at his state funeral:
{{cquote|'''Some in the West during the early 1980s believed communism and democracy were equally valid and viable. This was the school of "[[moral equivalence]]." In contrast Ronald Reagan saw Soviet Communism as a menace to be confronted in the genuine belief that its squalid underpinning would fall swiftly to the gathering winds of [[freedom]]. Provided, as he said, that NATO and the industrialized democracies stood firm and united. They did. ''And we know now who was right.'''''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/mulroney.asp]</ref>}}

Former Reagan speech writer [[Peggy Noonan]] paid tribute to the fallen president in a [[Wall Street Journal]] editorial. In it, Noonan noted:
{{Cquote|'''Ronald Reagan told the truth to a world made weary by lies. He believed truth was the only platform on which a better future could be built. He shocked the world when he called the Soviet Union ‘evil,’ because it was, and an 'empire,' because it was that, too. He never stopped bringing his message to the people of the world, to Europe and China and in the end the Soviet Union. And when it was over, the Berlin Wall had been turned into a million concrete souvenirs, and Soviet communism had fallen. But of course, it didn’t fall. It was pushed. By Mr. Know-Nothing-Cowboy-Gunslinger-Dimwit. ''All presidents should be so stupid...'''''<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1679]</ref>}}

===Thatcher on Reagan===

Upon his death, [[Margaret Thatcher]], in very ill health from a series of strokes, insisted upon traveling to America to bid farewell to her old friend, and taped a stirring tribute to him:
{{cquote|'''As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president. Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles - and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively. ''When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do.'''''

'''When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew 'the Old Man' would never wear. When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership. And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding. ''Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth.'' Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform. Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's 'evil empire'.'''

'''But he realized that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors. So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation. ''Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted magnanimity - and nothing was more American.'''''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/thatcher.asp]</ref>}}

==Post-presidency==
[[Image:5.jpg|left|thumb|250px|President Bush presents the Medal of Freedom Award to Former President Ronald Reagan in the East Room of the White House, 01/13/93]] Reagan retired to California. He would occasionally involve himself in politics, including a speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention. On January 13, 1993 President George H. W. Bush awarded Reagan the Presidential [[Medal of Freedom]]. Reagan was becoming increasingly forgetful. In November 1994, he announced that he had been diagnosed in August with [[Alzheimer's disease]], a degenerative nerve disorder that annihilates the victim's mental capacity.

[[See Reagan's letter to the American people regarding his disease.]])

He died at his [[Los Angeles|Bel Air]] home on June 5, 2004 at age 93, making him the second-longest lived president in history after [[Gerald Ford]]. Reagan was buried at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library, located in Sima Valley, California, on June 11, 2004.<ref>[http://www.reaganfoundation.org/listviewf.aspx?session_args=NCrq/CB0Nbp/onw6gOr7mg==&p=LM2002EX&tx=13&h1=7&h2=3&sw=lm_exhibit&lm=libraryandmuseum&args_a=cms&args_b=32&argsb=N Exhibitions]</ref>

==Legacy==
There is growing consensus among scholars, both conservative and liberal, that he was the most influential president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Reagan left a major imprint on American politics, diplomacy, culture, and economics.<ref>"As of this writing, among academic historians, the Reagan revisionists—who view the 1980s as an era of mixed blessings at worst, and of great forward strides in some renditions—hold the field," reports Doug Rossinow, "Talking Points Memo," in American Quarterly 59.4 (2007) p. 1279. For more historiographical support see: Troy (2009); Hayward (2009); Wilentz (2008); also Charles L. Ponce de Leon, "The New Historiography of the 1980s" in ''Reviews in American History,'' Volume 36, Number 2, June 2008, pp. 303-314; Whitney Strub, "Further into the Right: The Ever-Expanding Historiography of the U.S. New Right," ''Journal of Social History,'' Volume 42, Number 1, Fall 2008, pp. 183-194; Kim Phillips-Fein, "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and Making of History," ''Enterprise & Society'', Volume 8, Number 4, December 2007, pp. 986-988. </ref>

==Family==
In 1940 Reagan married actress Jane Wyman, who won an Oscar for her 1948 movie ''Johnny Belinda''. They had three children together: Maureen Elizabeth Reagan (1941-2001), who passed away from malignant [[melanoma]] within months of diagnosis, at age 60; Michael Edward Reagan(b. 1945-)<ref>Michael Reagan is the adopted son of Wyman and Reagan. See conservapedia.com: "[[Michael Reagan]]"</ref>, and Christine Reagan (June 26 & 27, 1947). She was born prematurely and survived only one day. The baby's death traumatized Wyman and she divorced Reagan in 1948.

In 1952 he married actress [[Nancy Reagan|Nancy Davis]] (b. 1921), whom he met in 1949. They remained married until his death in 2004. Together they had two children, Patricia "Patti" Ann Davis (b. 1952) and Ronald Prescott Reagan (b. 1958).

==Miscellaneous Facts==
*Reagan was the first and only divorced president.
*Reagan was the first president to break the so-called "[[Curse of Tippecanoe]]", ie, the first president elected in a twenty year cycle who did not die in office (although an attempt was made on his life in 1981).
*At 69, Reagan was the oldest man elected to the presidency for a first term.
*Reagan loved [[jelly bean]]s.<ref>http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/trivia.shtml</ref> The blueberry flavor was made in his honor. [[Jelly Belly]] even created a [http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/fun-stuff/bean-art/?gallery=american-history Ronald Reagan [[portraits|portrait]] out of jelly beans.]
*After his death, some of his closest supporters wished to put him on the $10 bill.<ref>http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/economy/reagan_hamilton/index.htm</ref>
*Reagan played college football player [[George Gipp]] in the film ''Knute Rockne: All American'' (1940), and was affectionately known as "The Gipper" ever since.<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp]</ref>
*Reagan signed Proclamation 5018 declaring 1983 the [[Year of the Bible]].

== Quotes ==
*"I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=tzR2IgNgRK4C&pg=PA160&dq=I+have+wondered+at+times+what+the+Ten+Commandments+would+have+looked+like+if+Moses+had+run+them+through+the+US+Congress&ei=8GsPSrrnOI_CzATl8sGMCw Chapter 9 Page 160] The United States Congress by Ross M. English</ref>
*"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." - January 20, 1981
*"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." - January 20, 1981
*"We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look." - January 20, 1981
*"I've learned in Washington, that that's the only place where sound travels faster than light." - December 12, 1983
*"The challenge of statesmanship is to have the vision to dream of a better, safer world and the courage, persistence, and patience to turn that dream into reality." - March 8, 1985
*"I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: Go ahead, make my day." - March 13, 1985, in a speech threatening to veto legislation raising taxes.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref>
*"A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough." - December 5, 1990
*"If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here, to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." —Speech at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref>
*"...I know it's hard when you're up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp." - February 10, 1982
*"There is no question that we have failed to live up to the dreams of the [[Founding Fathers]] many times and in many places. Sometimes we do better than others. But all in all, the one thing we must be on guard against is thinking that because of this, the system has failed. The system has not failed. Some human beings have failed the system." - June 21, 1973
*"The work of volunteer groups throughout our country represents the very heart and soul of America. They have helped make this the most compassionate, generous, and humane society that ever existed on the face of this earth." - October 16, 1973
*"In America, our origins matter less than our destination, and that is what democracy is all about." - August 17, 1992<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/quotes/default.asp</ref>
*"It is freedom itself that still hangs in the balance, and freedom is never more than one generation from extinction." - Commencement address to The Citadel, 1993
*"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."<ref>New York Times, September 22, 1980</ref>
*"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.”
*"If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under" - Aug. 23, 1984<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ViUb1DLpnS4C&pg=RA1-PA373&dq=%22ever+forget+that+we+are+One+Nation+Under+God%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES William J. Federer, ed. ''Treasury of Presidential Quotations'' p 373</ref>
*"If you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Xn4JEGVh-bYC&pg=PA93&dq=When+you+can%27t+make+them+see+the+light,+make+them+feel+the+heat.&ei=tvAlSsrrKZOCygS9_qycBw
Ronald Reagan: how an ordinary man became an extraordinary leader‎ - Page 93] by Dinesh D'Souza</ref>
*"I, too, have always believed that God's greatest gift is human life and that we have a duty to protect the life of an unborn child." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=65Sd1VzUBacC&q=We+have+the+duty+to+protect+the+life+of+an+unborn+child&dq=We+have+the+duty+to+protect+the+life+of+an+unborn+child&ei=rf5USpawCZnkygTa8LyVBw Ronald Reagan] by Office of the Federal Register</ref>
*"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=aF8YAAAAIAAJ&dq=Concentrated+power+has+always+been+the+enemy+of+liberty&ei=FE6PSuHhCYuSygSV-fCzBw War and conflict quotations P.105, by Michael C. Thomsett, Jean F. Thomsett]</ref>
*"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program."
*"some years ago, the federal government declared war on poverty, and poverty won."

==Also See==
*[[How Ronald Reagan won the Cold War]]
* [[Ronald Reagan's First Inaugural Speech]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Ronald_Reagan%27s_speech_on_KAL_007#Text_of_the_speech Ronald Reagan's Speech on KAL 007]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]

==Further reading==
see Bibliography for much more detailed guide.
* Berman, Larry, ed. ''Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency'' (1990), essays by academics
* Busch, Andrew E.; "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. Vol: 27. Issue: 3. 1997. pp 451+. [http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=HhHYNGdT18XmGxylZNJQhdSjrtry2j8zYD2pLstvcnSLFqC9JzvF!-313427117?docId=5000522864 online edition] by conservative
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime '' Public Affairs. (2nd ed 2000) 948 pp. best full-length biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power'' detailed biography
* Flamm, Michael and John Ehrman. ''Debating the Reagan Presidency'' (2009), key issues explained; includes primary sources
* Berman William C. ''America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush.'' (1994).
* Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies'' (2003)
* Campagna; Anthony S. ''The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations'' Greenwood Press. 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28144725 online edition], by conservative
* Cannon, Lou. ''Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio''. (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101553874 online edition]
* Ehrman, John. ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.'' (2005), by conservative historian
* Griscom Tom. "Core Ideas of the Reagan Presidency." In Thompson, ed., ''Leadership,'' 23-48.
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order'' (2001)
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-Conservative-Counterrevolution-1980-1989/dp/1400053579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258861343&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hulten Charles R. and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds. ''The Legacy of Reaganomics: Prospects for Long-Term Growth.'' (1994).
* Jones, Charles O. ed. ''The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance'' (1988) essays by political scientists
* [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"] ''Strategic Insights'', Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004)
* Kyvig, David. ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), scholarly essays on foreign policy
* Langston, Thomas S. "Reassessing the Reagan Presidency," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 34, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/read/5006516145?title=Reassessing%20the%20Reagan%20Presidency online edition]
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' (1996), short articles [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.'' (2004) by the conservative US ambassador to Moscow
* Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''(1): 75-88. Fulltext in SwetsWise and Ingenta; Reagan declared in 1985 that the U.S. should not "break faith" with anti-Communist resistance groups. However, his policies varied as differences in local conditions and US security interests produced divergent policies toward "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Angola, and Cambodia.
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis of the era
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) short, favorable biography by historian [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reagan Ronald. ''An American Life.'' (1990). his second autobiography
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by historian
* Sullivan, George.''Mr. President'' (1997). for middle schools
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan's America'' 2 Volumes (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15343830 vol 1 online][http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28729700 vol 2 online]
* Schweizer, Peter. ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism'' (2002), by conservative
* Thomas, Tony. ''The Films of Ronald Reagan'' (1980)
* Troy, Gill. ''Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s'' (2004). Study of Reagan's image.
* Troy, Gill. ''The Reagan Revolution: A Very Short Introduction'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Revolution-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0195317106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258861138&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008), major narrative history by liberal historian who says Reagan transformed America

==Detailed Bibliography==
===Biographies===
* Benze, Jr. James G. ''Nancy Reagan: On the White House Stage'' (2005), [http://www.amazon.com/Nancy-Reagan-White-Modern-Ladies/dp/070061401X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317375&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Benze James G. "Nancy Reagan: China Doll or Dragon Lady?" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 20 (fall 1990): 777-90
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime '' Public Affairs. (2nd ed 2000) 948 pp. full-length biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Diggins, John. ''Ronald Reagan‎'' (2008), 528 pages, by leading conservative historian.
* D'Souza, Dinesh. ''Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader'' (1999), popular. [http://www.amazon.com/Ronald-Reagan-Ordinary-Became-Extraordinary/dp/0684848236/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317303&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Evans, Thomas W. ''The Education of Ronald Reagan: The General Electric Years'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Education-Ronald-Reagan-Conversion-Conservatism/dp/0231138601/ref=sr_1_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317183&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Morris, ''Edmund. Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan'' (1999), includes fictional material [http://www.amazon.com/Dutch-Memoir-Ronald-Edmund-Morris/dp/0375756450/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317223&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) short biography by historian [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by historian
* Sullivan, George.''Mr. President'' (1997). for middle schools
* Sutcliffe, Jane. ''Ronald Reagan‎'' (2008) 48 pages; for elementary school; [http://books.google.com/books?id=_H_u21ebGcsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:reagan&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=2009&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]

===Reagan before 1981===
* Brennan Mary C. ''Turning Right in the Sixties: The Conservative Capture of the GOP.'' University of North Carolina Press, 1995
* Burbank, Garin. "Governor Reagan and California Welfare Reform: the Grand Compromise of 1971." ''California History'' 1991 70(3): 278-289. Issn: 0162-2897
* Burbank, Garin. "Governor Reagan's Only Defeat: The Proposition 1 Campaign in 1973." ''California History'' 72 (winter 1993-94): 360-73.
* Burbank, Garin. "Speaker Moretti, Governor Reagan, and the Search for Tax Reform in California, 1970-1972" ''The Pacific Historical Review'' Vol. 61, No. 2 (May, 1992), pp. 193-214 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684%28199205%2961%3A2%3C193%3ASMGRAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E online in JSTOR]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power'' Public Affairs. detailed biography [http://www.amazon.com/Governor-Reagan-His-Rise-Power/dp/1586480308/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317275&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Dallek, Matthew. ''The Right Moment: Ronald Reagan's First Victory and the Decisive Turning Point in American Politics.'' (2004). Study of 1966 election as governor.
* DeGroot, Gerard J. "'A Goddamned Electable Person': the 1966 California Gubernatorial Campaign of Ronald Reagan." ''History'' 1997 82(267): 429-448. Issn: 0018-2648 Fulltext: in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco
* DeGroot, Gerard J. "Ronald Reagan and Student Unrest in California, 1966-1970." ''Pacific Historical Review'' 1996 65(1): 107-129. Issn: 0030-8684 Fulltext: in Jstor
* Drew, Elizabeth. ''Portrait of an Election: The 1980 Presidential Campaign.'' (1981).
* Ferguson, Thomas and Joel Rogers, eds. ''The Hidden Election: Politics and Economics in the 1980 Presidential Campaign,'' 1981.
* Germond, Jack W. and Jules Witcover. ''Blue Smoke & Mirrors: How Reagan Won & Why Carter Lost the Election of 1980''. (1981). Detailed journalism.
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order'' (2001)
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-Conservative-Counterrevolution-1980-1989/dp/1400053579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258861343&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hamilton Gary G., and Nicole Woolsey Biggart. ''Governor Reagan, Governor Brown: A Sociology of executive Power.'' (1984).
* Moore, Glen. "Ronald W. Reagan's Campaign for the Republican Party's 1968 Presidential Nomination." ''Proceedings and Papers of the Georgia Association of Historians'' (1992) 12[i.e., 13]: 57-70. Issn: 0275-3863

===Politics and Domestic issues ===
* Aldrich, John H., and David W. Rohde. ''Change and Continuity in the 1984 Elections.'' (1987)
* Amaker Norman C. ''Civil Rights and the Reagan Administration.'' Urban Institute Press, 1988
* Berman, Larry, ed. ''Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency'' (1990), essays by academics
* Berman William C. ''America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush.'' Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
* Birnbaum Jeffrey H., and Alan S. Murray. ''Showdown at Gucci Gulch: Lawmakers, Lobbyists, and the Unlikely Triumph of Tax Reform.'' 1987.
* Boskin Michael J. ''Reagan and the Economy: The Successes, Failures, and Unfinished Agenda.'' ICS Press, 1987.
* Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies'' (2003)
* Busch, Andrew E. ''Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 and the Rise of the Right,'' (2005) [http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1103/article_detail.asp online review by Michael Barone]
* Campagna; Anthony S. ''The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations'' Greenwood Press. 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28144725 online edition]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio''. Public Affairs. (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101553874 online edition]
* Cook, Daniel M. and Polsky, Andrew J. "Political Time Reconsidered: Unbuilding and Rebuilding the State under the Reagan Administration." ''American Politics Research''(4): 577-605. ISSN 1532-673X Fulltext in SwetsWise. Argues Reagan slowed enforcement of pollution laws and transformed the national education agenda.
* Derthick Martha, and Paul J. Quirk. ''The Politics of Deregulation.'' Brookings Institution, 1985
* Detlefsen, Robert R. ''Civil Rights under Reagan'' Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=85749844 online edition]
* Eads George C., and Michael Fix, eds. ''The Reagan Regulatory Strategy: An Assessment.'' Urban Institute Press, 1984
* Ehrman, John. ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.'' (2005)
* Evans Rowland, and Robert Novak. ''The Reagan Revolution.'' 1991.
* Ferguson Thomas, and Joel Rogers, ''Right Turn: The Decline of the Democrats and the Future of American Politics'' 1986.
* Germond Jack W., and Jules Witcover. ''Wake Us When It's Over: Presidential Politics of 1984.'' 1985.
* Marshall R. Goodman; ''Managing Regulatory Reform: The Reagan Strategy and Its Impact'' Praeger Publishers, 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=43165555 online edition]
* Greider William. ''The Education of David Stockman and Other Americans.'' 1982. Stockman was Reagan's budget chief
* Griscom Tom. "Core Ideas of the Reagan Presidency." In Thompson, ed., ''Leadership,'' 23-48.
* Hulten Charles R. and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds. ''The Legacy of Reaganomics: Prospects for Long-Term Growth.'' C.: Urban Institute Press, 1994.
* Johnson, Haynes. ''Sleepwalking through History: America in the Reagan Years'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104836392 online edition]
* Jones, Charles O. ed. ''The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance'' (1988) essays by political scientists
* Karier, Thomas. ''Great Experiments in American Economic Policy: From Kennedy to Reagan'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15083874 online edition]
* Laham, Nicholas. ''The Reagan Presidency and the Politics of Race: In Pursuit of Colorblind Justice and Limited Government'' 1998. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14220230 online edition]
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' (1996), short articles [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Minarik Joseph J. ''Making America's Budget Policy. From the 1980s to the 1990s.'' M. E. Sharpe, 1990.
* Palmer, John L., and Isabel V. Sawhill. ''The Reagan Record,'' 1984. economics and sociology
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.
* Rayack; Elton. ''Not So Free to Choose: The Political Economy of Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan'' (1987) hostile critique[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24670801 online edition]
* Sahu, Anandi P. and Ronald L. Tracy; ''The Economic Legacy of the Reagan Years: Euphoria or Chaos?'' Praeger Publishers, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59361760 online edition]
* Salamon Lester M., and Michael S. Lund. eds. ''The Reagan Presidency and the Governing of America'' 1985. articles by political scientists
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan's America'' 2 Volumes (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15343830 vol 1 online][http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28729700 vol 2 online]
* Shirley, Craig. ''Reagan's Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started It All'' (2005) on 1976 campaign; [http://www.amazon.com/Reagans-Revolution-Untold-Campaign-Started/dp/0785260498/ref=pd_cp_b_1?pf_rd_p=413864201&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0700614087&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0SWJK392VVCTPEDPDKJE excerpt and text search]
* Weatherford, M. Stephen and Mcdonnell, Lorraine M. "Ronald Reagan as Legislative Advocate: Passing the Reagan Revolution's Budgets in 1981 and 1982." ''Congress & the Presidency'' (2005) 32:1 pp 1-29. Fulltext in Ebsco; Argues RR ignored the details but played a guiding role in setting major policies and adjudicating significant trade-offs, and in securing Congressional approval.

===Foreign affairs===
* Arnson, Cynthia J. ''Crossroads: Congress, the Reagan Administration, and Central America'' Pantheon, 1989.
* Baucom Donald R. ''The Origins of SDI, 1944-1983.'' University Press of Kansas, 1992.
* Bell Coral. ''The Reagan Paradox: American Foreign Policy in the 1980s.'' Rutgers University Press, 1989.
* Beschloss Michael R., and Strobe Talbott. ''At the Highest Levels: The Inside Story of the End of the Cold War.'' 1993
* Busch, Andrew E.; "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. Vol: 27. Issue: 3. 1997. pp 451+.
* Dobson, Alan P. "The Reagan Administration, Economic Warfare, and Starting to Close down the Cold War." ''Diplomatic History''(3): 531-556. Fulltext in SwetsWise, Ingenta and Ebsco. Argues Reagan's public rhetoric against the USSR was harsh and uncompromising, giving rise to the idea that his administration sought to employ a US defense buildup and NATO economic sanctions to bring about the collapse of the USSR. Yet many statements by Reagan and Shultz suggest they desired negotiation with the Soviets from a position of American strength, not the eventual demise of the USSR.
* Draper, Theodore. '' A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affair'' (1991)
* Fitzgerald, Frances. ''Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars and the End of the Cold War''. political history of S.D.I. (2000). ISBN.
* Ford, Christopher A. and Rosenberg, David A. "The Naval Intelligence Underpinnings of Reagan's Maritime Strategy." ''Journal of Strategic Studies''(2): 379-409. Fulltext in Ingenta and Ebsco; Reagan's maritime strategy sought to apply US naval might against Soviet vulnerabilities on its maritime flanks. It was supported by a major buildup of US naval forces and aggressive exercising in seas proximate to the USSR; it explicitly targeted Moscow's strategic missile submarines with the aim of pressuring the Kremlin during crises or the early phases of global war. The maritime strategy represents one of the rare instances in history when intelligence helped lead a nation to completely revise its concept of military operations.
* Garthoff, Raymond L. ''The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War'' (1994), detailed narrative by a hostile critic [http://www.questia.com/read/29069917?title=The%20Great%20Transition%3a%20American-Soviet%20Relations%20and%20the%20End%20of%20the%20Cold%20War online edition]
* Haftendorn, Helga and Jakob Schissler, eds. ''The Reagan Administration: A Reconstruction of American Strength?'' Berlin: Walter de Guyer, 1988. by European scholars
* Hall, David Locke. ''The Reagan Wars: A Constitutional Perspective on War Powers and the Presidency'' Westview Press, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=87551275 online edition]
* [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"] ''Strategic Insights'', Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004)
* Kyvig, David. ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), scholarly essays on foreign policy
* Lagon, Mark P. ''The Reagan Doctrine: Sources of American Conduct in the Cold War's Last Chapter'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9161896 online edition]
* LeoGrande, William M. ''Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992'' (1998)
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.'' (2004) by the US ambassador to Moscow [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0679463232/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194316986&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2006 36(1): 75-88. Issn: 0360-4918 [http://www.questia.com/read/5015817882?title=The%20Reagan%20Doctrine%3a%20Principle%2c%20Pragmatism%2c%20and%20Policy online edition]
* Salla, Michael E. and Ralph Summy, eds. ''Why the Cold War Ended: A Range of Interpretations'' (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/22889072 online edition]
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan and the World'' (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph My Years As Secretary of State'' (1993)
* Schweizer, Peter. ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism'' (2002)
* Suri, Jeremi. "Explaining the End of the Cold War: A New Historical Consensus?" ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' - Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 2002, pp. 60-92 in [[Project Muse]]
* Thomas W. Walker; ''Reagan Versus the Sandinistas: The Undeclared War on Nicaragua'' (1987) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=65710540 online edition]
* Wallison, Peter J. ''Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency.'' (2003). 282 pp.
* Wapshott, Nicholas. '' Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: a political marriage‎'' (2007) 336 pages [http://books.google.com/books?id=5HOuTL508F0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:reagan&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=2009&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]
* Wills, David C. ''The First War on Terrorism: Counter-Terrorism Policy during the Reagan Administration.'' 2004.

===Rhetoric, media and values===
* Aden, R. C. "Entrapment and Escape: Inventional Metaphors in Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric." ''Southern Communication Journal'' 54 (1989): 384-401
* Dallek, Robert. ''Ronald Reagan: The Politics of Symbolism.'' (1999)
* Denton Jr., Robert E. ''Primetime Presidency of Ronald Reagan: The Era of the Television Presidency'' (1988) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23088126 online edition]
* Diggins, John Patrick. ''Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History'' (2007) Reagan as follower of Emerson, by leading historian of ideas
* Jane Feuer; Seeing through the Eighties: Television and Reaganism'' Duke University Press, 1995 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98148093 online edition]
* FitzWater, Marlin . ''Call the Briefing! Bush and Reagan, Sam and Helen, a Decade with Presidents and the Press''. 1995. Memoir by Reagan's press spokesman.
* Goodnight, G. Thomas. "Ronald Reagan's Re-formulation of the Rhetoric of War: Analysis of the 'Zero Option,' 'Evil Empire,' and 'Star Wars' Addresses." ''Quarterly Journal of Speech'' 72 (1986): 390-414.
* Greffenius, Steven. ''The Last Jeffersonian: Ronald Reagan's Dreams of America''. June, July, & August Books. 2002.
* Hertsgaard, Mark. ''On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency'' 1988. criticizes the press
* Hoeveler, J. David. ''Watch on the Right: Conservative Intellectuals in the Reagan Era.'' University of Wisconsin Press, 1991.
* Houck, Davis, and Amos Kiewe, eds. ''Actor, Ideologue, Politician: The Public Speeches of Ronald Reagan'' (Greenwood Press, 1993) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Davis W. Houck&dcontributors=Davis+W.+Houck online edition]
* Jones, John M. "'Until Next Week': The Saturday Radio Addresses of Ronald Reagan" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly.'' Volume: 32. Issue: 1. 2002. pp 84+.
* Kengor, Paul. ''God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life'' Regan Books, 2004. ISBN.
* Kiewe, Amos, and Davis W. Houck. ''A Shining City on a Hill: Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric, 1951-1989.'' 1991.
* Lewis, William F. "Telling America's Story: Narrative Form and the Reagan Presidency", ''Quarterly Journal of Speech''): 280–302
* Longley, Kyle, Jeremy D. Mayer, Michael Schaller, and John W. Sloan. ''Deconstructing Reagan: Conservative Mythology and America’s Fortieth President,'' (M.E. Sharpe, 2007. xviii, 150 pp. isbn 978-0-7656-1591-6.)
* Meyer, John C. "Ronald Reagan and Humor: A Politician's Velvet Weapon", ''Communication Studies'' 41 (1990): 76-88.
* Moore, Mark P. "Reagan's Quest for Freedom in the 1987 State of the Union Address." ''Western Journal of Communication'' 53 (1989): 52-65.
* Muir, William Ker. ''The Bully Pulpit: The Presidential Leadership of Ronald Reagan'' (1992), examines his speeches
* Noonan, Peggy. ''When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan'' (2001) memoir by a Reagan speechwriter
* Ormanm John. ''Comparing Presidential Behavior: Carter, Reagan, and the Macho Presidential Style'' Greenwood Press, 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15388519 online edition]
* Ritter, Kurt W. ''Ronald Reagan: The Great Communicator.'' Greenwood, 1992. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29047567 online edition]
* Shogan, Colleen J. "Coolidge and Reagan: The Rhetorical Influence of Silent Cal on the Great Communicator", ''Rhetoric & Public Affairs'' 9.2 online at Project Muse; argues that Coolidge and Reagan shared a common ideological message, which served as the basis for modern conservatism. Even without engaging in explicitly partisan rhetoric, Reagan's principled speech served an important party-building function.
* Stuckey, Mary. ''Getting Into the Game: The Pre-Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.'' Praeger, 1989
* Stuckey, Mary. ''Playing the Game: The Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.'' Praeger, 1990. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24414026 online edition]
* Thomas, Tony. ''The Films of Ronald Reagan'' (1980)
* Troy, Gill. ''Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s'' (2004). Study of Reagan's image.
* Michael Weiler and W. Barnett Pearce; ''Reagan and Public Discourse in America'' University of Alabama Press, 1992 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59353372 online edition]
* Wills, Garry. ''Reagan's America: Innocents at Home''. (1987)

===Primary sources===
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistcial tables
* Reagan Ronald, and Richard G. Hubler. ''Where's the Rest of Me?'' (1965). first autobiography
* Reagan Ronald. ''An American Life.'' (1990). second autobiography [http://www.amazon.com/American-Life-Ronald-Reagan/dp/0743400259/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317128&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Reagan Ronald. ''The Creative Society: Some Comments on Problems Facing America.'' 1968.
* Reagan Ronald. ''Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.'' 1984.
* Reagan Ronald. ''Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan. 1981-1989.'' 8 vols. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1982-91.
* Reagan, Ronald. ''Reagan, In His Own Hand: The Writings of Ronald Reagan That Reveal His Revolutionary Vision for America'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743219384/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Reagan, Ronald. ''The Reagan Diaries: Extended Selections‎'' ed. by Douglas Brinkley (2007)
* Skinner, Kiron K. et al, eds. ''Reagan's Path to Victory: The Shaping of Ronald Reagan's Vision: Selected Writings'' (2004), 450 radio talks from late 1970s

====Primary sources by Reagan associates====
* Anderson, Martin. ''Revolution: The Reagan Legacy'' (1990)
* Haig, Alexander. ''Inner Circles: How America Changed the World'' (1994). Haig was Secretary of State 1981-82
* Deaver, Michael, and Mickey Herskowitz. ''Behind the Scenes''. 1987. Memoir by a top aide.
* Meese Edwin. ''With Reagan: The Inside Story.'' Regnery Gateway, 1992.
* Niskanen William A. ''Reaganomics: An Insider's Account of the Policies and the People.'' Oxford University Press, 1988.
* Reagan, Nancy. ''My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy Reagan'' (1989)
* Reagan Maureen. ''First Father, First Daughter: A Memoir.'' 1989.
* Reagan Michael and Joe Hyams. ''On the Outside Looking In.'' 1988.
* Regan Donald T. ''For the Record. From Wall Street to Washington.'' 1988; Treasury Secretary and Chief of Staff
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph My Years As Secretary of State'' 1993) Schulz was Secretary of State 1982-89
* Stahl, Lesley. "Reporting Live" (1999) memoir by TV news reporter
* Stockman David A. ''The Triumph of Politics: How the Reagan Revolution Failed.'' 1986. Stockman was Budget Director in 1981-82
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Foreign Policy in the Reagan Presidency: Nine Intimate Perspectives.'' University Press of America, 1993.
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Leadership in the Reagan Presidency: Seven Intimate Perspectives.'' 1992.
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Leadership in the Reagan Presidency, Part II: Eleven Intimate Perspectives.'' University Press of America, 1993.
* Weinberger, Caspar. ''In the Arena: A Memoir of the 20th Century'' (1991), by the Defense Secretary

===Government documents===
* Council of Economic Advisors. ''Economic Report of the President,'' (annual, 1981-1988), detailed analysis of economic issues
* U.S. Census Bureau, ''Statistical Abstract of the United States'' annual compilation of over 1000 tables of data.

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040614-646317,00.html Time Magazine Article on ''The All-American President'']
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html White House Official Page]
*[http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=537924&agid=2 The Passing of a Conservative] - by Alfred Regnery
*[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ Reagan's Presidential Library]
*[http://imdb.com/name/nm0001654/ Actor Bio At IMDB]
*[http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/ Official Memorial]
*[http://www.reagan.navy.mil/index.html USS ''Ronald Reagan'' CVN 76 official website]
*[http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Ronald_Reagan Quotations by Ronald Reagan]
*[http://reagan2020.us/ Reagan 2020] Reagan 2020 is the Internet's most comprehensive resource on Ronald Reagan.
*[http://www.acuf.org/principles/p_philos.asp "Our Philosophy of Government"] Speech by President Ronald Reagan, March 2, 1981
*[http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation] While president, Ronald Reagan penned this article for The Human Life Review, unsolicited.
{{DEFAULTSORT:Reagan, Ronald Wilson}}
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
{{USPresidents}}
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:California Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:United States History]]
{{Conservatism}}
[[category:1960s]]
[[category:New Deal]]
[[category:Actors]]
[[category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:United States Veterans]]
[[Category:Fiscal Conservatives]]
[[Category:Tax Revolts]]
[[Category:Former Liberals]]
[[Category:Irish-Americans]]
[[category:Democrats]]

User:CWest

2012-06-07T16:22:40Z

CWest: the red box is already on my talk page

created page

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2012-06-06T13:14:13Z

CWest:

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

===Cavemen and wolves===
"If the cavemen could create new species seemingly by accident, it stands to reason that experts could do so with intentional effort. But since this has not been done, the wolf-dog example seems false"
Cavemen did NOT create a new species; dogs and wolves are the same species, as they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Recently, scientists have domesticated foxes, and they have developed dog-like characteristics, like changes in colouration and an increased affection and trust towards humans. --[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

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)
That is because macroevolution takes a lot longer, within the magnitude of at least millions of years. Evolution does not imply that it would be possible to directly observe one species changing to another. That is why fossil records are used. These clearly show that microevolution gradually builds up to macroevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution follow exactly the same principle. If you say that microevolution has been observed, then the only thing that would stop macroevolution from occuring would be a very young earth (which several areas of science have independently disproven)--[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:18, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:If dogs and wolves are the same species, then the domestic dog had to have come from the gray wolf, exactly as scientists have been stating for years. Before the edit gets reverted again, someone here is going to provide proof of a scientific experiment in which a dog has been bred from a pair of wolves. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:36, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::Please define "Dog", you definition is far to vague for any scientific purpose.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

===Basic logic?===
''"Species are groups of animals that can freely interbreed. A group of animals that can freely interbreed are C. lupus (dogs and wolves). Thus, dogs and wolves are same species. Basic logic."'' Fine, FCapra. Now you show me a male and a female wolf that mated together and produced a basset hound. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:46, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:Explain to me how two wolves can breed together and produce a wolf genetically identical to a third, unrelated wolf. When you can do this, I will see your point.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:53, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::You're missing the point here, FCapra. Evolutionists have stated for years that the domestic dog was created by the breeding of wolves, and done by cavemen. You're stating that both animals are the same species. Yet, if I breed wolves, all I'm going to get are wolf pups. If I breed German shepherds, I'm not going to get St. Bernards, I'm not going to get Boston terriers, and I'm not going to get chihuahuas. Strange as it may seem I'm going to go out on a scientific limb here and hypothesize that if I breed German shepherds, I'm going to end up with a litter of German shepherd pups. That is called logic.
::And it's also proven that dogs can interbreed with coyotes (''Canis latrans''), the Ethiopian wolf (''Canis simensis''), and the golden jackal (''Canis aureus''), as well as several other members of ''Canis''. Does that mean that those other Canids must be regarded as the same species? Or did a lawyer representing the big bad wolf file a copyright-infringement lawsuit? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:16, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:::Coyotes/wolf hybrids show a marked decrease in offspring viability after several generations, and jackal hybrids don't occur in the wild and also suffer reduced fertility and genetic abnormailties. Wolfdogs have no decrease in viability or fertility, and occur (relatively)commonly where feral dog and wolf populations overlap. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 23:26, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::::Then start breeding wolves. Show me the dogs that come out of it. If it's so easy a caveman can do it, then so can you. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:31, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:::::I can't breed wolf A and wolf B together to get wolf C, I get wolf AB. Sometimes, I might get a mutant wolf AB+, but it will never be wolf C. Eventually, I could get a domestic pack canine, but it wouldn't be a dog.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 23:52, 13 November 2011 (EST)
::::::And if you get those mutants, and eventually kept breeding to a hoped-for critter you can call "Rover", you would have proved beyond all doubt the fact of intelligent design. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:54, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::"Beyond all doubt" is extremely strong language. In fact, it's more like "have done absolutely nothing to prove or disprove intelligent design", because I am still working with natural mechanisms. Intelligent design relies on non-materialistic explanations to natural phenomena. Also, 1 singular case does not constitute enough evidence to support something "beyond all doubt". I would however, provide evidence that mutations can produce meaningful changes in organisms which help them survive in certain circumstances, such as a symbiotic relationship with a human. And just FYI, wild wolf puppies can be domesticated by humans.[http://web.archive.org/web/20071005105327/http://www.wolfpark.org/training/index.html] [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 12:26, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::Also, while wolves haven't been bred into dogs yet, it only took 40 years of selective breeding to produce domesticated, dog-like foxes[http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/1999/2/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment/2]. It's logical that the same would apply to wolves.
:::::::Thor Heyerdahl proved it was possible for South American natives to sail to south Pacific islands; he did not prove that this had in fact happened. Current scientific consensus is that domestic dogs are descended from wolves, and as you and many others have said, they should belong to the same species - ''Canis lupus''. I don't see a fox's bushy tail in those two Latin words. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:11, 14 November 2011 (EST)
::::::::Do you have any evidence that it didn't '''and''' couldn't happen? Then you have a reasonable counterexample. All the mechanisms for domestication exist in wolves and foxes, wolves can be trained by humans, foxes have been domesticated, and foxes and wolves are similar genetically (both are in the Canidae family). There is no evidence that domestication of wolves is impossible, but in theory, it is entirely possible over the course of a few thousand years. Is there any evidence that human domestication of wolves is literally impossible, and not just unlikely? If not, than human domestication of wolves is a possibility, and can't really be used as a counterexample against evolution. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:23, 14 November 2011 (EST)

=== 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)
Seems like science has proven that we most certainly do not have the perfect number of teeth for a civilized lifestyle, as changes in our diet have lead to jaw shortening and crooked teeth as a result[http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/11/crooked-teeth-blame-early-farmer.html#.Tsq5ffhCjyQ.reddit]. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:38, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:::::::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)

::::Proto-arthropods do exist. They're called "lobopods". They are reasonably well-documented in the fossil record and can still be found today if you know how to look (e.g. digging through sponges with dissecting probes). --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 12:47, 21 January 2012 (EST)

== 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 Despommier 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)
::To shed further light on the removal of the balding example; studies have shown that bald men are perceived as being older and thus more senior, giving them an advantage within social groups. Therefore it is deemed to be somewhat advantageous. The fact that historically humans have had much shorter life-spans also means that most men died before experiencing it, meaning that it never even became a significant factor in terms of evolution, either as an advantage or disadvantage. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 23:52, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Lifespan for healthy people has not changed much, and it's absurd to claim that balding is desirable. An implausible argument such as claiming that balding is a desirable trait does not warrant deletion of a counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Life expectancy in the USA has gone up by almost 9 years in the [http://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+graph#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en last 50 years alone!] Go back further and the increase is even more remarkable. (Indeed, you should welcome this point, for if we apply your argument about the rate of extinction and assume that this rate of increase is constant, then we soon find that human life expectancy was 0 sometime in the 16th century. A possible addition for 'counterexamples to and old earth' perhaps?)

::::You are mistaking 'aesthetically desirable' (which is subjective, and obviously different people with have different views), with desirable in terms of evolution. Studies have shown that whether or not people 'like' the appearance of bald men, they nonetheless perceive them to be older and thus more senior than men of the same age with a full head of hair[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595001301]. It has been shown that MPB is equated with seniority within social hierarchies of other primates. Whether you deem it implausible or not, the evidence is there. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 00:13, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::As an older woman, I don't find bald men any less attractive then men with a full head of hair. My friends would agree with me. I believe we know more about male attractiveness than you, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:20, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

== Evolution of whales ==

The theoretical phylogeny of whales is well documented, [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007062], so the "counterexample" about whales should be removed.

: That article hardly justifies deleting the counterexample. The counterexample is being restored.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::If you could explain to me what parts of the counterexample it fails to address, I'd be more than happy to find an alternate article. I dont see what points about whale evolution are not addressed within the article, however. Perhaps you missed one of the charts? [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 13:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Based on its abstract, I don't think the article even comes close to addressing the many unique attributes of a whale that defy any evolutionary explanation. If you'd like to explain here what you find so persuasive about the article, then feel free to do so. But the counterexample is not going to be deleted unless and until a much more persuasive showing of an evolutionary path is made.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Based on the title, "Relationships of Cetacea (Artiodactyla) Among Mammals: Increased Taxon Sampling Alters Interpretations of Key Fossils and '''Character Evolution'''", the article does indeed address many of the "unique attributes" of Ceteca. The section titled "Selected Character Optimizations for Cetancodonta", in particular, explains how whales are expected to have evolved within a clade filled with terrestrial herbavores. Whether you accept the research or not, scientists have mapped out and have an explanation for the evolution of whales, and everything they have concluded fits within the theory of evolution.[[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 19:28, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

== Wait...what? ==

I have honestly never heard the following arguments used as counter-examples for evolution and I'm not sure I follow:

'''Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.'''

'''Animals also sense when an earthquake is about to hit, once again defying atheistic explanations'''

How do these prove evolution doesn't exist? [[User:GiveMeLiberty|GiveMeLiberty]] 18:51, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

:The [[theory of evolution]] is based exclusively on materialism. Those observations confound the theory, because there is no materialistic explanation. If materialism does not drive animal behavior, then evolution falls apart.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:16, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reasons why the Artistic Beauty Argument Fails as a Counterexample ==

Artistic Beauty is subjective, and any objective means of describing beauty are usually based on patterns such as symmetry or the Fibonacci sequence, which have many evolutionary advantages. Within the framework established by science, beauty has no inherent meaning, it is up to individual organisms to interpret a meaning from the stimuli they are presented with. In addition, organisms that seem impractically beautiful, such as the peacock, evolved that way to attract mates, as the increased mating attractiveness was more useful than any disadvantages brought about by the peacocks impressive plumage. Trees seem beautiful because they often branch in the Fibonacci sequence, as it results in the most efficient absorption of light. The bright colors are a result of secondary pigments which allowed for a wider spectrum of light to be absorbed. In nature, the most beautiful trees are the most successful, so they have an evolutionary advantage over uglier trees with poor light absorption and awful branch layout. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 00:22, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== Kidney donor ==

I'm not arguing whether this should be in the article, but someone needs to re-read one of the quotes included in this section "...mislead most people into thinking they need their second kidney, "the average waiting time for the organs from a '''''deceased''''' donor in the United States is five years" - as far as I know, most deceased donors don't need ''either'' kidney. Most often, the patient wasn't healthy enough at the time of death to use their organs, or the family refused to allow the procedure.

Also, getting listed for kidney transplantation is rather complex - a lot of dialysis patients don't qualify for a transplant because of health or financial reasons. They can miss out on an available kidney because they have a cold, and die before another one is available. They could have had health insurance when placed on the transplant list, but not have it when the kidney becomes available and can't afford the medication needed afterward, thus losing the kidney.

Most people don't donate kidneys because they're scared - of the surgery, of the cost, or of the chance they will suffer kidney failure themselves. The US population is not well-educated about the subject. For instance, most people don't know that if a donor does suffer from kidney failure later on (and I have actually met several), they are automatically placed at the top of the transplant list. One man I met waited a whole 2 days for his kidney. Another one waited a week.

A patient who isn't on dialysis yet tends to be transplanted ahead of a person who has already reached ESKD and is on dialysis because it is healthier for the patient to receive a transplant before undergoing dialysis. Thus, the sicker patients often have to wait longer, and most of them have additional conditions that worsen their situation. Dialysis is extremely hard on the heart, and the average life expectancy of a 40-45 year old patient is around 6 years.

I really think this section needs rewording, because the situation is a lot more complex than merely misinformation about evolution. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:29, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, Sharon, and I did remove the quote (although the quote was accurate, but tended to be confusing). Still, the bottom line for how the "US population is not well-educated about the subject" is simply this: Americans are taught to believe in evolution, and makes them think both kidneys are needed. It's a false belief resulting from a false teaching, and the consequences are tragic for those who need kidney donors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:23, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

::The evolutionary explanation of having multiple kidneys was that the resource cost of possessing two fully developed, equally functional kidneys was slightly less than the risks of only having one kidney in case of injury or disease. Additionally, all vertebrates posses two kidneys, as all vertebrates posses bilateral symmetry, an ancient animal characteristic that is only broken in extremely rare instances[http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/palmer/asym/axes/symmetry.htm], such as in flatfish (which are symmetrical as larva). Indeed, it is almost impossible to violate bilateral symmetry, which is why humans still posses two kidneys. Our ancient animals ancestors needed two kidneys, but now that we don't need both our kidneys anymore, it will take a lot more than a few million years of evolution to get rid of them.

::Also, if evolutionary belief is having an impact on kidney donor-ship, the numbers certainly don't show it. In the past 20 years, kidney donations have almost tripled and the ratio of living donations to deceased donations has rapidly diminished [http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/latestData/rptData.asp]. Evolutionary teachings certainly haven't become less common in America, so unless there is concrete evidence that an education in comprehensive, evolutionary biology actually has a negative impact on donations, your statement on donor-ship can't really be justified. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 14:07, 16 November 2011 (EST)

::::We do actually need both kidneys. With only one kidney, such as after donating one, you become significantly more likely to develop renal diseases such as FSGS. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 13:39, 7 April 2012 (EDT)

== Weak Arguments/Logical Fallacies in this Article ==

I am a student studying Neuroscience. In the process, I have been through several courses in the undergrad and graduate level studying biology and evolution, and I can tell you that many, if not all, of the arguments on this page are quite fallacious in nature and would not hold up to any sort of scientific scrutiny.

Let's get one thing straight here - I personally do not believe that the Theory of Evolution can explain everything about the development of life, but proving it completely incorrect will be quite a hassle if it is even possible.

I see scientists often characterized on here as being "dogmatic" and "driven by faith" to be atheists and defend evolution over the alternative of creation. I can't imagine how you can be any further from the truth, which is why I want to help you get your own story straight. If you can prove the Theory of Evolution incorrect, you will not be hated; in fact, you will start quite the revolution in thought.

===With just a quick glance, here is my opinion on the arguments on this page===

"Moreover, even if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that[1]), then the odds that these 27 counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is only 25%." - Extreme misuse of probability and statistics; very laughable.

"1. 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." - '''There have been many points throughout the history of the world where extinction spikes have been seen, and it is often unknown why they are caused. Just as there are extinction spikes, there were also spikes in population growth and speciation. Google "Cambrain Explosion" for an example.'''

"2. Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as the brilliant autumn foliage and staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation." - '''This is very well addressed by another user on this talk page. In addition to that explanation, remember that what we perceive as "good" was evolved in response to the environment. If a fruit is bright and colorful, chances are that it is not poisonous. Likewise, If a food is sugary or fatty, it will taste appealing to us; as these were the most energy-rich foods and the ones that were most beneficial for us to eat when we came by them back when we were hunter-gatherers. Just to give a couple examples.'''

"3. Evolution cannot explain the 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.[2] 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.[3]" - '''First of all, the theory of evolution cannot explain something that it is not established to explain. This is like saying that since one is weightless out in space, that the Law of Gravity cannot be true. Secondly, what this point fails to take into account is that: (1) Apes have one more pair of chromosomes than humans do, and therefore more genetic room for genetic diversity. The reason: The 2nd chromosome of our species is actually two chromosomes fused together, which existed separately in our ancestors. (2) Humans did originate from a small population in Africa, but this is neither a subject of debate nor a pressing question to anthropologists, as the reasons for our smaller genetic variance than apes are well-known.
'''

"4. The extraordinary migration patterns of butterflies and birds cannot be explained through naturalistic development, and lack any plausible materialistic explanation[5]" - '''Once again, this is not a phenomena that the Theory of Evolution was established to explain and the fact that it can not explain this on its own does not make this a counterexample. There are many hypotheses about migratory patterns as well as ongoing studies in this area.'''

"5. Evolution does not account for the immense amount of information in the genome.[...]having a functional protein are too great." -'''This argument, once again, has nothing to do with the process of evolution, but is instead making the claim that life is too improbable to have occurred without a creator. While this argument is a great philosophical argument for believing in God, it is not scientific. From a scientific perspective, life has occurred, despite how improbable, and it is the mission of scientists to discover the natural processes through which complex life came about. Maybe these processes were put in place and performed by God. Maybe they were not. This is not a question that science seeks to answer, however.'''

== Clearly Invalid Counterexamples ==

''If evolution were to explain where human beings come from, then every personality type should benefit human life. This is clearly untrue because the world is filled with liars, psychopaths, and murderers. These traits clearly do not benefit humanity.''
:No, this is a teleological argument that assumes that humans are evolving towards some higher goal or purpose, which evolution never concludes. Teleology is rejected by most Biologists and Anthropologists, because it does not reflect evolution. Murdering psychopaths are just as capable of reproducing as other human, and liars can be even better at reproducing than others. Please explain how evolution could possibly select against personality types which are still perfectly capable of reproduction and don't have a solid, well defined genetic link.
::The theory of evolution predicts that natural selection will remove maladaptive, hereditary traits from the gene pool. History shows that social behavior is most adaptive while anti-social behavior would result in isolation from the general population, thereby lowering that person's chances of reproduction significantly. Over the "millions of years" that evolution has had to remove these anti-social characteristics, there should be none left by now because social individuals would have had more children, thereby dominating the gene pool and driving the anti-social people to extinction. A look at America's prison population will show that this is not the case.
:::Populations have a certain carrying capacity for those who cheat the system, such as sociopaths. When there are very few sociopaths, sociopaths will thrive and be very successful. When there are a lot of sociopaths, they will be less successful and population levels will fall. Thus, society will maintain a constant level of psychopathy, as the benefits of psychopathy outweigh the cons of psychoopathy as fewer sociopaths exist in a population. Also, America's prison population is a factor of population growth too, violent crimes are at their lowest level since the mid-twentieth century.

''There are no historical records of anyone directly observing one species evolving into another, which would certainly be something worth writing about. Surely of the millions of species we have, someone would have witnessed one come into existence had it evolved.''
:In the past, humans had no idea evolution and speciation was possible, so we never would have tracked animals over thousands upon thousands of year, especially because civilizations tend to not last very long. Evolution takes a long time, and is very gradual. Thus, because history can only record so much, tiny changes in population phenotype were largely ignored by ancient humans. This does not disprove evolution, since evolution could still have been happening. Nobody cared enough to observe it over thousands of years.
::Historical records of ancient animals have survived and we find that they are the same animals as today. For example, the ancient Egyptians venerated the domestic cat thousands of years ago. The descendants of those same cats exist today, entirely unchanged. Perhaps if ancient Egyptians had venerated a half-reptile, half-cat creature we could say that evolution is possible, but this is definitely not the case.
:::Actually, cat domestication is well recorded, and resulted in significant genetic alteration from the wild type. since then, cats have diversified into a variety of breeds. Ancient historical records for animals are '''very''' few and far between, written before the existence of modern biology (cell theory, formal anatomy, ecology, ect), and domestic animals are a horrible example, as artificial selection can cause rapid genetic change, followed by genetic stagnation. I would love to see an ancient society that kept detailed records of the mating patterns of wild animals for thousands of years.

''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.''
:The segment of DNA that normally allows mammals to produce vitamin C is completely vestigial in non-lemur primates. We just didn't need it due to the large amount of fruit in our diet. I believe this qualifies as "junk DNA".
::Jonathan Wells authored a book called "The Myth of Junk DNA" that covers this topic nicely. Basically, any DNA that secular scientists don't know the function of is labelled "junk" until it's purpose is discovered. You can't say that the DNA you mentioned is junk because it may have a function you don't know about. It's the epitome of arogance to assume that something is junk because you don't know it's purpose.
:::The problem is that when science is proven wrong, they update the theory. When they find the purpose of a sequence of DNA, which they are always looking for, they change it so that it is no longer "Junk DNA". Even if all "Junk DNA" has purpose, you haven't dis proven evolution. Creationist claims are not scientific because there is no way to prove them wrong, much like there is no way to prove unicorns don't exist. Its not that they couldn't, its just that science doesn't care. Useful "Junk DNA" is still possible under evolutionary theory. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 13:01, 1 December 2011 (EST)

--[[User:Scochran4|Scochran4]] 22:42, 29 November 2011 (EST)

"For evolution to be true, every male dog, cat, horse, elephant, giraffe, fish and bird had to have coincidentally evolved with a female alongside it (over billions of years) with fully evolved compatible reproductive parts and a desire to mate, otherwise the species couldn't keep going."
They did. More specifically, they evolved with an entire population of females to mate with and other males to compete with. Evolution occurs at the level of the population, not the individual. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 22:52, 19 November 2011 (EST)

== wisdom teeth ==

Why do so many of us need to have them removed if we have the "perfect" number of teeth? [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 22:08, 27 November 2011 (EST)

:For aesthetic purposes, and perhaps many of the removals are unnecessary. The wisdom teeth are not needed to consume modern food, but have the potential to increase pressure on the front teeth, which can make them look crooked on television.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:14, 27 November 2011 (EST)

::Well said. We should keep in mind, when dealing with issues of medicine (in this case dental work), that the human body was designed for the Garden of Eden, and the diet and lifestyle associated with it. After [[the fall]], mutations built up in the genetic code leading to many modern ailments. --[[User:Scochran4|Scochran4]] 20:47, 28 November 2011 (EST)

== Autumn foliage ==
This is caused by the chlorophyll (which makes the leaves green) fading away, and other pigments becoming more prominent and displaying the reds, oranges, and yellows. The purpose is not beauty; it is simply a natural consequence of the chlorophyll fading away as the air gets cooler. More detail can be found [http://www.ozarkmtns.com/foliage/funfacts.asp here.] Maybe this example should be removed. [[User:CWest|CWest]] 09:14, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

Public schools in the United States

2012-06-05T22:24:05Z

CWest: /* Views on morals */

[[File:800px-Warning signs at CHS.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Because of violence, vandalism, and other undesirable elements, this public school has a glaring sign warning of the on-campus surveillance cameras at its parking lot entrance.]]
[[Public schools]] in the [[United States]] have become predominantly [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]]<ref>[http://www.exodusmandate.org/art_exodus_from_public_schools_gets_helping_hand.htm Exodus from "public schools" gets a helping hand], Exodus Mandate, Sept 15, 1998</ref><ref>For example, "in 2005, officials at East Brunswick High School adopted a policy prohibiting representatives of the school district from participating in student-initiated prayer." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61806]</ref><ref>From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. ... Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess."[http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref><ref>[[Atheists]] routinely impose their views on [[public schools]], though liberals deny it. For example, a court prohibited a moment of silence in [[Illinois]] "Township High School District 214 after atheist activist Rob Sherman challenged" it.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-moment_of_silence_bothmay30,0,7722271.story]</ref>
government institutions that employ 3 million people and spend $411.5 billion annually at a cost of $10,770 per student.<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=section&pSectionID=15&cSectionID=97 Statistics about education]</ref> Spoken [[prayer]], the [[Ten Commandments]], and sharing of [[faith]] are expressly forbidden in public schools' classrooms during school hours, and teaching of [[morality]] is implicitly disfavored.<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Stone v. Graham]]'' (1980) (excluding Ten Commandments from public school).</ref><ref>A public school banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. [http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref> [[Homosexual Agenda|Homosexual indoctrination]] is common as early as elementary school in more [[liberal]] states.<ref>http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html</ref> The failures of underperforming public schools are paradigm of [[socialism]], along with [[landfills]] and the [[Canada|Canadian]] healthcare system.

The following are characteristics of US public schools:

*30% of public school students fail to graduate from [[high school]],<ref name="graduate">"Only 70% of all students in public high schools graduate, and only 32% of all students leave high school qualified to attend four-year colleges."[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_03.htm]</ref> and more than 40% of minorities fail to graduate;<ref>"Only 71 percent of kids graduate from high school within four years, and for minorities the numbers are even worse -- 58 percent for Hispanics and 55 percent for African Americans," [Bill Gates] wrote. "If the decline in childhood deaths [in developing countries] is one of the most positive statistics ever, these are some of the most negative."[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/29/AR2009032901353.html?wpisrc=newsletter]</ref> the real drop-out rate may be 50%.<ref>http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/47272207.html</ref>
*Nearly 70% of students leave high school unqualified to attend four-year college, and many are unable to hold a steady job.<ref name="graduate"/>
*A 2007 study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that 77% of students between eighth and 12th grade had used illicit drugs.<ref>According to Monitoring the Future, a study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, illicit drug use is up among students between eighth and 12th grade. In 1991, 62 percent had used illicit drugs. In 2007, the number jumped to 77 percent. [http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20081207/NEWS08/812070305/1002]</ref> Fatal overdoses are common but underreported.<ref>Fatal overdoses are common, although often underreported.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E5DB123EF932A25750C0A9629C8B63 Reporting of a heroin overdose by 16-year-old [[public school]] student was an exception to the underreporting].</ref> Public schools are required to present [[Drug education|drug "education"]] to kids.
*More than 60% of public school teenagers (in one regional study) watch more than 3 hours of television a day, compared with a national average of 35%<ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/ (study of Memphis students)</ref>
*About half of the viable pregnancies among girls attending public school end in [[abortion|abortions]] and about half end in birth. Public schools "[[Sex education|educate]]" kids about sex.<ref>"There is zero shame [to [[teenage pregnancy]]]," the school nurse observed.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/12/AR2008121203507.html]</ref>
*"About 160,000 students miss school daily because they [[fear]] being [[Bully|bullied]]," and students viciously fight each other and post videos of it on [[YouTube|Youtube.com]].<ref>One victim is now "being [[homeschooled]] at state expense."[http://starbulletin.com/2008/05/18/news/story01.html]</ref>
*20% of students had been dangerously "[[binge drinking]]" in the previous 30 days, and 50% of seniors regularly drink illegally, according to a 2007 study of Ottawa County, Michigan.<ref>The Grand Rapids Press The Grand Rapids Press: Ottawa County confronts teen drinking, By Greg Chandler, December 04, 2008[http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2008/12/ottawa_county_confronts_teen_d.html]</ref><ref name="Oregon">http://www.mlive.com/chronicle/news/index.ssf/2008/12/ottawa_co_youth_survey_surpris.html</ref>
*10-20% of students become [[Addiction|addicted]] to [[cigarettes]]<ref name="Oregon"/><ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/</ref>
*35% of students are overweight<ref name="health">http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/nov/29/students-health-needs-attention/</ref>
*Health screening of public schools in Memphis, Tennessee, found that nearly 10% of students have mental health problems<ref name="health"/>.
*More than 10% of public high schools have a [[Homosexual Agenda|pro-homosexual]] student club
*The majority of public school students are completely ignorant about the [[Bible]], even as [[Bible history|history]] and literature
*California public schools, largest in the nation, now rank at the bottom in academic achievement.<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/us/us_california_broken_schools/2009/06/21/227552.html High-Spending California School System Collapsing] AP, June 21, 2009</ref>
''See Also: [[Public school culture]]''

==History==

In 1647, [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]] enacted the second law, after Scotland in 1616,<ref>The Social, Economic & Political Reasons for the Decline of Gaelic in Scotland [http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/highlands/gaelic/gaelic_page1.html]</ref> establishing universal public [[school]]s in the English-speaking world to block the attempts by "ould deluder Satan to keepe men from the whole knowledge of the Scriptures".<ref>''Family Encyclopedia of American History'' (Reader's Digest 1975)</ref> Each settlement larger than 50 families was required to pay a [[teacher|schoolmaster]] to teach reading, writing and religious doctrine to the [[children]] in the community. Beginning in 1670, Massachusetts provided [[taxation|tax]] funding for school maintenance. This model was then copied throughout the colonies, and even throughout the world.

Many children did not attend public school for the first two centuries. It was not until 1852 that Massachusetts became the first state to require attendance by students aged 6 through 16, and it was not until 1918 that all states had [[compulsory attendance]] laws. High schools did not generally exist until after the [[Civil War]], and the first American [[kindergarten]] didn't exist until 1856 in Watertown, Wisconsin.

==Views on morals==

===So-called "character education"===

In response to the perception that public schools have stopped teaching morality, many state education departments have or are in the process of developing "morality" that avoid good and evil, right and wrong, and instead present under the heading of "character" education.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3971/is_199910/ai_n8866284]</ref> The lack of appreciation for right and wrong can surprise outsiders, and even school principals. When one public school student was charged with [[felony]] [[computer crime]] for altering the grades of 20 students, the principal said, we "want to teach them what's right and wrong, and it's tough for some kids to catch on to the idea that changing grades is the wrong thing to do."<ref>http://cw2.trb.com/news/kwgn-student-grade-felony,0,7871401.story</ref> The impact of the removal of morality from the [[public school]] curriculum (which is also used in private schools) is that "more than one in three boys (35 percent) and one-fourth of the girls (26 percent) — a total of 30 percent overall — admitted stealing from a store within the past year."<ref>http://charactercounts.org/programs/reportcard/index.html</ref>

=== Prayer ===

:''See also: [[Classroom prayer]]''

The White House announced the release of Revised Religious Guidelines for America's Public Schools on May 29, 1998. Within this announcement, President [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] stated, "Nothing in the [[First Amendment]] converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the school house door." --President Clinton, July 12, 1998<ref>http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/05-1998/wh-0530.html</ref>

In 2003, the Education Department released the following guidelines that clarified and added requirements to Public Schools to ensure the religious rights of students.<ref>http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17550</ref>
<blockquote>
Schools that don’t allow students to pray outside the classroom or that prohibit teachers from holding religious meetings among themselves could lose federal money, the Education Department said late last week. 
 
The guidance reflects the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] administration’s push to ensure that schools give teachers and students as much freedom to pray as the courts have allowed. 
The department makes clear that teachers cannot pray with students or attempt to shape their religious views.
The instructions, released by the department on Feb. 7, broadly follow the same direction given by the Clinton administration and the courts. Prayer is generally allowed provided it happens outside the class and is initiated by students, not by school officials. 
 
The department, however, also offered some significant additions, including more details on such contentious matters as moments of silence and prayer in student assemblies. And for the first time, federal funds are tied to compliance with the guidelines. The burden is on schools to prove compliance through a yearly report.
</blockquote>

===Teaching the Bible in Public Schools ===
The [[National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools]]<ref>http://www.bibleinschools.net/</ref> (NCBCPS) provides a program for teaching the Bible in public schools. Currently, the NCBCPS's Bible curriculum has been voted into 462 school districts (over 1,900 high schools) in 38 states. Over 210,000 students have already taken this course nationwide, on the high school campus, during school hours, for credit.

==Suppression and intolerance of Christian views==
[[Activist judges]] have proclaimed that teaching [[creationism]]<ref>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/578/case.html</ref> and [[intelligent design]]<ref>www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf</ref> are somehow unconstitutional, invoking the well-known fallacy that the First Amendment guarantees "freedom from religion" instead of "freedom of religion."

==Educational outcomes==

===Declining literacy ===
Since the rapid expansion and liberalization of public schools after [[World War II]], students' [[literacy]] levels have dropped significantly. While the average 14-year-old had a vocabulary of 25,000 words in 1945, the equivalent student in 2000 had a vocabulary of only 10,000 words, a severe disadvantage in an increasingly textual world.<ref>''Utne Reader'' (July-August 2000), 28-9.</ref>

===Liberal bias in textbooks===
:''See also: [[Textbook bias]]''

[[Textbook]]s (K-12) have been systematically analyzed in a study funded by the U.S. government. The 1986 findings were that massive, systematic [[liberal bias]] exists, resulting in several information blackouts in four key areas of modern American life—[[marriage]], [[religion]], [[politics]], and [[business]]. While an actual conspiracy was then ruled out, the cause was found to be a "a very widespread [[secular]] and [[liberal]] mindset" pervading "the leadership in the world of education [and textbook publishing]"<ref> ''Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's textbooks'', [[Paul C. Vitz]], Servant Books, 1986, ISBN 0-89283-305-X</ref>.

Professor Larry Schwikart, of the [[University of Dayton]], wrote a book about biased textbooks. False claims common in those texts included that the [[Founding Fathers]] wanted a "wall of [[Separation of church and state|separation" between church and state]], that "[[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln]] issued the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] only because he needed [[Black Soldiers in the Civil War|black soldiers]]", and that "[[Mikhail Gorbachev]], not [[Ronald Reagan]], was responsible for ending the [[Cold War]]". <ref>http://www.emailwire.com/release/20086-Controversial-Historian-on-the-Price-of-Business-Show.html</ref>

===Non-Dismissal of Tenured Teachers===
Due to the strength of the nation's teachers' [[Labor union|union]], it is nearly impossible to fire a bad performing teacher with [[tenure]]. The process can take years and involves countless steps to even attempt. The union claims that the protections are needed against arbitrary and malicious lawsuits.

The New York public schools system has approximately 700 teachers accused of insubordination to sexual misconduct. They remain in seclusion from the classroom but are paid full salaries until their cases are heard, sometimes from months to years later. All because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_rubber_rooms/2009/06/22/227959.html 700 NYC Teachers Paid to Do Nothing] AP, June 22, 2009</ref>

[[File:Pathtodismissal.JPG|center|thumb|800px| Flow chart for firing teachers in the nations second largest [[school district]], Los Angeles Unified School district]]

==Graduates==
=== Before 1962 ===
Given that public schools educate about 90% of [[Americans]], it is astounding how few prominent Americans attended public school after the banning of school prayer in 1962. Here is an impressive list of people who attended public schools ''before'' the banning of prayer.

*[[Ronald Reagan]]<ref>http://www.dixonil.com/reagan/reagan2.htm</ref> graduated from Dixon High School, Illinois
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]<ref>http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/press_releases/2007/PR07_11_August_02_2007_Eisenhower_Co_Sponsor_Little_Rock.pdf</ref> attended Abilene High School in Abilene, Kansas
*[[Richard M. Nixon]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/edu/836/000068632/</ref> attended Fullerton and Whittier High Schools, California
*[[Gerald Ford]]<ref>http://www.visitgrandrapids.org/ford-facts.php</ref> attended Grand Rapids South High School, Michigan
*[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/062/000023990/</ref> attended Johnson City High School, Texas
*[[Harry S Truman]]<ref>http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/103truman/103visual1.htm</ref> attended Independence High School, Missouri
*[[H. Ross Perot]]<ref>http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm</ref> attended public schools and Texarkana Junior College, Texas
*[[Richard Cheney]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/598/000022532/</ref> graduated from Natrona County High School in Casper, Wyoming.
*[[Colin Powell]] graduated from Morris High School, NY in 1954 and received his B.A. in geology from the City College of New York in 1958 <ref>http://gale.cengage.com/free_resources/bhm/bio/powell_c.htm</ref>
*[[Billy Graham]] graduated from Sharon High School, NC in May 1936<ref>http://online-bibleconcordance.com/Ministers/BillyGraham.aspx</ref>
*[[Michael Medved]] graduated from Palisades High School, CA <ref>michaelmedved.townhall.com/About.aspx</ref>
*[[The Wright Brothers]] attended public schools in Richmond, India and Dayton OH but did not graduate <ref>http://www.kyrene.org/schools/brisas/sunda/inventor/wright/index.html</ref>
*[[Roy Jay Glauber]], Nobel laureate, graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, NY in 1941. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/738/000138324/</ref>
*[[Frederick Reines]], Nobel laureate, attended Union Hill High School, NJ, during the late 1930's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/052/000099752/</ref>
*[[Oliver North]], US Army Officer, political commentator, graduated from Ockawamick High School in 1961. <ref>http://libraryoflibrary.com/E_n_c_p_d_Ollie_North.html</ref>

=== After 1962 ===
Here is a mostly unimpressive list of people who attended public school ''after'' prayer was banned in 1962:

*[[Brad Pitt]], actor, graduated from Kickapoo High School in Springfield, Missouri, 1981; dropped out of college.<ref>http://www.rolemodel.net/brad_pitt.cfm
</ref>
*[[Tom Cruise]], actor, attended several public high schools including Glen Ridge High School, New Jersey during the 1970's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/791/000022725/
</ref>
*[[John Sununu]], former one-term Senator from [[New Hampshire]], graduated from Salem High School in the 1970's;<ref>http://www.sununu.senate.gov/biography.html</ref> claiming to be [[pro-life]], Sununu arranged for the nomination of [[David Souter]] to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], where he then repeatedly voted on the side of [[abortion]]
*[[John Edwards]], indicted in 2011 on allegations arising from his affair with a mistress, was a former one-term Senator from [[North Carolina]] and two-time unsuccessful candidate for nomination for president, attended public school in Robbins, N.C. during the 1960's.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/edwards_bio.html</ref>
*[[Spike Lee]], producer, actor, graduated from John Dewey High School, Brooklyn, NY.<ref>http://movies.nytimes.com/person/99175/Spike-Lee/biography</ref>
*[[Laura Bush]] attended James Bowie Elementary School, San Jacinto Junior High School, and Midland Lee High School in Midland, Texas (Graduated 1964); came out in support of [[gay marriage]] and [[abortion]] in 2010.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/laura-bush-supports-gay-marriage-abortion/story?id=10629213</ref>
*[[William J. Clinton]]<ref>http://www.hotsprings.org/things_to_do/historic_hotsprings/presidents_hometown.asp</ref> graduated from Hot Springs High School in Arkansas in 1964, and became the only president impeached in the 20th century.
*Anthony Weiner, a congressman who resigned in disgrace in 2011 after first denying but then confirming an indecent use of [[Twitter]], graduated from a public high school in [[Brooklyn]].
*[[Steve Jobs]], founder of [[Apple Inc.]], graduated from Homestead High School in Cupertino, CA in 1972; his colleague, [[Steve Wozniak]], graduated from the same high school in 1968.
*[[Eminem]], a [[liberal]] [[rapper]], repeatedly failed 9th grade in public school and ultimately dropped out.
*[[Alan Colmes]], a liberal news commentator, attended public school in [[New York City]].
*[[Sarah Palin]], vice presidential candidate on the [[Republican Party]] ticket in 2008 and favorite of some [[Tea Party]] groups, went to [[Wasilla High School]] and graduated in 1982 and then attended 5 different colleges before becoming more [[conservative]] later in life.<ref>http://outhouserag.typepad.com/outhouserag/2008/09/sarah-palin-198.html</ref>
*[[Rick Perry]], [[Texas]] governor, infringed on [[parental rights]] by requiring young girls to receive an HPV vaccine.

==See Also==

*[[Public school culture]]
*[[Teacher Pay]]
*[[Atheism and public schools]]
*[[Parental rights]] (focusing on the rights of parents to control the education, upbringing and disclipline of their children)
*[[Education in the United Kingdom]]

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

[[category:Schools]]
[[category:United States History]]
{{Liberalism}}

==External Links==
*[http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1610/466/Dumb_As_A_Rock:_You_Will_Be_Absolutely_Amazed_At_The_Things_That_U.S._High_School_Students_Do_Not_Know.html Dumb As A Rock: You Will Be Absolutely Amazed At The Things That U.S. High School Students Do Not Know]
*[http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/03/28/9-notorious-teacher-sex-scandals/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058?test=latestnews 8 Bizarre Teacher Scandals You Won't Believe]

Alec Baldwin

2012-06-05T22:10:16Z

CWest:

[[Image:Alec-Baldwin thumb.jpg|right|frame]]
'''Alexander Rae Baldwin III ''' (born 1958) is an [[Emmy Award]] winning [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] actor. The eldest of the Baldwin brothers, Alec Baldwin has starred in many movies and television shows such as ''[[30 Rock]]'', and has hosted ''[[Saturday Night Live]]'' 14 times.

Baldwin was formerly married to actress [[Kim Basinger]]. The ensuing divorce proceedings and custody battle have been a source of fodder for reporters, who have published assorted claims by Basinger and Baldwin. As of May 4, 2007 a court will be considering whether Baldwin should be allowed continued visitation with his daughter in light of an expletive-strewn, threatening phone message he left to his 11-year-old daughter, Ireland.<ref>http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_audio/0419_baldwin.mp3</ref>

On the recording, Baldwin can be heard berating his young daughter, "You are a rude, thoughtless little pig." "You don't have the brains or the decency as a human being," he says, apparently upset that she did not answer her phone for a planned call. He further says, "I don't give a damn that you're 12 years old, or 11 years old, or that you're a child, or that your mother is a thoughtless pain in the ass who doesn't care about what you do as far as I'm concerned."<ref>http://apnews.myway.com//article/20070420/D8OK22H82.html</ref>

According to TMZ.com, a family law judge was so alarmed after hearing the tape, she has temporarily barred Baldwin from having any contact with his child.

In 2011, Baldwin endangered the safety of an aircraft by using his cell phone in the middle of a flight after the crew had instructed him that it be turned off. The flight was delayed for an hour because the aircraft had to turn around and go back to the gate to remove him from the plane.<ref>http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/alec_baldwin_thrown_off_flight_at_ikgro0tlAWEveH4IMoa4YK</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.tmz.com/2007/04/19/alec-baldwins-threatening-message-to-daughter/ TMZ.com article on the troubled actor/activist]
*[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000285/ Alec Baldwin] at the Internet Movie Database
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/alec-baldwin/ What Liberals Say - Alec Baldwin], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Liberal Activists]]
[[Category: Actors]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Baldwin, Alec}}

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

2012-06-05T22:03:38Z

CWest: /* Controversy */

'''People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals''' ('''PETA''') is a [[liberal]] "[[animal rights]]" organization focusing on what it calls the four main areas of [[animal]] suffering ([[factory farms]], [[animal testing]], [[clothing]] trade, and the [[entertainment]] industry), as well as other individual issues<ref name="petafaq">''PeTA's Mission Statement'' [http://www.peta.org/about/]</ref>. It was founded in 1981 by [[Ingrid Newkirk]].

PETA essentially believes that human beings are animals, and that (non-human) animals should have most of the same rights as [[human beings]].<ref>
PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.” [http://www.peta.org/about/WhyAnimalRights.asp PETA: Why Animal Rights?]</ref>
While not proposing a ban on keeping pets, PETA believes:
:that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed.<ref> [http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp Animal Rights Uncompromised:
PETA on 'Pets']</ref>
PETA opposes the human ownership of animals as [[work animal]]s.<ref>On Newkirk's view of Seeing Eye dogs
"She regards the use of Seeing Eye dogs as an abdication of human responsibility and, because they live as 'servants' and are denied the companionship of other dogs, she is wholly opposed to their use."</ref> It proposes that people stop eating [[meat]]; see [[vegetarianism]].

==Activism==
PETA achieves its goals through "public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns,"<ref name="petafaq" /> but they are best known for their provocative advertising and protests. For example, they often use nude women to protest the wearing of fur.<ref>''PETA: Dominique Swain is a Class Act for Animals'', [http://www.peta.org/feat/swain/] (contains risque image)</ref> They have also had controversial public education campaigns, including comparing [[Jewish]] ritual slaughter to the [[Holocaust]]. <ref>[http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=3021 PETA'S "HOLOCAUST ON YOUR PLATE" NATIONAL TOUR COMES TO NEW YORK], PETA Media Center, October 9, 2003</ref> <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43035 PETA's dirty war against Jewish ritual slaughter], Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, [[WorldNetDaily]], February 25, 2005</ref> "On May 5, 2005, however, PETA issued an apology for its "Holocaust on Your Plate" exhibit, which traveled to more than 100 American and foreign cities. The exhibit compared the treatment of farm animals to the victims of the Nazi concentration camps. PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said she realized that the campaign had caused pain: 'This was never our intention, and we are deeply sorry.'" <ref>[http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/holocaust_imagery.asp Holocaust Imagery and Animal Rights], [[Anti-Defamation League]], August 2, 2005</ref> In addition, PETA members have camped out in front of public schools and handed out [[propaganda]] "comic books" entitled "Your Mommy Kills Animals" to children as young as '''six years old''' in their attempt to manipulate children into blindly believing their lies. <ref>[http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/2537-peta-denies-traumatizing-kids ConsumerFreedom.com]</ref>

Many prominent celebrities support PETA, such as [[Bill Maher]], [[Richard Gere]], [[Alec Baldwin]], [[Paul McCartney]], and [[Russell Simmons]].

==Controversy==
PETA receives criticism from many different groups, including researchers, consumer advocates and others who claim that PETA's goals are not animal rights, but total animal liberation,<ref name="acmain">ActivistCash.com [http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21]</ref> which would mean no meat, dairy, hunting, fishing, circus animals, aquariums, or even pets.

Critics also chastise PETA for some of its methods of action, including stalking, attacking and harassing those in the food or medical research industries<ref name="acmain" /> and supporting violent animal rights and environmental groups such as the [[Earth Liberation Front]] and the [[Animal Liberation Front]]<ref>ActivistCash.com [http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm/oid/21]</ref>. Many of PETA's advertisements also contain [[nudity]] or other shock tactics.

There have also been several accounts of PETA killing animals when they could not find homes for them. From July 1998 through December 2005, PETA killed over 14,400 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals." That's more than five creatures every day. PETA has a walk-in freezer to store the dead bodies. <ref>PetaKillsAnimals.com, ''PETA's Dirty Secret'' [http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm]</ref> The stated rationale is that a swift death is better than long suffering, but critics point out that PETA commands significant funds and presumably could have cared for the animals if they so chose.

PETA only adopted a mere 24 animals in 2011, as opposed to 1,911 that were euthanized. This is a euthanization rate of over 95%. <ref>http://bloggingfoodforthought.blogspot.com/2012/03/peta-posts-shameful-euthanasia-rate.html</ref>

PETA promotes the welfare of animals and insects yet is silent on the question of protecting [[abortion|children in the womb]]. <ref>[http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51096 PETA Wants Obama to Stop Killing Flies, But Won’t Take a Stand on Abortion CNSNews.com July 16,2009]</ref>

PETA request that the [[Boy Scouts of America]] to retire the “Fishing” and “Fish and Wildlife Management” merit badges. ''"Promoting fishing teaches young people that hooking, maiming, suffocating, and killing is acceptable.”'' <ref>[http://www.peta.org/feat/merit/index.html Ask The Boy Scouts To De-Merit Fishing, PETA.org]</ref>

==Further reading==
*[http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/11/does_president-.php Does President-Elect Obama Bring Hope for Animals?], PETA
{{Liberalism}}
==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Organizations]]
[[Category:Vegetarianism]]
[[Category: Lunatics]]

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/PETA|Articles about '''PETA''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Alex Pacheco]]

==External Links==
*PETA Website [http://www.peta.org]
*[[Center for Consumer Freedom]] [http://www.consumerfreedom.com/issuepage.cfm/topic/8], a consumer advocate group
*[http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21 ActivistCash.com]
*[http://www.petakillsanimals.com PetaKillsAnimals.com]

Communism

2012-06-05T21:35:33Z

CWest: /* Notorious communists */

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|right|175px]]
'''Communism''' is a [[left-wing]] materialistic and violently atheistic ideology created to justify the overthrow of [[Capitalism]], replacing [[free market]] economics and [[democracy]] with a "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". Under Communism, the [[political]] system replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the [[means of production]] with "[[collective ownership]]" of the economy, this is to be accomplished through direct "democratic" control by the workers.<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1968/11/workersdem.htm</ref>
Twentieth century Communism was based on [[Karl Marx]]'s manifesto which proposed to establishment of a "[[classless society]]." However, all Communist societies have had a [[class structure]], notably the [[USSR]], which was dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of Communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that it caused the death of approximately 148,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM</ref>

President [[Ronald Reagan]] in an address before the British [[House of Commons]] said,
{{Cquote|'''What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.'''<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

Today, communism continues to rule over at least one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Communist Theory and Practice==

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|left|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in [[Washington, D.C.]]]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of [[evolution]] influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Marx wrote, "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the [[class struggle]] in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to [[Charles Darwin]], but Darwin declined the "honour." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> <ref>Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought, Bob Jessop, ISBN 0415193265 (pg 476)</ref>

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the government owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages. In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.

Even more important, one party controls every organization from the local labor union to the the army to the national government. The party is not elected. Its top officials (the "Politburo") select replacements when there is a vacancy. usually a dictator (like Stalin, Mao or Castro) controls the Politburo, but sometimes power is shared among five or six people. No dissent is allowed--all news media are controlled, and the Internet is heavily censored.

Elites do not disappear. Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are allegedly immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure.

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1918 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion until World War II, when it discovered religion was needed to rally the people against the Nazi invaders. Like all authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and communism]]

[[Karl Marx]] established [[atheism]] as a key part of communism. He famously said, "Religion ... is the opium of the masses."<ref>Marx, K. [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31765.html Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right] (Classic Quotations) (Standard translation from the original German).</ref> He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on ''in practice'' and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, ''Proletary'', No. 45, May 13 (26), 1909, translated by Andrew Rothstein and Bernard Issacs, quote from [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm].</ref>

In 1955, [[China|Chinese]] communist leader Chou En-lai declared, "We Communists are atheists".<ref>Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001.</ref>

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] said, "for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything - force, violence, murder, lying - is a justifiable means." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 92.</ref>
[[File:Stalin-kill.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Exhumed skeletons of [[class war]] victims murdered by communists.<ref>[http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/rm1.stalin.kill.htm.</ref> Apologists maintain communism has never really been tried. ]]

== Atrocities and Repression ==
Communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Nobel Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:
{{Cquote|Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened. Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.}}
In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

== Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism ==

''See also:'' [[Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism]]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
![[Communism|Communist]] Manifesto
![[Nazi]] Party Platform
!Analysis
|-
|1
|"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."
|"We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."
|The stripping away of land from private owners. [[Liberalism]] today demands "eminent domain" on property.
|-
|2
|"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts...profit-sharing in large industries...a generous increase in old-age pensions...by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor...and the creation of a national (folk) army."
|The points raised in the [[Nazi]] platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes.
|-
|3
|"Abolition of all rights of inheritance."
|"That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished."
|Liberalism today demands a "death tax" on anyone inheriting an estate.
|-
|4
|"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."
|"We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately."
|The Nuremburg Laws of 1934 allowed Germany to take Jewish property.
|-
|5
|"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts."
|Central control of the financial system.
|-
|6
|"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."
|"We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press...editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens...Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State...the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper..."
|Central control of the press. Liberals today demand control or suppression of talk radio and Fox News.
|-
|7
|"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c."
|"In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. "
|Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things ''their way'' in our schools.
|-
|}

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. They often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:
{{Cquote|And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)}}

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,
{{Cquote|The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the Father and Creator of man, but also his Savior, Who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>}}

==Communists shared totalitarian ideals with facism and nazism==

[[Adolf Hitler]] noted that Communists made excellent converts to Nazism, because the same personality type was attracted to both. "[T]here is more that binds us to [[Bolshevik|Bolshevism]] than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois [[Social democracy|Social-Democrat]] and the trade-union boss will never make a [[National Socialist]], but the Communists always will."<ref>quoted in Hermann Rauschning, ''Hitler Speaks''</ref> [[Josef Stalin]] also recognized that ex-Nazis and ex-[[fascist]]s were natural recruits for post-war Communist regimes. As Stanley Payne notes in his ''A History of Fascism: 1914-1945'', "All over Soviet-occupied eastern Europe, most rank-and-file former fascist party members, together with many lower-level leaders, were welcomed to fill the ranks of the initially exiguous local Communist parties. The psychological transition seems to have been an easy one, for obvious reasons."<ref>http://www.lietuvos.org/istorija/communism/</ref>

==Cuban communism==
[[Cuba]] remains a communist state controlled by the Castro brothers since 1960 and under U.S economic sanctions.

==Asian communism==
The [[CCP]] in China retains an autocratic regime controlled by the Communist party, which allows no democracy or dissent. However it does allow capitalism, and has experienced a very rapid growth of the private sector and the middle class. Observers expect that the regime's efforts to control public opinion and forestall the will of the people will be more and more difficult.

[[North Korea]] remains a brutal dictatorship controlled by the same family. [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]] are also run by the old Communist cliques.

==Collapse of the Soviet bloc==

The shooting down by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983 of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] may have been a contributing factor for the downfall of the Soviet Union as well as for the whole Soviet block. It being a catalyst for the collapse of the Soviet Union may be inferred from the fact that NATO had decided, under the impetus of the U.S. administration, to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe, primarily West Germany. This deployment would have placed missiles just 6-10 minutes striking distance from Moscow. But support for the deployment was wavering and many doubted that the missile deployment would find enough support to effect it. When the Soviet Union shot down Flight 007 with 269 people aboard, including conservative Democratic Congressman [[Larry McDonald]] —an act which U.S. President Ronald Reagan characterized as a "massacre"—enough support was galvanized for the deployment. The deployment caused great resources of the Soviet Union to be diverted from inner economic use to military expenditures to counter the U.S. and NATO missile deployment.
Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced democracy. With the collapse the remnants of Communist parties have dropped their old names and ideologies, but still operate on the left of the political spectrum.

==American communism==
:''Main article : [[Committees of Correspondence]]''
With the collapse of Soviet communism and the conversion of Chinese communism to "state run capitalism," the spiritual and ideological center of world of communism and the [[Marxist-Leninist]] tradition shifted to the [[United States]]. Several prominent American communists, rudderless without [[Moscow]] direction, formed a new organization in 1992 called the [[Committees of Correspondence for Democratic Socialism]].

The initial organizational conference was held in [[Berkeley]], [[California]], July 17-19, 1992. Charlene Mitchell, a former leader of the California Communist Party, speaking at the conference said, "the collapse of [[socialism]] in [[Eastern Europe]] left the [[United States]] in a near unchallenged position of world leadership." Mitchell continued,
{{Cquote|What began as a moment to take stock and ponder where to go from there has now become a very different entity. People from the Communist Party, from CrossRoads, from the [[Democratic Socialists of America]], from NCIPA [National Committee for Independent Political Action], from Solidarity, from the Socialist Organizing Network and many others, including independent leftists and independent socialists, have come together here in Berkeley.}}
Criticizing U.S. actions in the [[First Gulf War]], Mitchell stated,
{{Cquote|[[progressive]] forces were nearly powerless in the face of an onslaught of demagogic, [[patriotic]] [[jingoism]] and yellow ribbons. This war, fought for no legitimate reason, was the crowning height of [[George H.W. Bush|President [George H.W.] Bush]]'s [[New World Order]]. Previously, the Soviet Union helped to provide a certain balance to rein in the crazies in this country. Now, that balance is no longer there. It is now up to us, the American people, to rein in our own crazies. The [[left]] must take a major responsibility in organizing this task.}}

==Notorious communists==

Well known communists include:
*[[Salvador Allende]]
*[[William Ayers]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Raul Castro]]
*[[Hugo Chavez]]
*[[Carl Davidson]]
*[[Frank Marshall Davis]]
*[[Bernardine Dohrn]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Benjamin Jones]]
*[[Van Jones]]
*[[Kim Il Sung]]
*[[Kim Jong Il]]
*[[Kim Jong Un]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Mao Zedong]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Ho Chi Minh]]
*[[Pol Pot]]
*[[Paul Robeson]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]

==Further reading==
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative historian
** Pipes, Richard. ''History of Communism: A Brief History'' (2002)
* Priestland, David. ''The Red Flag: A History of Communism'' (2009)
*[http://www.archive.org/stream/100thingsyoushou1949unit#page/n3/mode/2up 100 Things You Should Know About Communism'']

==See also==
*[[List of Communist States]]
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.
*[[The Soviet/ U.S naval confrontation]] over KAL 007
*[[KAL 007 and the Soviet Top Secret Memos]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Oppression]]
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]
[[Category: Anti-American]]

Communism

2012-06-05T21:33:49Z

CWest: /* Cummunisms shared totalitarian ideals with facism and nazism */ typo

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|right|175px]]
'''Communism''' is a [[left-wing]] materialistic and violently atheistic ideology created to justify the overthrow of [[Capitalism]], replacing [[free market]] economics and [[democracy]] with a "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". Under Communism, the [[political]] system replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the [[means of production]] with "[[collective ownership]]" of the economy, this is to be accomplished through direct "democratic" control by the workers.<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1968/11/workersdem.htm</ref>
Twentieth century Communism was based on [[Karl Marx]]'s manifesto which proposed to establishment of a "[[classless society]]." However, all Communist societies have had a [[class structure]], notably the [[USSR]], which was dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of Communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that it caused the death of approximately 148,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM</ref>

President [[Ronald Reagan]] in an address before the British [[House of Commons]] said,
{{Cquote|'''What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.'''<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

Today, communism continues to rule over at least one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Communist Theory and Practice==

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|left|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in [[Washington, D.C.]]]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of [[evolution]] influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Marx wrote, "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the [[class struggle]] in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to [[Charles Darwin]], but Darwin declined the "honour." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> <ref>Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought, Bob Jessop, ISBN 0415193265 (pg 476)</ref>

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the government owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages. In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.

Even more important, one party controls every organization from the local labor union to the the army to the national government. The party is not elected. Its top officials (the "Politburo") select replacements when there is a vacancy. usually a dictator (like Stalin, Mao or Castro) controls the Politburo, but sometimes power is shared among five or six people. No dissent is allowed--all news media are controlled, and the Internet is heavily censored.

Elites do not disappear. Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are allegedly immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure.

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1918 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion until World War II, when it discovered religion was needed to rally the people against the Nazi invaders. Like all authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and communism]]

[[Karl Marx]] established [[atheism]] as a key part of communism. He famously said, "Religion ... is the opium of the masses."<ref>Marx, K. [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31765.html Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right] (Classic Quotations) (Standard translation from the original German).</ref> He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on ''in practice'' and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, ''Proletary'', No. 45, May 13 (26), 1909, translated by Andrew Rothstein and Bernard Issacs, quote from [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm].</ref>

In 1955, [[China|Chinese]] communist leader Chou En-lai declared, "We Communists are atheists".<ref>Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001.</ref>

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] said, "for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything - force, violence, murder, lying - is a justifiable means." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 92.</ref>
[[File:Stalin-kill.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Exhumed skeletons of [[class war]] victims murdered by communists.<ref>[http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/rm1.stalin.kill.htm.</ref> Apologists maintain communism has never really been tried. ]]

== Atrocities and Repression ==
Communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Nobel Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:
{{Cquote|Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened. Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.}}
In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

== Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism ==

''See also:'' [[Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism]]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
![[Communism|Communist]] Manifesto
![[Nazi]] Party Platform
!Analysis
|-
|1
|"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."
|"We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."
|The stripping away of land from private owners. [[Liberalism]] today demands "eminent domain" on property.
|-
|2
|"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts...profit-sharing in large industries...a generous increase in old-age pensions...by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor...and the creation of a national (folk) army."
|The points raised in the [[Nazi]] platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes.
|-
|3
|"Abolition of all rights of inheritance."
|"That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished."
|Liberalism today demands a "death tax" on anyone inheriting an estate.
|-
|4
|"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."
|"We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately."
|The Nuremburg Laws of 1934 allowed Germany to take Jewish property.
|-
|5
|"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts."
|Central control of the financial system.
|-
|6
|"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."
|"We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press...editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens...Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State...the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper..."
|Central control of the press. Liberals today demand control or suppression of talk radio and Fox News.
|-
|7
|"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c."
|"In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. "
|Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things ''their way'' in our schools.
|-
|}

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. They often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:
{{Cquote|And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)}}

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,
{{Cquote|The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the Father and Creator of man, but also his Savior, Who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>}}

==Communists shared totalitarian ideals with facism and nazism==

[[Adolf Hitler]] noted that Communists made excellent converts to Nazism, because the same personality type was attracted to both. "[T]here is more that binds us to [[Bolshevik|Bolshevism]] than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois [[Social democracy|Social-Democrat]] and the trade-union boss will never make a [[National Socialist]], but the Communists always will."<ref>quoted in Hermann Rauschning, ''Hitler Speaks''</ref> [[Josef Stalin]] also recognized that ex-Nazis and ex-[[fascist]]s were natural recruits for post-war Communist regimes. As Stanley Payne notes in his ''A History of Fascism: 1914-1945'', "All over Soviet-occupied eastern Europe, most rank-and-file former fascist party members, together with many lower-level leaders, were welcomed to fill the ranks of the initially exiguous local Communist parties. The psychological transition seems to have been an easy one, for obvious reasons."<ref>http://www.lietuvos.org/istorija/communism/</ref>

==Cuban communism==
[[Cuba]] remains a communist state controlled by the Castro brothers since 1960 and under U.S economic sanctions.

==Asian communism==
The [[CCP]] in China retains an autocratic regime controlled by the Communist party, which allows no democracy or dissent. However it does allow capitalism, and has experienced a very rapid growth of the private sector and the middle class. Observers expect that the regime's efforts to control public opinion and forestall the will of the people will be more and more difficult.

[[North Korea]] remains a brutal dictatorship controlled by the same family. [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]] are also run by the old Communist cliques.

==Collapse of the Soviet bloc==

The shooting down by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983 of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] may have been a contributing factor for the downfall of the Soviet Union as well as for the whole Soviet block. It being a catalyst for the collapse of the Soviet Union may be inferred from the fact that NATO had decided, under the impetus of the U.S. administration, to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe, primarily West Germany. This deployment would have placed missiles just 6-10 minutes striking distance from Moscow. But support for the deployment was wavering and many doubted that the missile deployment would find enough support to effect it. When the Soviet Union shot down Flight 007 with 269 people aboard, including conservative Democratic Congressman [[Larry McDonald]] —an act which U.S. President Ronald Reagan characterized as a "massacre"—enough support was galvanized for the deployment. The deployment caused great resources of the Soviet Union to be diverted from inner economic use to military expenditures to counter the U.S. and NATO missile deployment.
Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced democracy. With the collapse the remnants of Communist parties have dropped their old names and ideologies, but still operate on the left of the political spectrum.

==American communism==
:''Main article : [[Committees of Correspondence]]''
With the collapse of Soviet communism and the conversion of Chinese communism to "state run capitalism," the spiritual and ideological center of world of communism and the [[Marxist-Leninist]] tradition shifted to the [[United States]]. Several prominent American communists, rudderless without [[Moscow]] direction, formed a new organization in 1992 called the [[Committees of Correspondence for Democratic Socialism]].

The initial organizational conference was held in [[Berkeley]], [[California]], July 17-19, 1992. Charlene Mitchell, a former leader of the California Communist Party, speaking at the conference said, "the collapse of [[socialism]] in [[Eastern Europe]] left the [[United States]] in a near unchallenged position of world leadership." Mitchell continued,
{{Cquote|What began as a moment to take stock and ponder where to go from there has now become a very different entity. People from the Communist Party, from CrossRoads, from the [[Democratic Socialists of America]], from NCIPA [National Committee for Independent Political Action], from Solidarity, from the Socialist Organizing Network and many others, including independent leftists and independent socialists, have come together here in Berkeley.}}
Criticizing U.S. actions in the [[First Gulf War]], Mitchell stated,
{{Cquote|[[progressive]] forces were nearly powerless in the face of an onslaught of demagogic, [[patriotic]] [[jingoism]] and yellow ribbons. This war, fought for no legitimate reason, was the crowning height of [[George H.W. Bush|President [George H.W.] Bush]]'s [[New World Order]]. Previously, the Soviet Union helped to provide a certain balance to rein in the crazies in this country. Now, that balance is no longer there. It is now up to us, the American people, to rein in our own crazies. The [[left]] must take a major responsibility in organizing this task.}}

==Notorious communists==

Well known communists include:
*[[William Ayers]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Hugo Chavez]]
*[[Carl Davidson]]
*[[Frank Marshall Davis]]
*[[Bernardine Dohrn]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Van Jones]]
*[[Kim Jong Il]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Mao Zedong]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Ho Chi Minh]]
*[[Pol Pot]]
*[[Paul Robeson]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]
*[[Salvador Allende]]
*Benjamin Jones

==Further reading==
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative historian
** Pipes, Richard. ''History of Communism: A Brief History'' (2002)
* Priestland, David. ''The Red Flag: A History of Communism'' (2009)
*[http://www.archive.org/stream/100thingsyoushou1949unit#page/n3/mode/2up 100 Things You Should Know About Communism'']

==See also==
*[[List of Communist States]]
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.
*[[The Soviet/ U.S naval confrontation]] over KAL 007
*[[KAL 007 and the Soviet Top Secret Memos]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Oppression]]
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]
[[Category: Anti-American]]

Reverse racism

2012-06-05T21:27:20Z

CWest:

'''Reverse Racism''' is [[racism]] by or for the benefit of groups that have historically been the victims of racism. As such, it does not refer to the "reverse" of racism, but to a reversal in the ''direction'' of racism.

Example of reverse racism include:
* [[Racial quota]]s for employment or education, which give minority groups an advantage
* Racial rhetoric used by minority group leaders, directed against majority groups
* [[Affirmative action]]

==See also==
* [[Bradley effect]]
* [[Racism]]
* [[Race baiting]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Psychology]]
[[category:Liberal Traits]]

North Korea

2012-06-05T21:14:57Z

CWest: /* Cult of Personality */

{{Country
|name =조선민주주의인민공화국 Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk ''Democratic People's Republic of Korea''
|map =Korea north rel 2005.jpg
|map2 =NorthKorea location.png
|flag =Flag of North Korea.png
|arms =Arms of North Korea.png
|capital =P'yongyang
|government =Communist totalitarian state
|language =Korean
|area =46,526 sq mi
|pop =23,301,725(2007)
|gdp-year =$22.85 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$1,007 (2006)
|currency = North Korean won
}}
'''North Korea''' is the world's most severe [[totalitarian]] [[dictatorship]] and one of the poorest and most [[famine]]-stricken nations on earth. It lies in eastern Asia and occupies the Korean peninsula north of a line that roughly follows the 38th parallel.
It was ruled by self-absorbed dictator and 'Dear Leader' [[Kim Jong Il]], who succeeded his father the 'Great Leader' [[Kim Il Sung]]. Upon Kim Jong-Il's death, his son Kim Jong-un has officially taken over <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/world/asia/packaging-of-Kim-Jong-un-in-north-korea.html?pagewanted=all New York Times; 1 February; To Sell a New Leader, North Korea Finds a Mirror Is Handy]</ref>.

* They suffer from an incredible blackout of knowledge about the outside world. The control on the population exceeds anything the world has seen to date. [http://significatojournal.com/help-the-world/freedom-human-rights/north-korea-the-prison-nation]

Its official name is '''Democratic People's Republic of Korea''', but its government does not follow Western ideas of [[democracy]]. Rather, it is organized along [[Stalinism|Stalinist]] lines. Its "Supreme People's Assembly" is merely a [[rubber stamp]] parliament. [http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/05/21/North-Korea-slammed-over-Cheonan-sinking/UPI-48941274459460/]

The official North Korean ideology is known as [[Juche]] (roughly translates as "national self-reliance"), and since the mid 1990s, [[Songun]] ("military first"). A cult-like devotion to the "Great Leader" and "Dear Leader" is expected of citizens, and heavily promoted in the North Korean news media which has little actual "news" and mostly consists of effusive praise toward [[Kim Jong Il]], grandiose and unsubstantiated claims about great feats by him and his father, and repetitious admonitions that the Korean people are totally united as one behind his leadership; in contrast between 600,000 and 3.5 million North Koreans have died of starvation in recent years because the Kim government has so mismanaged the economy, particularly agriculture, and has hampered outside efforts at relief. <ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071009/COMMENTARY/110090010/1012&template=nextpage</ref>

==People==
*Population (2006): 23.1 million.
*Annual growth rate: About +0.98%.
*Ethnic groups: [[Korean]]; small ethnic Chinese and Japanese populations.
*Religions: [[Buddhism]], [[Confucianism]], [[Shamanism]], [[Chongdogyo]], [[Christian]]; autonomous religious activities have been virtually nonexistent since 1945.
*Language: Korean.
*Education: Years compulsory--11. Attendance--3 million (primary, 1.5 million; secondary, 1.2 million; tertiary, 0.3 million). Literacy--99%.
*Health (1998): Medical treatment is free; one doctor for every 700 inhabitants; one hospital bed for every 350; there are severe shortages of medicines and medical equipment. Infant mortality rate--23.29 /1,000 (2006 est.). Life expectancy--males 68 yrs., females 74 yrs. (2006 est.)

Amnesty International published a report in June 2010 which alleges that the North Korean health care system is "in shambles". Interviews with 40 individuals who defected from that country indicate a wide-spread shortage of medicine and medical implements; a lack of ambulatory services in major cities; the use of unsterilized needles; major operations and amputations done without anesthesia, on a system which spends the equivalent of one dollar per person per year on health care. This discrepancy is compounded by the fact that many citizens are forced to endure a starvation diet by subsisting on grass, tree bark and roots.<ref>http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100715/Amnesty-International-reveals-the-rotting-health-care-system-in-North-Korea.aspx</ref><ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_on_re_as/as_nkorea_crumbling_health_care</ref>

==Religion==
Government policy and practice severely restricted the practice of religion and it is a dogmatically [[atheist]] regime. The 2007 KINU White Paper indicated that the regime utilizes authorized religious entities for external propaganda and political purposes, and that citizens are strictly barred from entering places of worship. Ordinary citizens consider such sites to be primarily "sightseeing spots for foreigners." KINU concluded that the lack of churches or religious facilities in the provinces indicates that ordinary citizens do not enjoy religious freedom.

Little is known about the day-to-day life of religious persons in the country. Members of government-controlled religious groups did not appear to suffer discrimination. Some reports claimed, and circumstantial evidence suggested, that many, if not most of these groups, have been organized by the regime for propaganda and political purposes, including meeting with foreign religious visitors.

The number of religious believers is unknown but was estimated by the Government to be 10,000 Protestants, 10,000 Buddhists, and 4,000 Catholics. Estimates by South Korean and international church-related groups were considerably higher. In addition, the Chondogyo Young Friends Party, a government-approved group based on a traditional religious movement, had approximately 40,000 practitioners, according to the Government.<ref> See [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108410.htm U.S. State Department "International Religious Freedom Report 2008"]</ref>

In Pyongyang there were reportedly four state-controlled Christian churches: two Protestant churches under lay leadership (Bongsu and Chilgol Churches), the Changchung Roman Catholic Church, and the Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Church. The Chilgol Church is dedicated to the memory of former leader Kim Il-sung's mother, Kang Pan-sok, who was a Presbyterian deaconess. The number of congregants regularly worshiping at these churches is unknown.

The Presbyterian Church of Korea in the South was partnering with the Christian Association in North Korea to rebuild Bongsu Church. In the fall of 2006, a delegation of 90 Christians from South Korea visited the Bongsu church to celebrate completion of its first phase of renovation. According to religious leaders who traveled to the country, there were Protestant pastors at these churches, although it was not known if they were resident or visiting.

In its July 2002 report to the U.N. Human Rights Committee, the Government reported the existence of 500 "family worship centers." However, according to the 2007 Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU) White Paper, defectors interviewed were unaware of any such centers. Observers stated that "family worship centers" may be part of the state-controlled Korean Christian Federation, while an unknown number of "underground churches" operate apart from the Federation and are not recognized by the Government. Some NGOs and academics estimate there may be up to several hundred thousand underground Christians in the country. Others question the existence of a large-scale underground church or conclude that no reliable estimate of the number of underground religious believers exists. Individual underground congregations are reportedly very small and confined to private homes. At the same time, some NGOs reported that the individual churches are connected to each other through well-established networks. The regime has not allowed outsiders the access necessary to confirm such claims.

There were an estimated 300 Buddhist temples. Most were regarded as cultural relics, but religious activity was permitted in some. A few Buddhist temples and relics have been renovated or restored in recent years under a broad effort aimed at "preserving the Korean nation's cultural heritage." In 2007 reconstruction was completed on the Shingye or Singyesa (Holy Valley) Temple, which was destroyed during the Korean War. The Republic of Korea (ROK) Government and foreign tourists funded the reconstruction. A South Korean monk, the first to permanently reside in North Korea, has lived at the temple since 2004 but serves primarily as a guide for visiting tourists rather than as a pastor caring for Buddhists living in the area.

The Government announced in June 2007 that 500 monks and Buddhist followers were making day-long pilgrimages to the recently renovated Ryongthong temple in Kaesong strictly for religious purposes. Foreign diplomats in Pyongyang who visited the temple were told that the two monks living there may be joined by more. State-controlled press reported on several occasions that Buddhist ceremonies had been carried out in various locations. Official reporting also linked descriptions of such ceremonies with the broader theme of Korean unification.

The Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Church opened in Pyongyang in 2006. The church was reportedly commissioned by Kim Jong-il after he visited an Orthodox cathedral in Russia in 2002. Two North Koreans who studied at the Russian Orthodox Seminary in Moscow have been ordained as priests and are serving at the church. The purported aim of the church was primarily to provide pastoral care of Russians in the country, but one religious leader with access to the country speculated that the church likely extended pastoral care to all Orthodox Koreans as well. Similar to other religious groups, no reliable data exists on the number of Orthodox believers.

Several foreigners residing in Pyongyang attended Korean-language services at the Christian churches on a regular basis. Some foreigners who visited the country stated that church services appeared staged and contained political content supportive of the regime, in addition to religious themes. Foreign legislators attending services in Pyongyang in previous years noted that congregations arrived at and departed services as groups on tour buses, and some observed that they did not include any children. Other foreigners noted that they were not permitted to have contact with congregants. Foreign observers had limited ability to ascertain the level of government control over these groups, but it was generally assumed they were monitored closely. According to the 2007 KINU White Paper, defectors reported being unaware of any recognized religious organizations that maintained branches outside of Pyongyang.

Several schools for religious education exist. There are 3-year colleges for training Protestant and Buddhist clergy. A religious studies program also was established at Kim Il-sung University in 1989; its graduates usually worked in the foreign trade sector. In 2000 a Protestant seminary was reopened with assistance from foreign missionary groups. Critics, including at least one foreign sponsor, charged that the Government opened the seminary only to facilitate reception of assistance funds from foreign faith-based NGOs. The Chosun Christian Federation, a religious group believed to be controlled by the Government, contributed to the curriculum used by the seminary. The Chosun Christian League operates the Pyongyang Theological Academy, a graduate institution that trains pastors affiliated with the Korean Christian Federation.

==Government and Political Conditions==
North Korea has a centralized government under the rigid control of the communist Korean Workers' Party (KWP), to which all government officials belong. A few minor political parties are allowed to exist in name only. Kim Il-sung ruled North Korea from 1948 until his death in July 1994. Kim served both as Secretary General of the KWP and as President of North Korea.

Little is known about the actual lines of power and authority in the North Korean Government despite the formal structure set forth in the constitution. Following the death of Kim Il-sung, his son--Kim Jong-il--inherited supreme power. Kim Jong-il was named General Secretary of the KWP in October 1997, and in September 1998, the Supreme People's Assembly (SPA) reconfirmed Kim Jong-il as Chairman of the National Defense Commission and declared that position as the "highest office of state." However, the President of the Presidium of the National Assembly, Kim Yong-nam, serves as the nominal head of state. North Korea's 1972 constitution was amended in late 1992 and in September 1998.

The constitution designates the Central People's Committee (CPC) as the government's top policymaking body. The CPC makes policy decisions and supervises the cabinet, or State Administration Council (SAC). The SAC is headed by a premier and is the dominant administrative and executive agency.

Officially, the legislature, the SPA, is the highest organ of state power. Its members are elected every four years. Usually only two meetings are held annually, each lasting a few days. A standing committee elected by the SPA performs legislative functions when the Assembly is not in session. In reality, the Assembly serves only to ratify decisions made by the ruling KWP.

North Korea's judiciary is "accountable" to the SPA and the president. The SPA's standing committee also appoints judges to the highest court for four-year terms that are concurrent with those of the Assembly.

Administratively, North Korea is divided into nine provinces and four provincial-level municipalities--[[Pyongyang]], [[Chongjin]], [[Nampo]], and [[Kaesong]]. It also appears to be divided into nine military districts.

===Principal Party and Government Officials===
*Kim Il-Sung--Eternal President (deceased since 1995)
*Kim Jong-il--General Secretary of the KWP; Supreme Commander of the People's Armed Forces; Chairman of the National Defense *Commission; son of North Korea's founder Kim Il-sung
*Kim Yong-nam--President of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly; titular head of state
*Pak Gil-yon--Ambassador to D.P.R.K. Permanent Mission to the UN
*Pak Ui-chun--Minister of Foreign Affairs

===Propaganda===

The DPRK is notorious for its heavy use of political propaganda, revisionist history and [[cult of personality]] surrounding Kim Jong-il and Kim il-Sung. The media is heavily controlled and only state-controlled radio and television broadcasts are permitted for public consumption. This control allows the regime to propagate its many lies and perceptions of the country.

==== Cult of Personality ====

The North Korean state maintains an intense cult of personality surrounding Kim and his son, Kim Jong-il. All North Koreans wear badges with an image of either (or both) Kims and portraits of the deceased leader are voluminous both in cities and the countryside. The capital city of Pyonyang has over 600 statues of Kim, including a 25-metre bronze statue built in 1972 for his sixtieth birthday.

Kim's personality cult is largely based on historical revisionism and many absurd "facts" to emphasize his "divine" abilities and power. Among these:

*He was born under a double rainbow on the sacred Baektul Mountain in 1942. At the moment of his birth, a bright star lit up the sky, the seasons spontaneously changed from winter to spring and a double rainbow appeared in the sky.(In truth, he was born in Vyatskoye, Siberia in 1941.)<ref>http://asianhistory.about.com/od/profilesofasianleaders/p/BioKimJongil.htm</ref>

*During the Japanese colonial rule of Korea, he fought in more than 100,000 battles in 15 years (over 20 battles a day). (While Kim was in the Soviet army, he never participated in actual combat.)<ref>http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/champion/65/pers_cult.htm</ref>

*He scored eleven holes-in-one the first time he ever played a game of golf.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/16/kim.birthday.reut/</ref>

*He invented the hamburger. <ref>http://listverse.com/2010/05/30/top-10-crazy-facts-about-kim-jong-il/</ref>

*He scored a perfect 300 the first time he went bowling. <ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1222/Kim-Jong-il-Legendary-golfer-and-mythical-powers-even-in-death</ref>

*When he died, "the skies glowed red above Mount Paektu and the impenetrable sheet of ice at the heart of the mystical volcano cracked with a deafening roar." <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/22/kim-jong-il-dies-myths_n_1164755.html</ref>

====Revisionist history====

Despite overwhelming historical and historiographical evidence, North Korean media and schools maintain the myth that the South started the Korean war and that the North was victorious.

====Anti-American and other propaganda ====

As well as the state-sponsored propaganda served up to its own citizens, the DPRK attempts to push its message onto South Koreans as well.

The best examples are found on the North Korean side of the DMZ, where massive hillside signs point to the U.S. as an enemy of reunification and boast of a prosperous life in the North. More absurd is Jikong-dong, also known as "Propaganda village," a fake town intended to show the fine living conditions in the North.<ref>http://www.nickspics.net/v/Travel/South_Korea_2009/IMG_2075_5DMK2.JPG.html</ref> The town is devoid of human life and was quickly exposed as a sham when Southern officials noticed that all city lights turned on and off at the same time each day, most windows contained no glass and there was no evident civilian life. The town also boasts the world's tallest flagpole, bearing a North Korean flag weighing 600 pounds.<ref>http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrownphotos/3514929586/</ref>

An extensive collection of North Korean propaganda, most of them Anti-American, can be found [http://www.nikopopp.com/NorthKoreanPropaganda/ here].

===Foreign Relations===
North Korea's relationship with the South has determined much of its post-[[World War II]] history and still undergirds much of its foreign policy. North and South Korea have had a difficult and acrimonious relationship from the Korean War. In recent years, North Korea has pursued a mixed policy--seeking to develop economic relations with South Korea and to win the support of the South Korean public for greater North-South engagement while at the same time continuing to denounce the R.O.K.'s security relationship with the United States and maintaining a threatening conventional force posture on the DMZ and in adjacent waters.

The military demarcation line (MDL) of separation between the belligerent sides at the close of the Korean War divides North Korea from South Korea. A demilitarized zone (DMZ) extends for 2,000 meters (just over 1 mile) on either side of the MDL. Both the North and South Korean governments hold that the MDL is only a temporary administrative line, not a permanent border.

During the postwar period, both Korean governments have repeatedly affirmed their desire to reunify the Korean Peninsula, but until 1971 the two governments had no direct, official communications or other contact.

====Reunification Efforts Since 1971====
In August 1971, North and South Korea held talks through their respective Red Cross societies with the aim of reuniting the many Korean families separated following the division of Korea and the Korean War. In July 1972, the two sides agreed to work toward peaceful reunification and an end to the hostile atmosphere prevailing on the peninsula. Officials exchanged visits, and regular communications were established through a North-South coordinating committee and the Red Cross. These initial contacts broke down in 1973 following South Korean President Park Chung-hee's announcement that the South would seek separate entry into the United Nations, and after the kidnapping of South Korean opposition leader Kim Dae-jung--perceived as friendly to unified entry into the UN--by South Korean intelligence services. There was no other significant contact between North and South Korea until 1984.

Dialogue was renewed in September 1984, when South Korea accepted the North's offer to provide relief goods to victims of severe flooding in South Korea. Red Cross talks to address the plight of separated families resumed, as did talks on economic and trade issues and parliamentary-level discussions. However, the North then unilaterally suspended all talks in January 1986, arguing that the annual U.S.-ROK "Team Spirit" military exercise was inconsistent with dialogue. There was a brief flurry of negotiations that year on co-hosting the upcoming 1988 Seoul Olympics, which ended in failure and was followed by the 1987 bombing of a South Korean commercial aircraft (KAL 858) by North Korean agents.

In July 1988, South Korean President Roh Tae-woo called for new efforts to promote North-South exchanges, family reunification, inter-Korean trade, and contact in international forums. Roh followed up this initiative in a UN General Assembly speech in which South Korea offered for the first time to discuss security matters with the North. Initial meetings that grew out of Roh's proposals started in September 1989. In September 1990, the first of eight prime minister-level meetings between North Korean and South Korean officials took place in Seoul. The prime ministerial talks resulted in two major agreements: the Agreement on Reconciliation, Nonaggression, Exchanges, and Cooperation (the "Basic Agreement") and the Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula (the "Joint Declaration").

The Basic Agreement, signed on December 13, 1991, called for reconciliation and nonaggression and established four joint commissions. These commissions--on South-North reconciliation, South-North military affairs, South-North economic exchanges and cooperation, and South-North social and cultural exchange--were to work out the specifics for implementing the basic agreement. Subcommittees to examine specific issues were created, and liaison offices were established in Panmunjom, but in the fall of 1992 the process came to a halt because of rising tension over North Korea's nuclear program.

The Joint Declaration on denuclearization was initialized on December 31, 1991. It forbade both sides from testing, manufacturing, producing, receiving, possessing, storing, deploying, or using nuclear weapons and forbade the possession of nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities. A procedure for inter-Korean inspection was to be organized and a North-South Joint Nuclear Control Commission (JNCC) was mandated to verify the denuclearization of the peninsula.

On January 30, 1992, the D.P.R.K. finally signed a nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as it had pledged to do in 1985 when it acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This safeguards agreement allowed IAEA inspections to begin in June 1992. In March 1992, the JNCC was established in accordance with the Joint Declaration, but subsequent meetings failed to reach agreement on the main issue of establishing a bilateral inspection regime.

As the 1990s progressed, concern over the North's nuclear program became a major issue in North-South relations and between North Korea and the United States. The lack of progress on implementation of the Joint Declaration's provision for an inter-Korean nuclear inspection regime led to reinstatement of the U.S.-R.O.K. Team Spirit military exercise for 1993. The situation worsened rapidly when North Korea, in January 1993, refused IAEA access to two suspected nuclear waste sites and then announced in March 1993 its intent to withdraw from the NPT. During the next two years, the United States held direct talks with the D.P.R.K. that resulted in a series of agreements on nuclear matters, including the 1994 Agreed Framework (which broke down in 2002 when North Korea was discovered to be pursuing a uranium enrichment program for nuclear weapons--see below, Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula).

At his inauguration in February 1998, R.O.K. President Kim Dae-jung enunciated a new policy of engagement with the D.P.R.K., dubbed "the Sunshine Policy." The policy had three fundamental principles: no tolerance of provocations from the North, no intention to absorb the North, and the separation of political cooperation from economic cooperation. Private sector overtures would be based on commercial and humanitarian considerations. The use of government resources would entail reciprocity. This policy set the stage for the first inter-Korean summit, held in Pyongyang June 13-15, 2000.

R.O.K. President Roh Moo-hyun, following his inauguration in February 2003, has continued his predecessor's policy of engagement with the North, though he abandoned the name "Sunshine Policy." The United States supports President Roh's engagement policy and North-South dialogue and cooperation. Major economic reunification projects have included a tourism development in Mt. Geumgang, the re-establishment of road and rail links across the demilitarized zone (DMZ) and a joint North-South industrial park near the North Korean city of Kaesong (see further information below in the section on the Economy). In August 2007, the R.O.K. and D.P.R.K. announced plans to hold a second inter-Korean summit, scheduled for October 2-4 in Pyongyang.

===Relations Outside the Korean Peninsula===
Throughout the Cold War, North Korea balanced its relations with China and the Soviet Union to extract the maximum benefit from the relationships at minimum political cost. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, the Soviet-backed Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan created strains between China and the Soviet Union and, in turn, in North Korea's relations with its two major communist allies. North Korea tried to avoid becoming embroiled in the Sino-Soviet split, obtaining aid from both the Soviet Union and China and trying to avoid dependence on either. Following Kim Il-sung's 1984 visit to Moscow, there was an improvement in Soviet-D.P.R.K. relations, resulting in renewed deliveries of Soviet weaponry to North Korea and increases in economic aid.

The establishment of diplomatic relations by South Korea with the Soviet Union in 1990 and with China in 1992 seriously strained relations between North Korea and its traditional allies. Moreover, the fall of communism in eastern Europe in 1989 and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 resulted in a significant drop in communist aid to North Korea. Despite these changes and its past reliance on this military and economic assistance, North Korea continued to proclaim a militantly independent stance in its foreign policy in accordance with its official ideology of "juche," or self-reliance.

Both North and South Korea became parties to the Biological Weapons Convention in 1987. (North Korea is not a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention, nor is it a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime, or MTCR.)

North Korea has maintained membership in some multilateral organizations. It became a member of the UN in September 1991. North Korea also belongs to the Food and Agriculture Organization; the International Civil Aviation Organization; the International Postal Union; the UN Conference on Trade and Development; the International Telecommunications Union; the UN Development Program; the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the World Health Organization; the World Intellectual Property Organization; the World Meteorological Organization; the International Maritime Organization; the International Committee of the Red Cross; and the Nonaligned Movement.

In the mid-1990s, when the economic situation worsened dramatically and following the death of D.P.R.K. founder Kim Il-sung, the North abandoned some of the more extreme manifestations of its "self reliance" ideology to accept foreign humanitarian relief and create the possibility, as noted below, for foreign investment in the North. In subsequent years, the D.P.R.K. has continued to pursue a tightly restricted policy of opening to the world in search of economic aid and development assistance. However, this has been matched by an increased determination to counter perceived external and internal threats by a self-proclaimed "military first" ("Songun") policy.

During the present period of limited, extremely cautious opening, North Korea has sought to broaden its formal diplomatic relationships. In July 2000, North Korea began participating in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), with Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun attending the ARF ministerial meeting in Bangkok. The D.P.R.K. also expanded its bilateral diplomatic ties in that year, establishing diplomatic relations with Italy, Australia, the Philippines, Australia, Canada, the U.K., Germany, and many other European countries.

In the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement issued at the end of the fourth round of Six-Party Talks, the United States and the D.P.R.K. committed to undertake steps to normalize relations (see below, Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula). The D.P.R.K. and Japan also agreed to take steps to normalize relations and to discuss outstanding issues of concern, such as abductions. The U.S.-D.P.R.K. and Japan-D.P.R.K. bilateral working groups on normalization of relations met in March and September 2007.

====Terrorism====
The D.P.R.K. is not known to have sponsored terrorist acts since the 1987 bombing of KAL flight 858. Pyongyang continues to provide sanctuary to members of the Japanese Communist League-Red Army Faction (JRA) who participated in the hijacking of a Japan Airlines flight to North Korea in 1970.

The D.P.R.K. has made several statements condemning terrorism. In October 2000, the United States and the D.P.R.K. issued a joint statement on terrorism in which "the two sides agreed that international terrorism poses an unacceptable threat to global security and peace, and that terrorism should be opposed in all its forms." The United States and the D.P.R.K. agreed to support the international legal regime combating international terrorism and to cooperate with each other to fight terrorism. The D.P.R.K. became a signatory to the Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism and a party to the Convention Against the Taking of Hostages in November 2001. In the February 13, 2007 Initial Actions agreement, the [[United States of America]] agreed to begin the process of removing the designation of the D.P.R.K. as a state sponsor of terrorism. On Saturday October 11, 2008. The United States officially removed North Korea from the Terrorism Watch List. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436382,00.html North Korea no longer a recognized Terrorist sponsor.]</ref>

====Abductions====
In the past, the D.P.R.K. has also been involved in the abduction of foreign citizens. In 2002, Kim Jong-il acknowledged to Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi the involvement of D.P.R.K. "special institutions" in the kidnapping of Japanese citizens between 1977 and 1983 and said that those responsible had been punished. While five surviving victims and their families were allowed to leave the D.P.R.K. and resettle in Japan in October 2002, 12 other cases remain unresolved and continue to be a major issue in D.P.R.K.-Japanese relations. In October 2005, the D.P.R.K. acknowledged for the first time having kidnapped R.O.K. citizens in previous decades, claiming that several abductees, as well as several POWs from the Korean War, were still alive. In June 2006, North Korea allowed Kim Young-nam, a South Korean abducted by the North in 1978, to participate in a family reunion.

In 2001, a series of articles in foreign and Russian Federation newspapers, resting on reports from Russian Federation human rights activists and Amnesty International and the New York based Human Rights Watch alleged the D.P.R.K. abduction of up to 30,000 North Korean dissidents as well as common citizens to work in the Siberian labor and forestry camps in a scheme to pay off billions owed by North Korea to the Russia of both Soviet and Federation times. This forced labor was similar in nature and form to the gulags of Soviet Russia (see [[KAL 007 Survivors and Gulags of Russia]]).

===United States policy towards North Korea===
====U.S. Support for North-South Dialogue and Reunification====
The United States supports the peaceful reunification of Korea on terms acceptable to the Korean people and recognizes that the future of the Korean Peninsula is primarily a matter for them to decide. The United States believes that a constructive and serious dialogue between the authorities of North and South Korea is necessary to resolve outstanding problems, including the North's nuclear program and human rights abuses, and to encourage the North's integration with the rest of the international community.

====Efforts to De-nuclearizethe Korean Peninsula====
[[File:DPKR camps and nukes.png|right|200px|thumb|Locations of major hard-labor/re-education camps where the inmate population exceeds 20,000 each, nuclear-related facilities, and the test bomb site]]
North Korea joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapons state in 1985. North and South Korean talks begun in 1990 resulted in the 1992 Joint Declaration for a Non-Nuclear Korean Peninsula (see, under Foreign Relations, Reunification Efforts Since 1971). However, the international standoff over the North's failure to implement an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency for the inspection of the North's nuclear facilities led Pyongyang to announce in March 1993 its intention to withdraw from the NPT. A UN Security Council Resolution in May 1993 urged the D.P.R.K. to cooperate with the IAEA and to implement the 1992 North-South Denuclearization Statement. It also urged all UN Member States to encourage the D.P.R.K. to respond positively to this resolution and to facilitate a solution to the nuclear issue.

The United States opened talks with the D.P.R.K. in June 1993 and eventually reached agreement in October 1994 on a diplomatic roadmap, known as the Agreed Framework, for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The Agreed Framework called for the following steps:
*North Korea agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and allow monitoring by the IAEA.
*Both sides agreed to cooperate to replace the D.P.R.K.'s graphite-moderated reactors with light-water reactor (LWR) power plants, by a target date of 2003, to be financed and supplied by an international consortium (later identified as the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization or KEDO).
*As an interim measure, the United States agreed to provide North Korea with 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually until the first reactor was built.
*The United States and D.P.R.K. agreed to work together to store safely the spent fuel from the five-megawatt reactor and dispose of it in a safe manner that did not involve reprocessing in the D.P.R.K.
*The two sides agreed to move toward full normalization of political and economic relations.
*The two sides agreed to work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
*The two sides agreed to work together to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.
In accordance with the terms of the Agreed Framework, in January 1995 the U.S. Government eased economic sanctions against North Korea in response to North Korea's freezing its graphite-moderated nuclear program under United States and IAEA verification. North Korea agreed to accept the decisions of KEDO, the financier and supplier of the LWRs, with respect to provision of the reactors. KEDO subsequently identified Sinpo as the LWR project site and held a groundbreaking ceremony in August 1997. In December 1999, KEDO and the (South) Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) signed the Turnkey Contract (TKC), permitting full-scale construction of the LWRs.

In January 1995, as called for in the 1994 Agreed Framework, the United States and D.P.R.K. negotiated a method to store safely the spent fuel from the D.P.R.K.'s five-megawatt nuclear reactor. Under this method, United States and D.P.R.K. operators worked together to can the spent fuel and store the canisters in a spent fuel pond; canning began in 1995. In April 2000, canning of all accessible spent fuel rods and rod fragments was completed.

In 1998, the United States identified an underground site in Kumchang-ni, North Korea, which it suspected of being nuclear-related. In March 1999, after several rounds of negotiations, the United States and D.P.R.K. agreed that the United States would be granted "satisfactory access" to the underground site at Kumchang-ni. In October 2000, during D.P.R.K. Special Envoy Marshal Jo Myong-rok's visit to Washington, and after two visits to the site by teams of U.S. experts, the United States announced in a Joint Communiqué with the D.P.R.K. that U.S. concerns about the site had been resolved.

As called for in former Defense Secretary William Perry's official review of U.S. policy toward North Korea, the United States and the D.P.R.K. launched Agreed Framework Implementation Talks in May 2000 The United States and the D.P.R.K. also began negotiations for a comprehensive missile agreement, pursuant to the Perry recommendations.

In January 2001, the Bush Administration discontinued nuclear and missile talks, specifying that it intended to review the United States' North Korea policy. The Administration announced on June 6, 2001, that it was prepared to resume dialogue with North Korea on a broader agenda of issues--including North Korea's conventional force posture, missile development and export programs, human rights practices, and humanitarian issues.

In October 2002, a U.S. delegation confronted North Korea with the assessment that the D.P.R.K. was pursuing a uranium enrichment program, in violation of North Korea's obligations under the NPT and its commitments in the 1992 North-South Joint Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the Agreed Framework. North Korean officials asserted to the U.S. delegation, headed by then-Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James A. Kelly, the D.P.R.K.'s "right" to a uranium enrichment program and indicated that that it had such a program. The U.S. side stated that North Korea would have to terminate the program before any further progress could be made in U.S.-D.P.R.K. relations. The United States also made clear that if this program were verifiably eliminated, it would be prepared to work with North Korea on the development of a fundamentally new relationship. Subsequently, the D.P.R.K. has denied the existence of a uranium enrichment program. In November 2002, the member countries of KEDO's Executive Board agreed to suspend heavy fuel oil shipments to North Korea pending a resolution of the nuclear dispute.

In late 2002 and early 2003, North Korea terminated the freeze on its existing plutonium-based nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, expelled IAEA inspectors, removed seals and monitoring equipment at Yongbyon, announced its withdrawal from the NPT, and resumed reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium for weapons purposes. North Korea announced that it was taking these steps to provide itself with a deterrent force in the face of U.S. threats and U.S. "hostile policy." Beginning in mid-2003, the North repeatedly claimed to have completed reprocessing of the spent fuel rods previously frozen at Yongbyon and publicly said that the resulting fissile material would be used to bolster its "nuclear deterrent force." There is no independent confirmation of North Korea's claims. The KEDO Executive Board suspended work on the LWR Project beginning December 1, 2003.

President Bush has made clear that the United States has no intention to invade or attack North Korea. The President has also stressed that the United States seeks a peaceful end to North Korea's nuclear program in cooperation with North Korea's neighbors, who are directly affected by the threat the nuclear program poses to regional stability and security.

In early 2003, the United States proposed multilateral talks on the North Korean nuclear issue. North Korea initially opposed such a process, maintaining that the nuclear dispute was purely a bilateral matter between the United States and the D.P.R.K. However, under pressure from its neighbors and with the active involvement of China, North Korea agreed to three-party talks with China and the United States in Beijing in April 2003 and to Six-Party Talks with the United States, China, R.O.K., Japan and Russia in August 2003, also in Beijing. During the August 2003 round of Six-Party Talks, North Korea agreed to the eventual elimination of its nuclear programs if the United States were first willing to sign a bilateral "non-aggression treaty" and meet various other conditions, including the provision of substantial amounts of aid and normalization of relations. The North Korean proposal was unacceptable to the United States, which insisted on a multilateral resolution to the issue and opposed provision of benefits before the D.P.R.K.'s complete denuclearization. In October 2003, President Bush said he would consider a multilateral written security guarantee in the context of North Korea's complete, verifiable, and irreversible elimination of its nuclear weapons program.

China hosted a second round of Six-Party Talks in Beijing in February 2004. The United States saw the results as positive, including the announced intention of all parties to hold a third round by the end of June and to form a working group to maintain momentum between plenary sessions.

At the third round of Six-Party Talks in Beijing, in June 2004, the United States tabled a comprehensive and substantive proposal aimed at resolving the nuclear issue. All parties agreed to hold a fourth round of talks by the end of September 2004. Despite its commitment, the D.P.R.K. refused to return to the table, and in the months that followed issued a series of provocative statements. In a February 10, 2005, Foreign Ministry statement, the D.P.R.K. declared that it had "manufactured nuclear weapons" and was "indefinitely suspending" its participation in the Six-Party Talks. In Foreign Ministry statements in March, the D.P.R.K. said it would no longer be bound by its voluntary moratorium on ballistic missile launches, and declared itself a nuclear weapons state.

Following intense diplomatic efforts by the United States and other parties, the fourth round of Six-Party Talks were held in Beijing over a period of 20 days from July-September 2005, with a recess period in August. Discussions resulted in all parties agreeing to a Joint Statement of Principles. In the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement, the six parties unanimously reaffirmed the goal of verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. The D.P.R.K. for the first time committed to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and to return, at an early date, to the NPT and to IAEA safeguards. The other parties agreed to provide economic cooperation and energy assistance. The United States and the D.P.R.K. agreed to take steps to normalize relations subject to bilateral policies, which for the United States includes our concerns over North Korea's ballistic missile programs and deplorable human rights conditions. While the Joint Statement provides a vision of the end-point of the Six-Party process, much work lies ahead to implement the elements of the agreement.

A fifth round of talks began in November 2005, but ended inconclusively as the D.P.R.K. began a boycott of the Six-Party Talks, citing the "U.S.' hostile policy" and specifically U.S. law enforcement action that had led in September to a freeze of North Korean accounts in Macau's Banco Delta Asia (BDA). The United States held discussions in Kuala Lumpur (July 2006) and New York in (September 2006) with other Six-Party partners, except North Korea, along with representatives from other regional powers in the Asia-Pacific region, to discuss Northeast Asian security issues, including North Korea. On July 4-5, 2006 (local Korea time), the D.P.R.K. launched seven ballistic missiles, including six short- and medium-range missiles and one of possible intercontinental range. In response, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1695 on July 15, which demands that the D.P.R.K. suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program and reestablish existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launching. The resolution also requires all UN Member States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent missile and missile-related items, materials, goods and technology from being transferred to the D.P.R.K.'s missile or weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, prevent the procurement of missiles or related items, materials, goods and services from the D.P.R.K., and the transfer of any financial resources in relation to the D.P.R.K.'s missile or WMD programs. The D.P.R.K. immediately rejected the resolution.

On October 9, 2006, North Korea announced the successful test of a nuclear explosive device, verified by the United States on October 11. In response, the United Nations Security Council, citing Chapter VII of the UN Charter, unanimously passed Resolution 1718, condemning North Korea and imposing sanctions on certain luxury goods and trade of military units, WMD and missile-related parts, and technology transfers. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm</ref>

The Six-Party Talks resumed in December 2006 after a 13-month hiatus. Following a bilateral meeting between the United States and D.P.R.K. in Berlin in January 2007, another round of Six-Party Talks was held in February 2007. On February 13, 2007, the parties reached an agreement on "Initial Actions for the Implementation of the Joint Statement" in which North Korea agreed to shut down and seal its Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the reprocessing facility and to invite back IAEA personnel to conduct all necessary monitoring and verification of these actions as agreed between the IAEA and the D.P.R.K. The other five parties agreed to provide emergency energy assistance to North Korea in the amount of 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (HFO) in the initial phase and the equivalent of 950,000 tons of HFO in the next phase of North Korea's denuclearization. The six parties also established five working groups to form specific plans for implementing the Joint Statement in the following areas: denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, normalization of D.P.R.K.-U.S. relations, normalization of D.P.R.K.-Japan relations, economic and energy cooperation, and a Northeast Asia peace and security mechanism. All parties agreed that the working groups would meet within 30 days of the agreement, which they did. The agreement also envisions the directly-related parties negotiating a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate separate forum. As part of the initial actions, North Korea invited IAEA Director General ElBaradei to Pyongyang in early March for preliminary discussions on the return of the IAEA to the D.P.R.K.

The sixth round of Six-Party Talks took place on March 19-23, 2007. The parties reported on the first meetings of the five working groups. At the invitation of the D.P.R.K., Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill visited Pyongyang in June 2007 as part of ongoing consultations with the six parties on implementation of the Initial Actions agreement. In July 2007, the D.P.R.K. shut down the Yongbyon nuclear facility, as well as an uncompleted reactor at Taechon, and IAEA personnel returned to the D.P.R.K. to monitor and verify the shut-down and to seal the facility. In July 2007, the R.O.K. provided the first shipment of 50,000 tons of HFO under the Initial Actions agreement. The Six-Party Heads of Delegation met July 18-20, 2007 to discuss implementation of the D.P.R.K.'s next phase commitments, including the D.P.R.K.'s provision of a complete declaration of all nuclear programs and disablement of existing nuclear facilities. All five working groups met in August and September to discuss detailed plans for implementation of the next phase of the Initial Actions agreement, and will report the results of those discussions to the next Six-Party plenary meeting. As part of the denuclearization process, the D.P.R.K. invited a team of experts from the United States, China, and Russia to visit the Yongbyon nuclear facility in September 2007 to discuss specific steps that could be taken to disable the facility.

==Military==

Although North Korea has no enemies, its government says it needs nuclear weapons as a deterrent against "the U.S. nuclear threat".<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_as/as_nkorea_parliament North Korea denounces new Obama nuclear strategy]"</ref>

North Korea now has the fourth-largest army in the world. It has an estimated 1.21 million armed personnel, compared to about 680,000 in the South. Military spending is estimated at as much as a quarter of GNP, with about 20% of men ages 17-54 in the regular armed forces. North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (between 2 and 3 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers. The North has perhaps the world's second-largest special operations force, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime. While the North has a relatively impressive fleet of submarines, its surface fleet has a very limited capability. Its air force has twice the number of aircraft as the South, but, except for a few advanced fighters, the North's air force is obsolete.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/air-force-equipment.htm North Korea Air Force Equipment]</ref> The North deploys the bulk of its forces well forward, along the demilitarized zone (DMZ). Several North Korean military tunnels under the DMZ were discovered in the 1970s.

Over the last several years, North Korea has moved more of its rear-echelon troops to hardened bunkers closer to the DMZ. Given the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ (some 25 miles), South Korean and U.S. forces are likely to have little warning of any attack. The United States and South Korea continue to believe that the U.S. troop presence in South Korea remains an effective deterrent. North Korea's nuclear weapons program has also been a source of international tension (see below, Reunification Efforts Since 1971; Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula).

In 1953, the Military Armistice Commission (MAC) was created to oversee and enforce the terms of the armistice. Over the past decade, North Korea has sought to dismantle the MAC in a push for a new "peace mechanism" on the peninsula. In April 1994, it declared the MAC void and withdrew its representatives.

==Economy==
North Korea's economy declined sharply in the 1990s with the end of communism in Eastern Europe, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of bloc-trading with the countries of the former socialist bloc. Gross national income per capita is estimated to have fallen by about one-third between 1990 and 2002. The economy has since stabilized and shown some modest growth in recent years, which may be reflective of increased inter-Korean economic cooperation. Output and living standards, however, remain far below 1990 levels. Other centrally-planned economies in similar situations opted for domestic economic reform and liberalization of trade and investment. North Korea formalized some modest wage and price reforms in 2002, and has increasingly tolerated markets and a small private sector as the state-run distribution system has deteriorated. The regime, however, seems determined to maintain control. In October 2005, emboldened by an improved harvest and increased food donations from South Korea, the North Korean Government banned private grain sales and announced a return to centralized food rationing. Reports indicate this effort to reassert state control and to control inflation has been largely ineffective. Another factor contributing to the economy's poor performance is the disproportionately large share of GDP (thought to be about one-fourth) that North Korea devotes to its military.

North Korean industry is operating at only a small fraction of capacity due to lack of fuel, spare parts, and other inputs. Agriculture is now 30% of GDP, even though agricultural output has not recovered to early 1990 levels. The infrastructure is generally poor and outdated, and the energy sector has collapsed. About 80% of North Korea's terrain consists of moderately high mountain ranges and partially forested mountains and hills separated by deep, narrow valleys and small, cultivated plains. The most rugged areas are the north and east coasts. Good harbors are found on the eastern coast. Pyongyang, the capital, near the country's west coast, is located on the Taedong River.
*GNI (2004 estimate): $20.8 billion; 26.7% in agriculture and fishery, 27.2% in mining, 13.7% in manufacturing, 32.3% in services (2004).
*Per capita GNI (2004): $914.
*Agriculture: Products--[[rice]], [[potato]]es, [[soybean]]s, [[cattle]], [[pig]]s, [[pork]] and [[egg]]s.
*Mining and manufacturing: Types--military products; machine building; chemicals; mining (gold, coal, iron ore, limestone, magnesite, etc.); metallurgy; textiles; food processing; tourism.
*Trade (2006): Exports--$1.47 billion: minerals, non-ferrous metals, garments, machinery, electric and electronic products, chemicals, precious metals, wood products, and shellfish products. The D.P.R.K. is also thought to earn hundreds of millions of dollars from the unreported sale of missiles, narcotics and counterfeit cigarettes, and other illicit activities. Imports--$2.88 billion: minerals, petroleum, machinery, textiles, chemicals, non-ferrous metals, and animal products.
*Major trading partners (2006): (1) China, (2) R.O.K., (3) Thailand, (4) Russia and (5) Japan.

North Korea experienced a severe famine following record floods in the summer of 1995 and continues to suffer from chronic food shortages and malnutrition. The United Nations World Food Program (WFP) provided substantial emergency food assistance beginning in 1995 (2 million tons of which came from the United States), but the North Korean Government suspended the WFP emergency program at the end of 2005. It has since permitted the WFP to resume operations on a greatly reduced scale through a Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation. External food aid now comes primarily from China and South Korea in the form of grants and long-term concessional loans. South Korea also donates fertilizer and other materials, while China provides energy. South Korea suspended food and fertilizer shipments to the North in response to North Korea's missile launches in July 2006. However, when severe floods later that month threatened to produce another humanitarian crisis, South Korea announced a one-time donation of 100,000 tons of food, matching contributions from South Korean non-governmental organizations (NGOs). South Korea resumed fertilizer shipments to North Korea in late March 2007. In early July, South Korea announced that it would provide $20 million worth of food assistance to the D.P.R.K. through the World Food Program. South Korea also resumed bilateral food aid in June 2007. Following severe flooding in North Korea in August 2007, South Korea announced that it would provide $7.5 million worth of emergency aid materials to North Korea, and $3.2 million to NGOs providing flood assistance in North Korea. The R.O.K. also provided $39.4 million in construction materials to the D.P.R.K. to assist with reconstruction efforts following the floods. The United States provided $100,000 to two U.S. NGOs for antibiotics in the wake of the floods. The United States also announced that is was prepared to engage in discussions with the D.P.R.K. of monitoring arrangements to provide additional substantial humanitarian assistance, including food aid, to the country.

====Development Policy====
In 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and termination of subsidized trade arrangements with Russia, other former Communist states, and China, North Korea announced the creation of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in the northeast regions of Najin (sometime rendered "Rajin"), Chongjin, and Sonbong. Problems with infrastructure, bureaucracy, and uncertainties about investment security and viability have hindered growth and development of this SEZ. The government announced in 2002 plans to establish a Special Administrative Region (SAR) in Sinuiju, at the western end of the North Korea-China border. However, the government has taken few concrete steps to establish the Sinuiju SAR, and its future is uncertain. In addition, North Korea and South Korea have established a special economic zone near the city of Kaesong, where about 20 South Korean companies operate manufacturing facilities employing North Korean workers (see further information under North-South Economic Ties).

North Korea implemented limited micro- and macroeconomic reforms in 2002, including increases in prices and wages, changes in foreign investment laws, a steep currency devaluation, and reforms in industry and management. Though the changes have failed to stimulate recovery of the industrial sector, there are reports of changed economic behavior at the enterprise and individual level. One unintended consequence of the 2002 changes has been severe inflation. An increasing number of North Koreans now try to work in the informal sector to cope with growing hardship and reduced government support.

====North-South Economic Ties====
Two-way trade between North and South Korea, legalized in 1988, had risen to more than $1 billion by 2005, much of it related to out-processing or assembly work undertaken by South Korean firms in the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC). A significant portion of the total also includes donated goods provided to the North as humanitarian assistance or as part of inter-Korean cooperation projects. Although business-based and processing-on-commission transactions continued to grow, the bulk of South Korean exports to North Korea in 2006 was still non-commercial.

Since the June 2000 North-South summit, North and South Korea have reconnected their east and west coast railroads and roads where they cross the DMZ and are working to improve these transportation routes. North and South Korea conducted tests of the east and west coast railroads on May 17, 2007. Much of the work done in North Korea has been funded by the South. The west coast rail and road are complete as far north as the KIC (six miles north of the DMZ), but little work is being done north of Kaesong. On the east coast, the road is complete but the rail line is far from operational. Since 2003, tour groups have been using the east coast road to travel from South Korea to Mt. Geumgang in North Korea, where cruise ship-based tours had been permitted since 1998.

As of August 2007, 26 South Korean firms were manufacturing goods in the KIC, employing nearly 17,000 North Korean workers. Most of the goods are sold in South Korea; a small quantity is being exported to foreign markets. Ground was broken on the complex in June 2003, and the first products were shipped from the KIC in December 2004. Plans envision 250 firms employing 350,000 workers by 2012.

==History==
The Korean Peninsula was first populated by peoples of a Tungusic branch of the Ural-Altaic language family, who migrated from the northwestern regions of Asia. Some of these peoples also populated parts of northeast China (Manchuria); Koreans and Manchurians still show physical similarities. Koreans are racially and linguistically homogeneous. Although there are no indigenous minorities in North Korea, there is a small Chinese community (about 50,000) and some 1,800 Japanese wives who accompanied the roughly 93,000 Koreans returning to the North from Japan between 1959 and 1962. Although dialects exist, the Korean spoken throughout the peninsula is mutually comprehensible. In North Korea, the Korean alphabet (hangul) is used exclusively.

Korea's traditional religions are Buddhism and Shamanism. Christian missionaries arrived as early as the 16th century, but it was not until the 19th century that major missionary activity began. Pyongyang was a center of missionary activity, and there was a relatively large Christian population in the north before 1945. Although religious groups exist in North Korea today, the government severely restricts religious activity.

By the first century AD, the Korean Peninsula was divided into the kingdoms of Shilla, Koguryo, and Paekche. In 668 AD, the Shilla kingdom unified the peninsula. The Koryo dynasty--from which Portuguese missionaries in the 16th century derived the Western name "Korea"--succeeded the Shilla kingdom in 935. The Choson dynasty, ruled by members of the Yi clan, supplanted Koryo in 1392 and lasted until Japan annexed Korea in 1910.

Throughout its history, Korea has been invaded, influenced, and fought over by its larger neighbors. Korea was under Mongolian occupation from 1231 until the early 14th century. The unifier of Japan, Hideyoshi Toyotomi, launched major invasions of Korea in 1592 and 1597. When Western powers focused "gunboat" diplomacy on Korea in the mid-19th century, Korea's rulers adopted a closed-door policy, earning Korea the title of "Hermit Kingdom." Though the Choson dynasty recognized China's hegemony in East Asia, Korea was independent until the late 19th century. At that time, China sought to block growing Japanese influence on the Korean Peninsula and Russian pressure for commercial gains there. The competition produced the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95 and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. Japan emerged victorious from both wars and in 1910 annexed Korea as part of the growing Japanese empire. Japanese colonial administration was characterized by tight control from Tokyo and ruthless efforts to supplant Korean language and culture. Organized Korean resistance during the colonial era was generally unsuccessful, and Japan remained firmly in control of the Peninsula until the end of World War II in 1945. The surrender of Japan in August 1945 led to the immediate division of Korea into two occupation zones, with the United States administering the southern half of the peninsula and the U.S.S.R. taking over the area to the north of the 38th parallel. This division was meant to be temporary until the United States, U.K., Soviet Union, and China could arrange a trusteeship administration.

In December 1945, a conference was convened in Moscow to discuss the future of Korea. A five-year trusteeship was discussed, and a joint Soviet-American commission was established. The commission met intermittently in Seoul but deadlocked over the issue of establishing a national government. In September 1947, with no solution in sight, the United States submitted the Korean question to the UN General Assembly. Initial hopes for a unified, independent Korea quickly evaporated as the politics of the Cold War and domestic opposition to the trusteeship plan resulted in the 1948 establishment of two separate nations with diametrically opposed political, economic, and social systems. Elections were held in the South under UN observation, and on August 15, 1948, the Republic of Korea (R.O.K.) was established in the South. Syngman Rhee, a nationalist leader, became the Republic's first president. On September 9, 1948, the North established the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (D.P.R.K.) headed by then-Premier Kim Il-sung, who had been cultivated and supported by the U.S.S.R.

Soviet supervision over the setting up and initial administration of the North Korean government was vested in a Soviet Civil Administration Bureau which carried out policies formulated in the Politburo and passed down through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Political Administration Department of the Sovie [[Red Army]]. Through ministrations of this agency, a veritable flood of Soviet advisors permeated the governmental, economic, social and educational structures of North Korea. Although outwardly maintaining an advisory status, Soviet advisors, in fact, exercised control and supervision over all policy matters. In this manner the USSR created a satellite state which was politically subservient and subject to economic manipulation.

By 1949 nationalization of banking, heavy industry and communications, the agrarian [[redistribution]] program and the political monopoly of unions had taken place and the new regime demonstrated a willingness to lower the standard of living of its people by exporting vitally needed foodstuffs and raw materials in order to obtain the instruments of war.

====Korean War of 1950-53====
:''Main article: '''[[Korean War]]'''''
Almost immediately after establishment of the D.P.R.K., guerrilla warfare, border clashes, and naval battles erupted between the two Koreas. North Korean forces launched a massive surprise attack and invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950. The United Nations, in accordance with the terms of its Charter, engaged in its first collective action and established the UN Command (UNC), to which 16 member nations sent troops and assistance. Next to South Korea, the United States contributed the largest contingent of forces to this international effort.

North Korean forces quickly overran Southern ones, capturing almost the entire peninsula save the southern city of Busan. To relieve the Busan perimeter, U.S. General [[Douglas MacArthur]] led a massive amphibious landing at Inchon, over 100 miles behind the North Korean flanks. Kim's forces were pushed back and the battle line fluctuated north and south, and after large numbers of Chinese "People's Volunteers" intervened to assist the North, the battle line stabilized north of Seoul near the 38th parallel.

Armistice negotiations began in July 1951, but hostilities continued until July 27, 1953. On that date, at Panmunjom, the military commanders of the North Korean People's Army, the Chinese People's Volunteers, and the UNC signed an armistice agreement. Neither the United States nor South Korea is a signatory to the armistice per se, although both adhere to it through the UNC. No comprehensive peace agreement has replaced the 1953 armistice pact.

====Atrocities of the Korean War====
[[Fred Schwarz]] wrote:
:''When the Communists retreated in North Korea, they took with them all the able-bodied personnel to serve as laborers. Those who could not stand the rigors of the northward journey-- old men and women, pregnant women, very young children and babies-- they massacred and buried in a [[mass grave]] if they belonged to the untrustworthy social classes. The advancing American troops time and again found mass graves filled with the bodies of those murdered by the Communists.''<ref> [http://www.schwarzreport.org/yct/01ycttc.htm You Can Trust the Communists - To Be Communists]
</ref>

==Books==
*''The Aquariums of Pyong Yang'' by Kang Chol-hwan
*''Eyes of the Tailless Animals'' (1999) by Soon Ok Lee
*''North Korea'' by Bruce Cuming
*[http://www.time.com/time/columnist/arnold/article/0,9565,1108801,00.html ''Pyongyang: A Journey in North Korea''] (graphic novel) by Guy Deslisle
*[http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/124221.Don_Oberdorfer ''The Two Koreas''] by Don Oberdorfer

== External links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ6E3cShcVU Documentary on current conditions in North Korea]
*[http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/korea_north/index.html Korea, North - 2007] Geographic.org
*[http://www.worldchristianministries.org/idop/idop3.asp Testimony of a high-ranking defector]

== References ==
<references/>

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}
source= [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm]
{{Asian Countries}}
[[Category:Dictatorships]]
[[Category:Communist States]]
[[Category:Korea]]

North Korea

2012-06-05T21:13:01Z

CWest: /* Cult of Personality */

{{Country
|name =조선민주주의인민공화국 Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk ''Democratic People's Republic of Korea''
|map =Korea north rel 2005.jpg
|map2 =NorthKorea location.png
|flag =Flag of North Korea.png
|arms =Arms of North Korea.png
|capital =P'yongyang
|government =Communist totalitarian state
|language =Korean
|area =46,526 sq mi
|pop =23,301,725(2007)
|gdp-year =$22.85 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$1,007 (2006)
|currency = North Korean won
}}
'''North Korea''' is the world's most severe [[totalitarian]] [[dictatorship]] and one of the poorest and most [[famine]]-stricken nations on earth. It lies in eastern Asia and occupies the Korean peninsula north of a line that roughly follows the 38th parallel.
It was ruled by self-absorbed dictator and 'Dear Leader' [[Kim Jong Il]], who succeeded his father the 'Great Leader' [[Kim Il Sung]]. Upon Kim Jong-Il's death, his son Kim Jong-un has officially taken over <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/world/asia/packaging-of-Kim-Jong-un-in-north-korea.html?pagewanted=all New York Times; 1 February; To Sell a New Leader, North Korea Finds a Mirror Is Handy]</ref>.

* They suffer from an incredible blackout of knowledge about the outside world. The control on the population exceeds anything the world has seen to date. [http://significatojournal.com/help-the-world/freedom-human-rights/north-korea-the-prison-nation]

Its official name is '''Democratic People's Republic of Korea''', but its government does not follow Western ideas of [[democracy]]. Rather, it is organized along [[Stalinism|Stalinist]] lines. Its "Supreme People's Assembly" is merely a [[rubber stamp]] parliament. [http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/05/21/North-Korea-slammed-over-Cheonan-sinking/UPI-48941274459460/]

The official North Korean ideology is known as [[Juche]] (roughly translates as "national self-reliance"), and since the mid 1990s, [[Songun]] ("military first"). A cult-like devotion to the "Great Leader" and "Dear Leader" is expected of citizens, and heavily promoted in the North Korean news media which has little actual "news" and mostly consists of effusive praise toward [[Kim Jong Il]], grandiose and unsubstantiated claims about great feats by him and his father, and repetitious admonitions that the Korean people are totally united as one behind his leadership; in contrast between 600,000 and 3.5 million North Koreans have died of starvation in recent years because the Kim government has so mismanaged the economy, particularly agriculture, and has hampered outside efforts at relief. <ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071009/COMMENTARY/110090010/1012&template=nextpage</ref>

==People==
*Population (2006): 23.1 million.
*Annual growth rate: About +0.98%.
*Ethnic groups: [[Korean]]; small ethnic Chinese and Japanese populations.
*Religions: [[Buddhism]], [[Confucianism]], [[Shamanism]], [[Chongdogyo]], [[Christian]]; autonomous religious activities have been virtually nonexistent since 1945.
*Language: Korean.
*Education: Years compulsory--11. Attendance--3 million (primary, 1.5 million; secondary, 1.2 million; tertiary, 0.3 million). Literacy--99%.
*Health (1998): Medical treatment is free; one doctor for every 700 inhabitants; one hospital bed for every 350; there are severe shortages of medicines and medical equipment. Infant mortality rate--23.29 /1,000 (2006 est.). Life expectancy--males 68 yrs., females 74 yrs. (2006 est.)

Amnesty International published a report in June 2010 which alleges that the North Korean health care system is "in shambles". Interviews with 40 individuals who defected from that country indicate a wide-spread shortage of medicine and medical implements; a lack of ambulatory services in major cities; the use of unsterilized needles; major operations and amputations done without anesthesia, on a system which spends the equivalent of one dollar per person per year on health care. This discrepancy is compounded by the fact that many citizens are forced to endure a starvation diet by subsisting on grass, tree bark and roots.<ref>http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100715/Amnesty-International-reveals-the-rotting-health-care-system-in-North-Korea.aspx</ref><ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_on_re_as/as_nkorea_crumbling_health_care</ref>

==Religion==
Government policy and practice severely restricted the practice of religion and it is a dogmatically [[atheist]] regime. The 2007 KINU White Paper indicated that the regime utilizes authorized religious entities for external propaganda and political purposes, and that citizens are strictly barred from entering places of worship. Ordinary citizens consider such sites to be primarily "sightseeing spots for foreigners." KINU concluded that the lack of churches or religious facilities in the provinces indicates that ordinary citizens do not enjoy religious freedom.

Little is known about the day-to-day life of religious persons in the country. Members of government-controlled religious groups did not appear to suffer discrimination. Some reports claimed, and circumstantial evidence suggested, that many, if not most of these groups, have been organized by the regime for propaganda and political purposes, including meeting with foreign religious visitors.

The number of religious believers is unknown but was estimated by the Government to be 10,000 Protestants, 10,000 Buddhists, and 4,000 Catholics. Estimates by South Korean and international church-related groups were considerably higher. In addition, the Chondogyo Young Friends Party, a government-approved group based on a traditional religious movement, had approximately 40,000 practitioners, according to the Government.<ref> See [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108410.htm U.S. State Department "International Religious Freedom Report 2008"]</ref>

In Pyongyang there were reportedly four state-controlled Christian churches: two Protestant churches under lay leadership (Bongsu and Chilgol Churches), the Changchung Roman Catholic Church, and the Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Church. The Chilgol Church is dedicated to the memory of former leader Kim Il-sung's mother, Kang Pan-sok, who was a Presbyterian deaconess. The number of congregants regularly worshiping at these churches is unknown.

The Presbyterian Church of Korea in the South was partnering with the Christian Association in North Korea to rebuild Bongsu Church. In the fall of 2006, a delegation of 90 Christians from South Korea visited the Bongsu church to celebrate completion of its first phase of renovation. According to religious leaders who traveled to the country, there were Protestant pastors at these churches, although it was not known if they were resident or visiting.

In its July 2002 report to the U.N. Human Rights Committee, the Government reported the existence of 500 "family worship centers." However, according to the 2007 Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU) White Paper, defectors interviewed were unaware of any such centers. Observers stated that "family worship centers" may be part of the state-controlled Korean Christian Federation, while an unknown number of "underground churches" operate apart from the Federation and are not recognized by the Government. Some NGOs and academics estimate there may be up to several hundred thousand underground Christians in the country. Others question the existence of a large-scale underground church or conclude that no reliable estimate of the number of underground religious believers exists. Individual underground congregations are reportedly very small and confined to private homes. At the same time, some NGOs reported that the individual churches are connected to each other through well-established networks. The regime has not allowed outsiders the access necessary to confirm such claims.

There were an estimated 300 Buddhist temples. Most were regarded as cultural relics, but religious activity was permitted in some. A few Buddhist temples and relics have been renovated or restored in recent years under a broad effort aimed at "preserving the Korean nation's cultural heritage." In 2007 reconstruction was completed on the Shingye or Singyesa (Holy Valley) Temple, which was destroyed during the Korean War. The Republic of Korea (ROK) Government and foreign tourists funded the reconstruction. A South Korean monk, the first to permanently reside in North Korea, has lived at the temple since 2004 but serves primarily as a guide for visiting tourists rather than as a pastor caring for Buddhists living in the area.

The Government announced in June 2007 that 500 monks and Buddhist followers were making day-long pilgrimages to the recently renovated Ryongthong temple in Kaesong strictly for religious purposes. Foreign diplomats in Pyongyang who visited the temple were told that the two monks living there may be joined by more. State-controlled press reported on several occasions that Buddhist ceremonies had been carried out in various locations. Official reporting also linked descriptions of such ceremonies with the broader theme of Korean unification.

The Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Church opened in Pyongyang in 2006. The church was reportedly commissioned by Kim Jong-il after he visited an Orthodox cathedral in Russia in 2002. Two North Koreans who studied at the Russian Orthodox Seminary in Moscow have been ordained as priests and are serving at the church. The purported aim of the church was primarily to provide pastoral care of Russians in the country, but one religious leader with access to the country speculated that the church likely extended pastoral care to all Orthodox Koreans as well. Similar to other religious groups, no reliable data exists on the number of Orthodox believers.

Several foreigners residing in Pyongyang attended Korean-language services at the Christian churches on a regular basis. Some foreigners who visited the country stated that church services appeared staged and contained political content supportive of the regime, in addition to religious themes. Foreign legislators attending services in Pyongyang in previous years noted that congregations arrived at and departed services as groups on tour buses, and some observed that they did not include any children. Other foreigners noted that they were not permitted to have contact with congregants. Foreign observers had limited ability to ascertain the level of government control over these groups, but it was generally assumed they were monitored closely. According to the 2007 KINU White Paper, defectors reported being unaware of any recognized religious organizations that maintained branches outside of Pyongyang.

Several schools for religious education exist. There are 3-year colleges for training Protestant and Buddhist clergy. A religious studies program also was established at Kim Il-sung University in 1989; its graduates usually worked in the foreign trade sector. In 2000 a Protestant seminary was reopened with assistance from foreign missionary groups. Critics, including at least one foreign sponsor, charged that the Government opened the seminary only to facilitate reception of assistance funds from foreign faith-based NGOs. The Chosun Christian Federation, a religious group believed to be controlled by the Government, contributed to the curriculum used by the seminary. The Chosun Christian League operates the Pyongyang Theological Academy, a graduate institution that trains pastors affiliated with the Korean Christian Federation.

==Government and Political Conditions==
North Korea has a centralized government under the rigid control of the communist Korean Workers' Party (KWP), to which all government officials belong. A few minor political parties are allowed to exist in name only. Kim Il-sung ruled North Korea from 1948 until his death in July 1994. Kim served both as Secretary General of the KWP and as President of North Korea.

Little is known about the actual lines of power and authority in the North Korean Government despite the formal structure set forth in the constitution. Following the death of Kim Il-sung, his son--Kim Jong-il--inherited supreme power. Kim Jong-il was named General Secretary of the KWP in October 1997, and in September 1998, the Supreme People's Assembly (SPA) reconfirmed Kim Jong-il as Chairman of the National Defense Commission and declared that position as the "highest office of state." However, the President of the Presidium of the National Assembly, Kim Yong-nam, serves as the nominal head of state. North Korea's 1972 constitution was amended in late 1992 and in September 1998.

The constitution designates the Central People's Committee (CPC) as the government's top policymaking body. The CPC makes policy decisions and supervises the cabinet, or State Administration Council (SAC). The SAC is headed by a premier and is the dominant administrative and executive agency.

Officially, the legislature, the SPA, is the highest organ of state power. Its members are elected every four years. Usually only two meetings are held annually, each lasting a few days. A standing committee elected by the SPA performs legislative functions when the Assembly is not in session. In reality, the Assembly serves only to ratify decisions made by the ruling KWP.

North Korea's judiciary is "accountable" to the SPA and the president. The SPA's standing committee also appoints judges to the highest court for four-year terms that are concurrent with those of the Assembly.

Administratively, North Korea is divided into nine provinces and four provincial-level municipalities--[[Pyongyang]], [[Chongjin]], [[Nampo]], and [[Kaesong]]. It also appears to be divided into nine military districts.

===Principal Party and Government Officials===
*Kim Il-Sung--Eternal President (deceased since 1995)
*Kim Jong-il--General Secretary of the KWP; Supreme Commander of the People's Armed Forces; Chairman of the National Defense *Commission; son of North Korea's founder Kim Il-sung
*Kim Yong-nam--President of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly; titular head of state
*Pak Gil-yon--Ambassador to D.P.R.K. Permanent Mission to the UN
*Pak Ui-chun--Minister of Foreign Affairs

===Propaganda===

The DPRK is notorious for its heavy use of political propaganda, revisionist history and [[cult of personality]] surrounding Kim Jong-il and Kim il-Sung. The media is heavily controlled and only state-controlled radio and television broadcasts are permitted for public consumption. This control allows the regime to propagate its many lies and perceptions of the country.

==== Cult of Personality ====

The North Korean state maintains an intense cult of personality surrounding Kim and his son, Kim Jong-il. All North Koreans wear badges with an image of either (or both) Kims and portraits of the deceased leader are voluminous both in cities and the countryside. The capital city of Pyonyang has over 600 statues of Kim, including a 25-metre bronze statue built in 1972 for his sixtieth birthday.

Kim's personality cult is largely based on historical revisionism and many absurd "facts" to emphasize his "divine" abilities and power. Among these:

*He was born under a double rainbow on the sacred Baektul Mountain in 1942. At the moment of his birth, a bright star lit up the sky, the seasons spontaneously changed from winter to spring and a double rainbow appeared in the sky.(In truth, he was born in Vyatskoye, Siberia in 1941.)<ref>http://asianhistory.about.com/od/profilesofasianleaders/p/BioKimJongil.htm</ref>

*During the Japanese colonial rule of Korea, he fought in more than 100,000 battles in 15 years (over 20 battles a day). (While Kim was in the Soviet army, he never participated in actual combat.)<ref>http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/champion/65/pers_cult.htm</ref>

*He scored eleven holes-in-one the first time he ever played a game of golf.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/16/kim.birthday.reut/</ref>

*He invented the hamburger. <ref>http://listverse.com/2010/05/30/top-10-crazy-facts-about-kim-jong-il/</ref>

*He scored a perfect 300 the first time he went bowling. <ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1222/Kim-Jong-il-Legendary-golfer-and-mythical-powers-even-in-death</ref>

====Revisionist history====

Despite overwhelming historical and historiographical evidence, North Korean media and schools maintain the myth that the South started the Korean war and that the North was victorious.

====Anti-American and other propaganda ====

As well as the state-sponsored propaganda served up to its own citizens, the DPRK attempts to push its message onto South Koreans as well.

The best examples are found on the North Korean side of the DMZ, where massive hillside signs point to the U.S. as an enemy of reunification and boast of a prosperous life in the North. More absurd is Jikong-dong, also known as "Propaganda village," a fake town intended to show the fine living conditions in the North.<ref>http://www.nickspics.net/v/Travel/South_Korea_2009/IMG_2075_5DMK2.JPG.html</ref> The town is devoid of human life and was quickly exposed as a sham when Southern officials noticed that all city lights turned on and off at the same time each day, most windows contained no glass and there was no evident civilian life. The town also boasts the world's tallest flagpole, bearing a North Korean flag weighing 600 pounds.<ref>http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrownphotos/3514929586/</ref>

An extensive collection of North Korean propaganda, most of them Anti-American, can be found [http://www.nikopopp.com/NorthKoreanPropaganda/ here].

===Foreign Relations===
North Korea's relationship with the South has determined much of its post-[[World War II]] history and still undergirds much of its foreign policy. North and South Korea have had a difficult and acrimonious relationship from the Korean War. In recent years, North Korea has pursued a mixed policy--seeking to develop economic relations with South Korea and to win the support of the South Korean public for greater North-South engagement while at the same time continuing to denounce the R.O.K.'s security relationship with the United States and maintaining a threatening conventional force posture on the DMZ and in adjacent waters.

The military demarcation line (MDL) of separation between the belligerent sides at the close of the Korean War divides North Korea from South Korea. A demilitarized zone (DMZ) extends for 2,000 meters (just over 1 mile) on either side of the MDL. Both the North and South Korean governments hold that the MDL is only a temporary administrative line, not a permanent border.

During the postwar period, both Korean governments have repeatedly affirmed their desire to reunify the Korean Peninsula, but until 1971 the two governments had no direct, official communications or other contact.

====Reunification Efforts Since 1971====
In August 1971, North and South Korea held talks through their respective Red Cross societies with the aim of reuniting the many Korean families separated following the division of Korea and the Korean War. In July 1972, the two sides agreed to work toward peaceful reunification and an end to the hostile atmosphere prevailing on the peninsula. Officials exchanged visits, and regular communications were established through a North-South coordinating committee and the Red Cross. These initial contacts broke down in 1973 following South Korean President Park Chung-hee's announcement that the South would seek separate entry into the United Nations, and after the kidnapping of South Korean opposition leader Kim Dae-jung--perceived as friendly to unified entry into the UN--by South Korean intelligence services. There was no other significant contact between North and South Korea until 1984.

Dialogue was renewed in September 1984, when South Korea accepted the North's offer to provide relief goods to victims of severe flooding in South Korea. Red Cross talks to address the plight of separated families resumed, as did talks on economic and trade issues and parliamentary-level discussions. However, the North then unilaterally suspended all talks in January 1986, arguing that the annual U.S.-ROK "Team Spirit" military exercise was inconsistent with dialogue. There was a brief flurry of negotiations that year on co-hosting the upcoming 1988 Seoul Olympics, which ended in failure and was followed by the 1987 bombing of a South Korean commercial aircraft (KAL 858) by North Korean agents.

In July 1988, South Korean President Roh Tae-woo called for new efforts to promote North-South exchanges, family reunification, inter-Korean trade, and contact in international forums. Roh followed up this initiative in a UN General Assembly speech in which South Korea offered for the first time to discuss security matters with the North. Initial meetings that grew out of Roh's proposals started in September 1989. In September 1990, the first of eight prime minister-level meetings between North Korean and South Korean officials took place in Seoul. The prime ministerial talks resulted in two major agreements: the Agreement on Reconciliation, Nonaggression, Exchanges, and Cooperation (the "Basic Agreement") and the Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula (the "Joint Declaration").

The Basic Agreement, signed on December 13, 1991, called for reconciliation and nonaggression and established four joint commissions. These commissions--on South-North reconciliation, South-North military affairs, South-North economic exchanges and cooperation, and South-North social and cultural exchange--were to work out the specifics for implementing the basic agreement. Subcommittees to examine specific issues were created, and liaison offices were established in Panmunjom, but in the fall of 1992 the process came to a halt because of rising tension over North Korea's nuclear program.

The Joint Declaration on denuclearization was initialized on December 31, 1991. It forbade both sides from testing, manufacturing, producing, receiving, possessing, storing, deploying, or using nuclear weapons and forbade the possession of nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities. A procedure for inter-Korean inspection was to be organized and a North-South Joint Nuclear Control Commission (JNCC) was mandated to verify the denuclearization of the peninsula.

On January 30, 1992, the D.P.R.K. finally signed a nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as it had pledged to do in 1985 when it acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This safeguards agreement allowed IAEA inspections to begin in June 1992. In March 1992, the JNCC was established in accordance with the Joint Declaration, but subsequent meetings failed to reach agreement on the main issue of establishing a bilateral inspection regime.

As the 1990s progressed, concern over the North's nuclear program became a major issue in North-South relations and between North Korea and the United States. The lack of progress on implementation of the Joint Declaration's provision for an inter-Korean nuclear inspection regime led to reinstatement of the U.S.-R.O.K. Team Spirit military exercise for 1993. The situation worsened rapidly when North Korea, in January 1993, refused IAEA access to two suspected nuclear waste sites and then announced in March 1993 its intent to withdraw from the NPT. During the next two years, the United States held direct talks with the D.P.R.K. that resulted in a series of agreements on nuclear matters, including the 1994 Agreed Framework (which broke down in 2002 when North Korea was discovered to be pursuing a uranium enrichment program for nuclear weapons--see below, Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula).

At his inauguration in February 1998, R.O.K. President Kim Dae-jung enunciated a new policy of engagement with the D.P.R.K., dubbed "the Sunshine Policy." The policy had three fundamental principles: no tolerance of provocations from the North, no intention to absorb the North, and the separation of political cooperation from economic cooperation. Private sector overtures would be based on commercial and humanitarian considerations. The use of government resources would entail reciprocity. This policy set the stage for the first inter-Korean summit, held in Pyongyang June 13-15, 2000.

R.O.K. President Roh Moo-hyun, following his inauguration in February 2003, has continued his predecessor's policy of engagement with the North, though he abandoned the name "Sunshine Policy." The United States supports President Roh's engagement policy and North-South dialogue and cooperation. Major economic reunification projects have included a tourism development in Mt. Geumgang, the re-establishment of road and rail links across the demilitarized zone (DMZ) and a joint North-South industrial park near the North Korean city of Kaesong (see further information below in the section on the Economy). In August 2007, the R.O.K. and D.P.R.K. announced plans to hold a second inter-Korean summit, scheduled for October 2-4 in Pyongyang.

===Relations Outside the Korean Peninsula===
Throughout the Cold War, North Korea balanced its relations with China and the Soviet Union to extract the maximum benefit from the relationships at minimum political cost. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, the Soviet-backed Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan created strains between China and the Soviet Union and, in turn, in North Korea's relations with its two major communist allies. North Korea tried to avoid becoming embroiled in the Sino-Soviet split, obtaining aid from both the Soviet Union and China and trying to avoid dependence on either. Following Kim Il-sung's 1984 visit to Moscow, there was an improvement in Soviet-D.P.R.K. relations, resulting in renewed deliveries of Soviet weaponry to North Korea and increases in economic aid.

The establishment of diplomatic relations by South Korea with the Soviet Union in 1990 and with China in 1992 seriously strained relations between North Korea and its traditional allies. Moreover, the fall of communism in eastern Europe in 1989 and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 resulted in a significant drop in communist aid to North Korea. Despite these changes and its past reliance on this military and economic assistance, North Korea continued to proclaim a militantly independent stance in its foreign policy in accordance with its official ideology of "juche," or self-reliance.

Both North and South Korea became parties to the Biological Weapons Convention in 1987. (North Korea is not a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention, nor is it a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime, or MTCR.)

North Korea has maintained membership in some multilateral organizations. It became a member of the UN in September 1991. North Korea also belongs to the Food and Agriculture Organization; the International Civil Aviation Organization; the International Postal Union; the UN Conference on Trade and Development; the International Telecommunications Union; the UN Development Program; the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the World Health Organization; the World Intellectual Property Organization; the World Meteorological Organization; the International Maritime Organization; the International Committee of the Red Cross; and the Nonaligned Movement.

In the mid-1990s, when the economic situation worsened dramatically and following the death of D.P.R.K. founder Kim Il-sung, the North abandoned some of the more extreme manifestations of its "self reliance" ideology to accept foreign humanitarian relief and create the possibility, as noted below, for foreign investment in the North. In subsequent years, the D.P.R.K. has continued to pursue a tightly restricted policy of opening to the world in search of economic aid and development assistance. However, this has been matched by an increased determination to counter perceived external and internal threats by a self-proclaimed "military first" ("Songun") policy.

During the present period of limited, extremely cautious opening, North Korea has sought to broaden its formal diplomatic relationships. In July 2000, North Korea began participating in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), with Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun attending the ARF ministerial meeting in Bangkok. The D.P.R.K. also expanded its bilateral diplomatic ties in that year, establishing diplomatic relations with Italy, Australia, the Philippines, Australia, Canada, the U.K., Germany, and many other European countries.

In the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement issued at the end of the fourth round of Six-Party Talks, the United States and the D.P.R.K. committed to undertake steps to normalize relations (see below, Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula). The D.P.R.K. and Japan also agreed to take steps to normalize relations and to discuss outstanding issues of concern, such as abductions. The U.S.-D.P.R.K. and Japan-D.P.R.K. bilateral working groups on normalization of relations met in March and September 2007.

====Terrorism====
The D.P.R.K. is not known to have sponsored terrorist acts since the 1987 bombing of KAL flight 858. Pyongyang continues to provide sanctuary to members of the Japanese Communist League-Red Army Faction (JRA) who participated in the hijacking of a Japan Airlines flight to North Korea in 1970.

The D.P.R.K. has made several statements condemning terrorism. In October 2000, the United States and the D.P.R.K. issued a joint statement on terrorism in which "the two sides agreed that international terrorism poses an unacceptable threat to global security and peace, and that terrorism should be opposed in all its forms." The United States and the D.P.R.K. agreed to support the international legal regime combating international terrorism and to cooperate with each other to fight terrorism. The D.P.R.K. became a signatory to the Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism and a party to the Convention Against the Taking of Hostages in November 2001. In the February 13, 2007 Initial Actions agreement, the [[United States of America]] agreed to begin the process of removing the designation of the D.P.R.K. as a state sponsor of terrorism. On Saturday October 11, 2008. The United States officially removed North Korea from the Terrorism Watch List. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436382,00.html North Korea no longer a recognized Terrorist sponsor.]</ref>

====Abductions====
In the past, the D.P.R.K. has also been involved in the abduction of foreign citizens. In 2002, Kim Jong-il acknowledged to Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi the involvement of D.P.R.K. "special institutions" in the kidnapping of Japanese citizens between 1977 and 1983 and said that those responsible had been punished. While five surviving victims and their families were allowed to leave the D.P.R.K. and resettle in Japan in October 2002, 12 other cases remain unresolved and continue to be a major issue in D.P.R.K.-Japanese relations. In October 2005, the D.P.R.K. acknowledged for the first time having kidnapped R.O.K. citizens in previous decades, claiming that several abductees, as well as several POWs from the Korean War, were still alive. In June 2006, North Korea allowed Kim Young-nam, a South Korean abducted by the North in 1978, to participate in a family reunion.

In 2001, a series of articles in foreign and Russian Federation newspapers, resting on reports from Russian Federation human rights activists and Amnesty International and the New York based Human Rights Watch alleged the D.P.R.K. abduction of up to 30,000 North Korean dissidents as well as common citizens to work in the Siberian labor and forestry camps in a scheme to pay off billions owed by North Korea to the Russia of both Soviet and Federation times. This forced labor was similar in nature and form to the gulags of Soviet Russia (see [[KAL 007 Survivors and Gulags of Russia]]).

===United States policy towards North Korea===
====U.S. Support for North-South Dialogue and Reunification====
The United States supports the peaceful reunification of Korea on terms acceptable to the Korean people and recognizes that the future of the Korean Peninsula is primarily a matter for them to decide. The United States believes that a constructive and serious dialogue between the authorities of North and South Korea is necessary to resolve outstanding problems, including the North's nuclear program and human rights abuses, and to encourage the North's integration with the rest of the international community.

====Efforts to De-nuclearizethe Korean Peninsula====
[[File:DPKR camps and nukes.png|right|200px|thumb|Locations of major hard-labor/re-education camps where the inmate population exceeds 20,000 each, nuclear-related facilities, and the test bomb site]]
North Korea joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapons state in 1985. North and South Korean talks begun in 1990 resulted in the 1992 Joint Declaration for a Non-Nuclear Korean Peninsula (see, under Foreign Relations, Reunification Efforts Since 1971). However, the international standoff over the North's failure to implement an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency for the inspection of the North's nuclear facilities led Pyongyang to announce in March 1993 its intention to withdraw from the NPT. A UN Security Council Resolution in May 1993 urged the D.P.R.K. to cooperate with the IAEA and to implement the 1992 North-South Denuclearization Statement. It also urged all UN Member States to encourage the D.P.R.K. to respond positively to this resolution and to facilitate a solution to the nuclear issue.

The United States opened talks with the D.P.R.K. in June 1993 and eventually reached agreement in October 1994 on a diplomatic roadmap, known as the Agreed Framework, for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The Agreed Framework called for the following steps:
*North Korea agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and allow monitoring by the IAEA.
*Both sides agreed to cooperate to replace the D.P.R.K.'s graphite-moderated reactors with light-water reactor (LWR) power plants, by a target date of 2003, to be financed and supplied by an international consortium (later identified as the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization or KEDO).
*As an interim measure, the United States agreed to provide North Korea with 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually until the first reactor was built.
*The United States and D.P.R.K. agreed to work together to store safely the spent fuel from the five-megawatt reactor and dispose of it in a safe manner that did not involve reprocessing in the D.P.R.K.
*The two sides agreed to move toward full normalization of political and economic relations.
*The two sides agreed to work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
*The two sides agreed to work together to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.
In accordance with the terms of the Agreed Framework, in January 1995 the U.S. Government eased economic sanctions against North Korea in response to North Korea's freezing its graphite-moderated nuclear program under United States and IAEA verification. North Korea agreed to accept the decisions of KEDO, the financier and supplier of the LWRs, with respect to provision of the reactors. KEDO subsequently identified Sinpo as the LWR project site and held a groundbreaking ceremony in August 1997. In December 1999, KEDO and the (South) Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) signed the Turnkey Contract (TKC), permitting full-scale construction of the LWRs.

In January 1995, as called for in the 1994 Agreed Framework, the United States and D.P.R.K. negotiated a method to store safely the spent fuel from the D.P.R.K.'s five-megawatt nuclear reactor. Under this method, United States and D.P.R.K. operators worked together to can the spent fuel and store the canisters in a spent fuel pond; canning began in 1995. In April 2000, canning of all accessible spent fuel rods and rod fragments was completed.

In 1998, the United States identified an underground site in Kumchang-ni, North Korea, which it suspected of being nuclear-related. In March 1999, after several rounds of negotiations, the United States and D.P.R.K. agreed that the United States would be granted "satisfactory access" to the underground site at Kumchang-ni. In October 2000, during D.P.R.K. Special Envoy Marshal Jo Myong-rok's visit to Washington, and after two visits to the site by teams of U.S. experts, the United States announced in a Joint Communiqué with the D.P.R.K. that U.S. concerns about the site had been resolved.

As called for in former Defense Secretary William Perry's official review of U.S. policy toward North Korea, the United States and the D.P.R.K. launched Agreed Framework Implementation Talks in May 2000 The United States and the D.P.R.K. also began negotiations for a comprehensive missile agreement, pursuant to the Perry recommendations.

In January 2001, the Bush Administration discontinued nuclear and missile talks, specifying that it intended to review the United States' North Korea policy. The Administration announced on June 6, 2001, that it was prepared to resume dialogue with North Korea on a broader agenda of issues--including North Korea's conventional force posture, missile development and export programs, human rights practices, and humanitarian issues.

In October 2002, a U.S. delegation confronted North Korea with the assessment that the D.P.R.K. was pursuing a uranium enrichment program, in violation of North Korea's obligations under the NPT and its commitments in the 1992 North-South Joint Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the Agreed Framework. North Korean officials asserted to the U.S. delegation, headed by then-Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James A. Kelly, the D.P.R.K.'s "right" to a uranium enrichment program and indicated that that it had such a program. The U.S. side stated that North Korea would have to terminate the program before any further progress could be made in U.S.-D.P.R.K. relations. The United States also made clear that if this program were verifiably eliminated, it would be prepared to work with North Korea on the development of a fundamentally new relationship. Subsequently, the D.P.R.K. has denied the existence of a uranium enrichment program. In November 2002, the member countries of KEDO's Executive Board agreed to suspend heavy fuel oil shipments to North Korea pending a resolution of the nuclear dispute.

In late 2002 and early 2003, North Korea terminated the freeze on its existing plutonium-based nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, expelled IAEA inspectors, removed seals and monitoring equipment at Yongbyon, announced its withdrawal from the NPT, and resumed reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium for weapons purposes. North Korea announced that it was taking these steps to provide itself with a deterrent force in the face of U.S. threats and U.S. "hostile policy." Beginning in mid-2003, the North repeatedly claimed to have completed reprocessing of the spent fuel rods previously frozen at Yongbyon and publicly said that the resulting fissile material would be used to bolster its "nuclear deterrent force." There is no independent confirmation of North Korea's claims. The KEDO Executive Board suspended work on the LWR Project beginning December 1, 2003.

President Bush has made clear that the United States has no intention to invade or attack North Korea. The President has also stressed that the United States seeks a peaceful end to North Korea's nuclear program in cooperation with North Korea's neighbors, who are directly affected by the threat the nuclear program poses to regional stability and security.

In early 2003, the United States proposed multilateral talks on the North Korean nuclear issue. North Korea initially opposed such a process, maintaining that the nuclear dispute was purely a bilateral matter between the United States and the D.P.R.K. However, under pressure from its neighbors and with the active involvement of China, North Korea agreed to three-party talks with China and the United States in Beijing in April 2003 and to Six-Party Talks with the United States, China, R.O.K., Japan and Russia in August 2003, also in Beijing. During the August 2003 round of Six-Party Talks, North Korea agreed to the eventual elimination of its nuclear programs if the United States were first willing to sign a bilateral "non-aggression treaty" and meet various other conditions, including the provision of substantial amounts of aid and normalization of relations. The North Korean proposal was unacceptable to the United States, which insisted on a multilateral resolution to the issue and opposed provision of benefits before the D.P.R.K.'s complete denuclearization. In October 2003, President Bush said he would consider a multilateral written security guarantee in the context of North Korea's complete, verifiable, and irreversible elimination of its nuclear weapons program.

China hosted a second round of Six-Party Talks in Beijing in February 2004. The United States saw the results as positive, including the announced intention of all parties to hold a third round by the end of June and to form a working group to maintain momentum between plenary sessions.

At the third round of Six-Party Talks in Beijing, in June 2004, the United States tabled a comprehensive and substantive proposal aimed at resolving the nuclear issue. All parties agreed to hold a fourth round of talks by the end of September 2004. Despite its commitment, the D.P.R.K. refused to return to the table, and in the months that followed issued a series of provocative statements. In a February 10, 2005, Foreign Ministry statement, the D.P.R.K. declared that it had "manufactured nuclear weapons" and was "indefinitely suspending" its participation in the Six-Party Talks. In Foreign Ministry statements in March, the D.P.R.K. said it would no longer be bound by its voluntary moratorium on ballistic missile launches, and declared itself a nuclear weapons state.

Following intense diplomatic efforts by the United States and other parties, the fourth round of Six-Party Talks were held in Beijing over a period of 20 days from July-September 2005, with a recess period in August. Discussions resulted in all parties agreeing to a Joint Statement of Principles. In the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement, the six parties unanimously reaffirmed the goal of verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. The D.P.R.K. for the first time committed to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and to return, at an early date, to the NPT and to IAEA safeguards. The other parties agreed to provide economic cooperation and energy assistance. The United States and the D.P.R.K. agreed to take steps to normalize relations subject to bilateral policies, which for the United States includes our concerns over North Korea's ballistic missile programs and deplorable human rights conditions. While the Joint Statement provides a vision of the end-point of the Six-Party process, much work lies ahead to implement the elements of the agreement.

A fifth round of talks began in November 2005, but ended inconclusively as the D.P.R.K. began a boycott of the Six-Party Talks, citing the "U.S.' hostile policy" and specifically U.S. law enforcement action that had led in September to a freeze of North Korean accounts in Macau's Banco Delta Asia (BDA). The United States held discussions in Kuala Lumpur (July 2006) and New York in (September 2006) with other Six-Party partners, except North Korea, along with representatives from other regional powers in the Asia-Pacific region, to discuss Northeast Asian security issues, including North Korea. On July 4-5, 2006 (local Korea time), the D.P.R.K. launched seven ballistic missiles, including six short- and medium-range missiles and one of possible intercontinental range. In response, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1695 on July 15, which demands that the D.P.R.K. suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program and reestablish existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launching. The resolution also requires all UN Member States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent missile and missile-related items, materials, goods and technology from being transferred to the D.P.R.K.'s missile or weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, prevent the procurement of missiles or related items, materials, goods and services from the D.P.R.K., and the transfer of any financial resources in relation to the D.P.R.K.'s missile or WMD programs. The D.P.R.K. immediately rejected the resolution.

On October 9, 2006, North Korea announced the successful test of a nuclear explosive device, verified by the United States on October 11. In response, the United Nations Security Council, citing Chapter VII of the UN Charter, unanimously passed Resolution 1718, condemning North Korea and imposing sanctions on certain luxury goods and trade of military units, WMD and missile-related parts, and technology transfers. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm</ref>

The Six-Party Talks resumed in December 2006 after a 13-month hiatus. Following a bilateral meeting between the United States and D.P.R.K. in Berlin in January 2007, another round of Six-Party Talks was held in February 2007. On February 13, 2007, the parties reached an agreement on "Initial Actions for the Implementation of the Joint Statement" in which North Korea agreed to shut down and seal its Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the reprocessing facility and to invite back IAEA personnel to conduct all necessary monitoring and verification of these actions as agreed between the IAEA and the D.P.R.K. The other five parties agreed to provide emergency energy assistance to North Korea in the amount of 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (HFO) in the initial phase and the equivalent of 950,000 tons of HFO in the next phase of North Korea's denuclearization. The six parties also established five working groups to form specific plans for implementing the Joint Statement in the following areas: denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, normalization of D.P.R.K.-U.S. relations, normalization of D.P.R.K.-Japan relations, economic and energy cooperation, and a Northeast Asia peace and security mechanism. All parties agreed that the working groups would meet within 30 days of the agreement, which they did. The agreement also envisions the directly-related parties negotiating a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate separate forum. As part of the initial actions, North Korea invited IAEA Director General ElBaradei to Pyongyang in early March for preliminary discussions on the return of the IAEA to the D.P.R.K.

The sixth round of Six-Party Talks took place on March 19-23, 2007. The parties reported on the first meetings of the five working groups. At the invitation of the D.P.R.K., Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill visited Pyongyang in June 2007 as part of ongoing consultations with the six parties on implementation of the Initial Actions agreement. In July 2007, the D.P.R.K. shut down the Yongbyon nuclear facility, as well as an uncompleted reactor at Taechon, and IAEA personnel returned to the D.P.R.K. to monitor and verify the shut-down and to seal the facility. In July 2007, the R.O.K. provided the first shipment of 50,000 tons of HFO under the Initial Actions agreement. The Six-Party Heads of Delegation met July 18-20, 2007 to discuss implementation of the D.P.R.K.'s next phase commitments, including the D.P.R.K.'s provision of a complete declaration of all nuclear programs and disablement of existing nuclear facilities. All five working groups met in August and September to discuss detailed plans for implementation of the next phase of the Initial Actions agreement, and will report the results of those discussions to the next Six-Party plenary meeting. As part of the denuclearization process, the D.P.R.K. invited a team of experts from the United States, China, and Russia to visit the Yongbyon nuclear facility in September 2007 to discuss specific steps that could be taken to disable the facility.

==Military==

Although North Korea has no enemies, its government says it needs nuclear weapons as a deterrent against "the U.S. nuclear threat".<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_as/as_nkorea_parliament North Korea denounces new Obama nuclear strategy]"</ref>

North Korea now has the fourth-largest army in the world. It has an estimated 1.21 million armed personnel, compared to about 680,000 in the South. Military spending is estimated at as much as a quarter of GNP, with about 20% of men ages 17-54 in the regular armed forces. North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (between 2 and 3 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers. The North has perhaps the world's second-largest special operations force, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime. While the North has a relatively impressive fleet of submarines, its surface fleet has a very limited capability. Its air force has twice the number of aircraft as the South, but, except for a few advanced fighters, the North's air force is obsolete.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/air-force-equipment.htm North Korea Air Force Equipment]</ref> The North deploys the bulk of its forces well forward, along the demilitarized zone (DMZ). Several North Korean military tunnels under the DMZ were discovered in the 1970s.

Over the last several years, North Korea has moved more of its rear-echelon troops to hardened bunkers closer to the DMZ. Given the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ (some 25 miles), South Korean and U.S. forces are likely to have little warning of any attack. The United States and South Korea continue to believe that the U.S. troop presence in South Korea remains an effective deterrent. North Korea's nuclear weapons program has also been a source of international tension (see below, Reunification Efforts Since 1971; Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula).

In 1953, the Military Armistice Commission (MAC) was created to oversee and enforce the terms of the armistice. Over the past decade, North Korea has sought to dismantle the MAC in a push for a new "peace mechanism" on the peninsula. In April 1994, it declared the MAC void and withdrew its representatives.

==Economy==
North Korea's economy declined sharply in the 1990s with the end of communism in Eastern Europe, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of bloc-trading with the countries of the former socialist bloc. Gross national income per capita is estimated to have fallen by about one-third between 1990 and 2002. The economy has since stabilized and shown some modest growth in recent years, which may be reflective of increased inter-Korean economic cooperation. Output and living standards, however, remain far below 1990 levels. Other centrally-planned economies in similar situations opted for domestic economic reform and liberalization of trade and investment. North Korea formalized some modest wage and price reforms in 2002, and has increasingly tolerated markets and a small private sector as the state-run distribution system has deteriorated. The regime, however, seems determined to maintain control. In October 2005, emboldened by an improved harvest and increased food donations from South Korea, the North Korean Government banned private grain sales and announced a return to centralized food rationing. Reports indicate this effort to reassert state control and to control inflation has been largely ineffective. Another factor contributing to the economy's poor performance is the disproportionately large share of GDP (thought to be about one-fourth) that North Korea devotes to its military.

North Korean industry is operating at only a small fraction of capacity due to lack of fuel, spare parts, and other inputs. Agriculture is now 30% of GDP, even though agricultural output has not recovered to early 1990 levels. The infrastructure is generally poor and outdated, and the energy sector has collapsed. About 80% of North Korea's terrain consists of moderately high mountain ranges and partially forested mountains and hills separated by deep, narrow valleys and small, cultivated plains. The most rugged areas are the north and east coasts. Good harbors are found on the eastern coast. Pyongyang, the capital, near the country's west coast, is located on the Taedong River.
*GNI (2004 estimate): $20.8 billion; 26.7% in agriculture and fishery, 27.2% in mining, 13.7% in manufacturing, 32.3% in services (2004).
*Per capita GNI (2004): $914.
*Agriculture: Products--[[rice]], [[potato]]es, [[soybean]]s, [[cattle]], [[pig]]s, [[pork]] and [[egg]]s.
*Mining and manufacturing: Types--military products; machine building; chemicals; mining (gold, coal, iron ore, limestone, magnesite, etc.); metallurgy; textiles; food processing; tourism.
*Trade (2006): Exports--$1.47 billion: minerals, non-ferrous metals, garments, machinery, electric and electronic products, chemicals, precious metals, wood products, and shellfish products. The D.P.R.K. is also thought to earn hundreds of millions of dollars from the unreported sale of missiles, narcotics and counterfeit cigarettes, and other illicit activities. Imports--$2.88 billion: minerals, petroleum, machinery, textiles, chemicals, non-ferrous metals, and animal products.
*Major trading partners (2006): (1) China, (2) R.O.K., (3) Thailand, (4) Russia and (5) Japan.

North Korea experienced a severe famine following record floods in the summer of 1995 and continues to suffer from chronic food shortages and malnutrition. The United Nations World Food Program (WFP) provided substantial emergency food assistance beginning in 1995 (2 million tons of which came from the United States), but the North Korean Government suspended the WFP emergency program at the end of 2005. It has since permitted the WFP to resume operations on a greatly reduced scale through a Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation. External food aid now comes primarily from China and South Korea in the form of grants and long-term concessional loans. South Korea also donates fertilizer and other materials, while China provides energy. South Korea suspended food and fertilizer shipments to the North in response to North Korea's missile launches in July 2006. However, when severe floods later that month threatened to produce another humanitarian crisis, South Korea announced a one-time donation of 100,000 tons of food, matching contributions from South Korean non-governmental organizations (NGOs). South Korea resumed fertilizer shipments to North Korea in late March 2007. In early July, South Korea announced that it would provide $20 million worth of food assistance to the D.P.R.K. through the World Food Program. South Korea also resumed bilateral food aid in June 2007. Following severe flooding in North Korea in August 2007, South Korea announced that it would provide $7.5 million worth of emergency aid materials to North Korea, and $3.2 million to NGOs providing flood assistance in North Korea. The R.O.K. also provided $39.4 million in construction materials to the D.P.R.K. to assist with reconstruction efforts following the floods. The United States provided $100,000 to two U.S. NGOs for antibiotics in the wake of the floods. The United States also announced that is was prepared to engage in discussions with the D.P.R.K. of monitoring arrangements to provide additional substantial humanitarian assistance, including food aid, to the country.

====Development Policy====
In 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and termination of subsidized trade arrangements with Russia, other former Communist states, and China, North Korea announced the creation of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in the northeast regions of Najin (sometime rendered "Rajin"), Chongjin, and Sonbong. Problems with infrastructure, bureaucracy, and uncertainties about investment security and viability have hindered growth and development of this SEZ. The government announced in 2002 plans to establish a Special Administrative Region (SAR) in Sinuiju, at the western end of the North Korea-China border. However, the government has taken few concrete steps to establish the Sinuiju SAR, and its future is uncertain. In addition, North Korea and South Korea have established a special economic zone near the city of Kaesong, where about 20 South Korean companies operate manufacturing facilities employing North Korean workers (see further information under North-South Economic Ties).

North Korea implemented limited micro- and macroeconomic reforms in 2002, including increases in prices and wages, changes in foreign investment laws, a steep currency devaluation, and reforms in industry and management. Though the changes have failed to stimulate recovery of the industrial sector, there are reports of changed economic behavior at the enterprise and individual level. One unintended consequence of the 2002 changes has been severe inflation. An increasing number of North Koreans now try to work in the informal sector to cope with growing hardship and reduced government support.

====North-South Economic Ties====
Two-way trade between North and South Korea, legalized in 1988, had risen to more than $1 billion by 2005, much of it related to out-processing or assembly work undertaken by South Korean firms in the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC). A significant portion of the total also includes donated goods provided to the North as humanitarian assistance or as part of inter-Korean cooperation projects. Although business-based and processing-on-commission transactions continued to grow, the bulk of South Korean exports to North Korea in 2006 was still non-commercial.

Since the June 2000 North-South summit, North and South Korea have reconnected their east and west coast railroads and roads where they cross the DMZ and are working to improve these transportation routes. North and South Korea conducted tests of the east and west coast railroads on May 17, 2007. Much of the work done in North Korea has been funded by the South. The west coast rail and road are complete as far north as the KIC (six miles north of the DMZ), but little work is being done north of Kaesong. On the east coast, the road is complete but the rail line is far from operational. Since 2003, tour groups have been using the east coast road to travel from South Korea to Mt. Geumgang in North Korea, where cruise ship-based tours had been permitted since 1998.

As of August 2007, 26 South Korean firms were manufacturing goods in the KIC, employing nearly 17,000 North Korean workers. Most of the goods are sold in South Korea; a small quantity is being exported to foreign markets. Ground was broken on the complex in June 2003, and the first products were shipped from the KIC in December 2004. Plans envision 250 firms employing 350,000 workers by 2012.

==History==
The Korean Peninsula was first populated by peoples of a Tungusic branch of the Ural-Altaic language family, who migrated from the northwestern regions of Asia. Some of these peoples also populated parts of northeast China (Manchuria); Koreans and Manchurians still show physical similarities. Koreans are racially and linguistically homogeneous. Although there are no indigenous minorities in North Korea, there is a small Chinese community (about 50,000) and some 1,800 Japanese wives who accompanied the roughly 93,000 Koreans returning to the North from Japan between 1959 and 1962. Although dialects exist, the Korean spoken throughout the peninsula is mutually comprehensible. In North Korea, the Korean alphabet (hangul) is used exclusively.

Korea's traditional religions are Buddhism and Shamanism. Christian missionaries arrived as early as the 16th century, but it was not until the 19th century that major missionary activity began. Pyongyang was a center of missionary activity, and there was a relatively large Christian population in the north before 1945. Although religious groups exist in North Korea today, the government severely restricts religious activity.

By the first century AD, the Korean Peninsula was divided into the kingdoms of Shilla, Koguryo, and Paekche. In 668 AD, the Shilla kingdom unified the peninsula. The Koryo dynasty--from which Portuguese missionaries in the 16th century derived the Western name "Korea"--succeeded the Shilla kingdom in 935. The Choson dynasty, ruled by members of the Yi clan, supplanted Koryo in 1392 and lasted until Japan annexed Korea in 1910.

Throughout its history, Korea has been invaded, influenced, and fought over by its larger neighbors. Korea was under Mongolian occupation from 1231 until the early 14th century. The unifier of Japan, Hideyoshi Toyotomi, launched major invasions of Korea in 1592 and 1597. When Western powers focused "gunboat" diplomacy on Korea in the mid-19th century, Korea's rulers adopted a closed-door policy, earning Korea the title of "Hermit Kingdom." Though the Choson dynasty recognized China's hegemony in East Asia, Korea was independent until the late 19th century. At that time, China sought to block growing Japanese influence on the Korean Peninsula and Russian pressure for commercial gains there. The competition produced the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95 and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. Japan emerged victorious from both wars and in 1910 annexed Korea as part of the growing Japanese empire. Japanese colonial administration was characterized by tight control from Tokyo and ruthless efforts to supplant Korean language and culture. Organized Korean resistance during the colonial era was generally unsuccessful, and Japan remained firmly in control of the Peninsula until the end of World War II in 1945. The surrender of Japan in August 1945 led to the immediate division of Korea into two occupation zones, with the United States administering the southern half of the peninsula and the U.S.S.R. taking over the area to the north of the 38th parallel. This division was meant to be temporary until the United States, U.K., Soviet Union, and China could arrange a trusteeship administration.

In December 1945, a conference was convened in Moscow to discuss the future of Korea. A five-year trusteeship was discussed, and a joint Soviet-American commission was established. The commission met intermittently in Seoul but deadlocked over the issue of establishing a national government. In September 1947, with no solution in sight, the United States submitted the Korean question to the UN General Assembly. Initial hopes for a unified, independent Korea quickly evaporated as the politics of the Cold War and domestic opposition to the trusteeship plan resulted in the 1948 establishment of two separate nations with diametrically opposed political, economic, and social systems. Elections were held in the South under UN observation, and on August 15, 1948, the Republic of Korea (R.O.K.) was established in the South. Syngman Rhee, a nationalist leader, became the Republic's first president. On September 9, 1948, the North established the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (D.P.R.K.) headed by then-Premier Kim Il-sung, who had been cultivated and supported by the U.S.S.R.

Soviet supervision over the setting up and initial administration of the North Korean government was vested in a Soviet Civil Administration Bureau which carried out policies formulated in the Politburo and passed down through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Political Administration Department of the Sovie [[Red Army]]. Through ministrations of this agency, a veritable flood of Soviet advisors permeated the governmental, economic, social and educational structures of North Korea. Although outwardly maintaining an advisory status, Soviet advisors, in fact, exercised control and supervision over all policy matters. In this manner the USSR created a satellite state which was politically subservient and subject to economic manipulation.

By 1949 nationalization of banking, heavy industry and communications, the agrarian [[redistribution]] program and the political monopoly of unions had taken place and the new regime demonstrated a willingness to lower the standard of living of its people by exporting vitally needed foodstuffs and raw materials in order to obtain the instruments of war.

====Korean War of 1950-53====
:''Main article: '''[[Korean War]]'''''
Almost immediately after establishment of the D.P.R.K., guerrilla warfare, border clashes, and naval battles erupted between the two Koreas. North Korean forces launched a massive surprise attack and invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950. The United Nations, in accordance with the terms of its Charter, engaged in its first collective action and established the UN Command (UNC), to which 16 member nations sent troops and assistance. Next to South Korea, the United States contributed the largest contingent of forces to this international effort.

North Korean forces quickly overran Southern ones, capturing almost the entire peninsula save the southern city of Busan. To relieve the Busan perimeter, U.S. General [[Douglas MacArthur]] led a massive amphibious landing at Inchon, over 100 miles behind the North Korean flanks. Kim's forces were pushed back and the battle line fluctuated north and south, and after large numbers of Chinese "People's Volunteers" intervened to assist the North, the battle line stabilized north of Seoul near the 38th parallel.

Armistice negotiations began in July 1951, but hostilities continued until July 27, 1953. On that date, at Panmunjom, the military commanders of the North Korean People's Army, the Chinese People's Volunteers, and the UNC signed an armistice agreement. Neither the United States nor South Korea is a signatory to the armistice per se, although both adhere to it through the UNC. No comprehensive peace agreement has replaced the 1953 armistice pact.

====Atrocities of the Korean War====
[[Fred Schwarz]] wrote:
:''When the Communists retreated in North Korea, they took with them all the able-bodied personnel to serve as laborers. Those who could not stand the rigors of the northward journey-- old men and women, pregnant women, very young children and babies-- they massacred and buried in a [[mass grave]] if they belonged to the untrustworthy social classes. The advancing American troops time and again found mass graves filled with the bodies of those murdered by the Communists.''<ref> [http://www.schwarzreport.org/yct/01ycttc.htm You Can Trust the Communists - To Be Communists]
</ref>

==Books==
*''The Aquariums of Pyong Yang'' by Kang Chol-hwan
*''Eyes of the Tailless Animals'' (1999) by Soon Ok Lee
*''North Korea'' by Bruce Cuming
*[http://www.time.com/time/columnist/arnold/article/0,9565,1108801,00.html ''Pyongyang: A Journey in North Korea''] (graphic novel) by Guy Deslisle
*[http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/124221.Don_Oberdorfer ''The Two Koreas''] by Don Oberdorfer

== External links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ6E3cShcVU Documentary on current conditions in North Korea]
*[http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/korea_north/index.html Korea, North - 2007] Geographic.org
*[http://www.worldchristianministries.org/idop/idop3.asp Testimony of a high-ranking defector]

== References ==
<references/>

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}
source= [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm]
{{Asian Countries}}
[[Category:Dictatorships]]
[[Category:Communist States]]
[[Category:Korea]]

Kim Jong Un

2012-06-05T21:03:26Z

CWest:

'''Kim Jong Un''' is a son of North Korean dictator [[Kim Jong Il]]. At a convention in September, 2010, he was formally slated to succeed his father as the leader of the totalitarian regime. He is a [[Communist]] and [[atheist]] and is overweight (see: [[Atheism and obesity]])
[[Category:North Korean Political People]]
[[Category:Atheists]]

User talk:CWest

2012-06-05T21:02:19Z

CWest:

We're not going to have a rant from a repeat-troll who uses a foreign proxy server to post it, and we're not going to have anyone else feel like they can revert the decisions of an admin who responds to it. If you are liberal and want to preach tolerance, try tolerating us for a change. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:46, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
:Why would I be on this site if I was liberal? I didn't realize the individual that made that edit used a proxy. I didn't really think his edit was a rant, except for the end where he posted clear undefended attacks on Fox and the Tea Party. He sounded to me like he simply took issue with the stereotype that all liberals obsess over each of the things listed in the article, and wanted to present himself as a liberal that didn't necessarily fit that stereotype. Again, I do agree that the last part of his edit was unacceptable, but perhaps his comment can be kept on the talk page without that last bout of insults he spewed? I am not here to preach tolerance, but if you do choose to not have his words on the talk page, of course I will tolerate that. I would also like to point out, however, that "we're not going to have any one else...revert the decisions" doesn't sound tolerating either. I would not have brought up tolerance at all if it was not an official Conservapedia policy. [[User:CWest|CWest]] 16:54, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
::Fair enough. If you've read into this website for the last several years, you would see we have been targeted by liberals and their brand of "tolerance", which is to say they have absolutely no tolerance for anyone who doesn't agree with them. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:59, 5 June 2012 (EDT)
:::That's sad to hear. How often do liberals access this site just to try to wreck it...? Also, by "fair enough," though, were you referring to me defending myself as not preaching tolerance, or did you mean that individual's comment could remain on the page with that last part removed? [[User:CWest|CWest]] 17:02, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

User talk:CWest

2012-06-05T20:54:07Z

CWest:

Liberal bias

2012-06-05T20:44:59Z

CWest: /* Liberal media outlets */

'''Liberal bias''' is partisan selection or distortion of information to support [[liberal]] policies. This bias can be expressed by [[professor values|professors]] and [[public school]] teachers, [[College Board]] exams, reporters and other journalists in mainstream media, and any other information source. Typically purveyors of liberal bias falsely present themselves as being objective. Liberal bias includes techniques such as distorted selection of information, [[placement bias]], [[photo bias]] and [[liberal style]]. There is a difference between being liberal, having a liberal perspective, and having a liberal bias.

The essence of liberal bias is to dismiss or even to censor all opposing views. For liberals, to allow the airing or publishing of an opposing view creates the risk that people might discover errors in the liberal viewpoint. On the other hand, Conservatives typically uphold freedom of ideological expression, with many expressing that although they may oppose a liberal view with every fiber of their being, they will defend to the death their right to say it, because they believe that in the [[marketplace of ideas]] the true will always win over the false. (At Conservapedia we are not afraid to mention and even to summarize anti-conservative arguments.)

==Vision of the anointed==
[[Image:Thomassowell.jpg‎|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Thomas Sowell]]]]
Economist [[Thomas Sowell]] in his book published in 1996, ''The Vision of the Anointed'', discusses the anointed vision of liberals and liberalism to promote their agenda.
<blockquote>
Desperate evasions of discordant evidence, and the denigration and even demonizing of those presenting such evidence, are indicative of the high stakes in contemporary [[culture war]]s, which are not about alternative policies but [[Values clarification|alternative worlds]] and of alternative roles of liberals in these worlds. Opponents must be shown to be not merely mistaken but morally lacking. This approach replaces the intellectual discussion of arguments by the moral extermination of persons. This denigration or [[demonizing]] of those opposed to their views not only has the desired effect of discrediting the opposition but also has the unintended effect of cutting off the path of retreat from positions which become progressively less tenable with the passage of time and the accumulation of discordant evidence. The very thought that those dismissed as simplistic or maligned might have been right–even if only on a single issue–is at best galling and potentially devastating. Their last refuge in this situation are their good intentions.<ref>Thomas Sowell, [http://www.li.suu.edu/library/circulation/Lewis/ba2350tlVisionoftheAnointedShortVersion.pdf ''The Vision of the Anointed''], New York: Basic Books, 1996.</ref>
</blockquote>

Jon Meacham, editor of the overly liberal weekly magazine, ''Newsweek'', in justifying its activist journalism, stated, “Let me say this, I don’t think we’re the only catcher in the rye between democracy and ignorance, but I think we’re one of them, and I don’t think there are that many standing on the edge of that cliff.”<ref>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/printarticle.cfm/press-man--don-t-give-readers-what-they-want-15488</ref>

In March 2010, liberal [[evolution]]ary magazine the ''National Geographic'', postulated that [[liberals]] and [[atheists]] may be more evolved than [[conservatives]], according to conclusions by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist. Kanazawa states "people with higher levels of intelligence are more likely to adopt social values and behaviors that are relatively new to human life—liberalism, atheism, staying up late, and (for men) monogamy, for example." Kanazawa also defines ''liberalism'', in part, as caring about the well-being of vast numbers of people you'll never meet, and states that this "is a very new thing for humans."

However, in response it is argued that such an definition of liberalism would render [[Jesus Christ]] a liberal, who clearly taught "love thy neighbor as thyself", and who came to be the Savior of the world - to those who believe and so follow Him - and which obedience is contrary to what liberalism promotes. And that, in contrast to Biblical conservative morality, history shows that liberalism, as overall manifest today, has adopted such "new" but essentially old ways of rebellion against beneficial moral values, promoting adultery, anarchy, and atrocities such as are seen by such intelligent atheists as [[Mao]] and [[Pol Pot]], whose objectively baseless moral reasoning allowed them to justify their evils, as pragmatically reasonable to achieving their "enlightened" ideals.

In a response to the ''National Geographic'' pretensions, James Lewis in the ''American Thinker'' notes that the vast majority of "educated people before the 20th century in Western countries were conservatives", but that "IQ doesn't predict street smarts or (obviously) political success on Capitol Hill".

Lewis goes on to ask,
<blockquote>
Why has the Left ended up killing 100 million people in the 20th century, according to French Marxist historian Courtois and his team? That's the real question the Left must always be made to answer: Why does its blind "idealism" and its unquenchable power-craving lead to such disastrous results, over and over again?
</blockquote>

His conclusions are that,
{{cquote|The National Geographic headline is therefore characteristically absurd, but it's also typical of the cultural Left today -- and of its hopeless cravings to validate itself as being smarter, better-educated, and of course, more compassionate than those conservative throwbacks to a brute past. Somehow the Left always needs to boast, and like any other compulsive boaster, it is compensating for its own feelings of inferiority...

High IQ is no guarantee of goodness. It's not even a guarantee of common sense, or of genuine intelligence outside a few limited parts of life. It's no protection against evil.
<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/are_liberals_atheists_more_evo.html James Lewis, ''Are Liberals, Atheists More Evolved than Conservatives?''], American Thinker, March 14, 2010</ref>}}

Princeton Theological Seminary theologian and noted Bible commentator Albert Barnes (1798-1870) comments on [[Romans 1]]:22, ''Professing themselves to be wise they became fools'', that
<blockquote>
this was the common boast of the philosophers of antiquity. The very word by which they chose to be called, “philosophers,” means literally “lovers of wisdom.” That it was their boast that they were wise, is well known..[but] they became really foolish in their opinions and conduct.
</blockquote>

The famous Bible commentator, [[Matthew Henry]] adds, "As a profession of wisdom is an aggravation of folly, so a proud conceit of wisdom is the cause of a great deal of folly."

Ultimately, the function of the so-called liberal Press is to dig the grave for the American People and [[American Values]]. No mention need be made of the closely associated lying Marxist Press. To them the spreading of falsehood is as much a vital necessity as the mouse is to a cat. Their sole task is to break the national backbone of the people, thus preparing the nation to become the slaves of international finance and its masters, the Liberals.

== Liberal bias in media ==

A 2005 report<ref>[http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS] </ref> by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo political scientists at UCLA concluded that, based on estimated ideological scores, all of the news outlets they examined, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, showed a strong liberal bias (scores to the left of the average member of Congress). Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
<blockquote>
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." <ref>http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664</ref>
</blockquote>

ABC, CBS, and NBC together have unloaded more than a thousand stories on Obama’s presidential campaign but not a single story devoted to examining Obama’s abysmal abortion record. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2008/10/14/bozell-column-whos-fierce-abortion Bozell Column: Who's 'Fierce' on Abortion?] NewsBusters.org, October 14, 2008</ref>

Billionaire ultra liberal [[atheist]] investor [[George Soros]], who spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004, is a very substantial supporter of liberal media. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/11/dont-hear-george-soros-ties-30-major-news-organizations/print </ref>

Liberals believe that most mainstream media sources do not have a bias towards liberal views, and that the idea of a "liberal media" is a myth fabricated by conservatives who are upset when reported facts do not support conservatives' opinions, beliefs, interests, or preconceived notions.

===Notable examples===

====Liberals to Conservative Ratio====
Talk to any Fox News hating-liberal and you'll here the same old regurgitated talking point- ''Fox is not Fair & Balanced.'' One network, Fox News has twice the number of opposing commentators than does all media sources combined. If you add up the major media properties; ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, New York Times, Washington Post, and Newsweek -- you get a total of five so-called conservatives personalities among hundreds of liberals. At the least, Fox News employees the following liberals.

*[[Bob Beckel]]
*[[Juan Williams]]
*[[Alan Colmes]]
*[[Kirsten Powers]]
*[[Shepard Smith]]
*[[Geraldo Rivera]]
*[[Mara Liasson]]
*[[Bill Schulz]]
*[[Susan Estrich]]
*[[Ed Henry]]

====Cuban revolution====

Prime media sources as the New York Times believed and embraced [[Fidel Castro]], who used them in his propaganda to foster acceptance in the Western world.

In a letter to a revolutionary colleague in 1954, Fidel Castro is reported as stating, "We cannot for a second abandon propaganda. [[Propaganda]] is vital -- propaganda is the heart of all struggles."

Likewise, [[Che Guevara]], once labelled "Castro's brain," and who swore by Stalin and once boasted "I am all the contrary of a Christ (and who was an early role model for [[Christopher Hitchens]], <ref>Sean O'Hagan, ''Just a Pretty Face?,'' The Observer, July 11, 2004</ref>) "stated, "A foreign reporter -- preferably American -- was much more valuable to us at that time (1957) than any military victory. Much more valuable than rural recruits for our guerrilla force, were American media recruits to export our propaganda."<ref>Ernesto "Che" Guevara in his diaries</ref>

"Castro is honest," reported Newsweek magazine on April 13, 1959. "And an honest government is something unique in Cuba....Castro is not himself even remotely a Communist."

Herbert Matthews, of the New York Times reported, (July 1959) "This is not a Communist Revolution in any sense of the term. Fidel Castro is not only not a Communist, he is decidedly anti-Communist."<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/when_fidel_castro_dictated_to.html</ref>

In an interview with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, the atheist and liberal founder of CNN, [[Ted Turner]], denied that Fidel Castro's Stalinist regime ever killed anyone, as "that's never been proven." <ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/ted_turners_lies_about_cuba.html</ref>

CNN, which was the first foreign media network to obtain a Havana bureau, promoted Cuba's Healthcare as model for the U.S. While it did mention accusations of serious problems, nearly all of the report was positive. <ref>http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20090808024640.aspx</ref>

====Vietnam War====
The [[Vietnam War]], in which America was the victor in military battles, is perhaps the most manifest modern example of how propaganda affected the outcome of a war, with much of the mainstream media being an all too willing instrument of such, especially CBS News with Walter Cronkite.

In an exchange during one of his liaison trips to Hanoi, Colonel Harry G. Summers, Jr. told his North Vietnamese counterpart, Colonel Tu, "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield," Colonel Tu responded, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."<ref>On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, Harry G. Summers</ref>

The Tet Offensive was portrayed by the New York liberal media as a defeat for the U.S., while in fact, it was an almost disastrous defeat for the North Vietnamese, as General Westmoreland and historians agree. The Viet Cong not only lost half of the 90,000 troops they had committed to battle, but it was virtually destroyed as an army.<ref>http://news-california.com/?p=700</ref>

British "Encounter" journalist Robert Elegant stated,

For the first time in modern history, the outcome of a war was determined not on the battlefield but on the printed page and television screens - never before Vietnam had the collective policy of the media sought, by graphic and unremitting distortion, the victory of the enemies of the correspondents own side..<ref>[http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietnam/Readings/elegant.htm How to Lose A War: The Press and Viet Nam]; Encounter (London), vol. LVII, No. 2, August 1981, pp. 73-90</ref>

Some journalists have admitted that their reporting was decidedly biased, and had profound effects on history. West German correspondent Uwe Siemon-Netto confessed, "Having covered the Viet Nam war over a period of five years for West German publications, I am now haunted by the role we journalists have played over there." In relation to not reporting the true nature of the Hanoi regime and its actions resulting from the American withdrawal, he asked,

What prompted us to make our readers believe that the Communists, once in power in all of Viet Nam, would behave benignly? What made us, first and foremost Anthony Lewis, belittle warnings by U.S. officials that a Communist victory would result in a massacre?... Are we journalists not in part responsible for the death of the tens of thousands who drowned? And are we not in part responsible for the hostile reception accorded to those who survive?...However, the media have been rather coy; they have not declared that they played a key role in the conflict. They have not proudly trumpeted Hanoi's repeated expressions of gratitude to the mass media of the non-Communist world, although Hanoi has indeed affirmed that it could not have won "without the Western press."<ref>Uwe Siemon-Netto in the International Herald Tribune, reprinted in Encounter, October 1979</ref>

''CBS Evening News with [[Walter Cronkite]]'' regularly carried news reports from its [[Moscow]] Bureau Chief, [[Bernard Redmont]]. When peace negotiations commenced with North Vietnam in Paris, Redmont became ''CBS News'' [[Paris]] Bureau Chief. What Redmont never reported during the ten year conflict was, Redmont had been a [[KGB]] operative since the 1930s, and member of the notorious [[Silvermaster group]]. <ref>[http://hnn.us/articles/11581.html KGB file 43173 vol. 2 (v) pp. 46-55], Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949. Original document from KGB Archives [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page46.html].</ref> Redmont was the only journalist to whom his fellow [[Comintern]] party member, and North Vietnamese chief negotiator, Mai Van Bo, granted an interview to bring the Communist point of view into American living rooms in what has been called, "the living room war."

The single most explicit example of such biased reporting is typically seen to be the portrayal of the TET offensive, in which western media was charged with inspiring and aiding the propaganda war of the communists.

Truong Nhu Tang, a founder of the National Liberation Front, and a minister of justice for the Viet Cong Provisional Revolutionary Government - one of the most determined adversaries of the US during the war - stated years later,
<blockquote>
The Tet Offensive proved catastrophic to our plans. It is a major irony of the Vietnam War that our propaganda transformed this debacle into a brilliant victory. The truth was that Tet cost us half our forces. Our losses were so immense that we were unable to replace them with new recruits. (Truong Nhu Tang, The New York Review, October 21, 1982)
</blockquote>
In addition to Cronkite's biased reporting, FBI documents, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act by Yahoo news, evidence that legendary CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite collaborated with anti-Vietnam War activists in the 1960s, going so far as to offer advice on how to raise the public profile of protests and even promising that CBS News would rent a helicopter to take liberal Senator Edmund Muskie to and from the site of an anti-war rally.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2067/print</ref>

==Liberal media outlets==

[[Image:Liberal Bias.png|none|500px]]
'''The following persons, organizations, television programs or media outlets have well known liberal bias:'''

* ''[[The New York Times]]'' <ref>Reporters and editors today are overwhelmingly liberal politically, as studies of the attitudes of key members of the press have repeatedly shown. Should you doubt these findings, recall the statement of Daniel Okrent, then the public editor at the New York Times. Under the headline, "Is the New York times a Liberal Newspaper?," Mr. Okrent's first sentence was, "Of course it is." [http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009203] </ref>
* [[ABC]], [[CBS]] <ref>Townhall.com, [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2001/12/04/enabling_media_bias Enabling media bias], Marvin Olasky, December 4, 2001.</ref>
* [[Dan Rather]] <ref>During a phone conversation, [[Bernard Goldberg]] asked him, "What do you consider the ''New York Times''? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." (''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]'', page 221)</ref>
* [[NBC]] News
* [[LA Times]]
* [[Michael Moore]]
* [[The Daily Show]]
* [[Real Time]] with [[Bill Maher]]
* [[Washington Post]]
* [[MSNBC]]
* [[BBC]]
* [[Guardian (uk)]] ([[UK]] news organization)
* [[Associated Press]]
* [[PZ Myers]]

===LA Times===

The mainstream media including the LA Times had been guilty of being silent regarding the [[John Edwards]] affair that the National Enquirer had broke in October 2007. The Enquirer followed up with a publication in December of 2007. Then in July 2008, the Enquirer had confronted Edwards at the Beverly Hilton hotel after he spent the entire day with his mistress. After Edwards admitted the affair on Friday August 8th, the [[Mainstream media|mainstream media]] finally reported the [[scandal]], including the [[LA Times]]. In an article titled "Mainstream media finally pounce on Edwards' affair", the LA Times declared that they had been pursuing the story prior to Friday. <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-na-edwardsmedia9-2008aug09,0,7463269.story Mainstream media finally pounce on Edwards' affair] LA Times, August 9, 2008</ref> But they gave no excuse for hiding this from the American public. They have showed their true liberal bias by not reporting the story earlier. Then making an attempt to further fool the public by saying they were pursuing the story, when in fact 10 months had lapsed. Plus, nowhere in the article does it mention the Edwards is a Democrat. To the credit of the LA Times, they do mention that Democratic party strategists say Edwards needs to address the story, at the very bottom of the article. Protection of fellow [[liberal]] [[Democrats]] by the LA Times is more important than being a honest news organization.

===MSNBC===
While it is well known that MSNBC's [[Keith Olbermann]] is the most viciously liberal voice to host a news program within the mainstream media, he usually tones down his anti-conservative, anti-Republican vitriol when anchoring special events like election results. But during MSNBC’s coverage of the [[Massachusetts]] special Senate election, Olbermann's presentation was more rabidly partisan than if the Democratic National Committee itself were producing the show. <ref>[http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100120084741.aspx Olbermann Renews 'Teabagging' Attack on Scott Brown, Cuts His Victory Speech]</ref>

===CBS News===
[[Image:Bio-pic.jpg|right|thumb|180px|[[Bernard Goldberg]]]]
CBS insider [[Bernard Goldberg]] wrote the definitive book on liberal bias in the media, simply entitled ''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]''.
*He asserts that an ''"inability to see liberal views as liberal views ... is at the heart of the entire problem."''
*He wrote: "[[Pauline Kael]], for years the brilliant film critic at the ''New Yorker'', was completely baffled about how [[Richard Nixon]] could have beaten [[George McGovern]] in 1972: 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' Never mind that Nixon carried 49 states. She wasn't kidding." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222-223)</ref>

Goldberg also suggested liberals don't even see their liberal values as "liberal":
*"Their views on all the big social issues ... aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with ..." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222)</ref>

During the [[Vietnam War]], the [[Soviet Union]] was the principal ally of [[Communist ]] North Vietnam, providing weapons and training in what was a major conflict of the [[Cold War]] that took 58,000 American lives. ''CBS Evening News with [[Walter Cronkite]]'' regularly carried news reports from its [[Moscow]] Bureau Chief, [[Bernard Redmont]]. When peace negotiations commenced with North Vietnam in Paris, Redmont became ''CBS News'' [[Paris]] Bureau Chief. What Redmont never reported during the ten year conflict was, Redmont had been a [[KGB]] operative since the 1930s, and member of the notorious [[Silvermaster group]]. <ref>[http://hnn.us/articles/11581.html KGB file 43173 vol. 2 (v) pp. 46-55], Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949. Original document from KGB Archives [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page46.html].</ref> Redmont was the only journalist to whom his fellow [[Comintern]] party member, and North Vietnamese chief negotiator, Mai Van Bo, granted an interview to bring the Communist point of view into American living rooms in what has been called, "the living room war."

The selective and editorial reporting of the Vietnam war is often cited as a manifest example of liberal bias in the mainstream media, with Hanoi reportedly affirming that it could not have won "without the Western press."<ref>Uwe Siemon-Netto in the International Herald Tribune, reprinted in Encounter, October 1979</ref>

===New York Times===
Peter D. Feaver of the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' noted on the sixth anniversary of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]] that [[MoveOn.org]] ran a full-page advertisement in the ''[[New York Times]]'' accusing General [[David Petraeus]] of activities befitting a traitor. The advertisement alleges, without [[evidence]], that Petraeus would not give an honest, professional assessment of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. Feaver noted, "The MoveOn.org ad is vicious ... a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his [[credibility]] as possible...part of an elaborate effort to undermine public support for the [[Iraq war]], and was foreshadowed by an unnamed [[Democratic]] senator who told a reporter, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV . . . The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." The effort is funded by powerful [[special interest]]s, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/ MoveOn's McCarthy moment], By Peter D. Feaver, ''Boston Globe'', September 11, 2007.</ref> Within a day it was discovered the ''New York Times'' gave MoveOn.org a “hefty discount” for its ad questioning Petraeus’ integrity. According to the director of public relations for the ''New York Times'', “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.” A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed that the [[liberal activist group]] paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm Time Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for "Betray us" Ad], Charles Hurt, ''New York Post'', September 13, 2007.</ref>
In July, 2008, the [[New York Times]] rejected an opinion piece written by [[John McCain]], which was responding to earlier piece written by [[Barack Obama]].<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/mccain-campaign-says-new-york-times-blocked-op-ed-response-to-obama/</ref> This came after the [[New York Times]] had previously published at least seven op-ed pieces by [[McCain]] since 1996, and endorsed him in the 2008 Republican Presidential primaries. The reason the [[New York Times]] cited for the July 2008 rejection was that they were asking the McCain campaign to provide a more substantive piece which would contrast his positions with the details of the Obama piece on a point-by-point basis.<ref>http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/the-times-and-the-mccain-op-ed/</ref>

===Newsweek===

Perhaps the most liberal weekly news magazine, [[Newsweek]], is seen going out of its way to impugn evangelical Christianity. As far back as April 8, 1996, a Newsweek article promoted skepticism concerning the resurrection of Christ, presenting various theories countering the Biblical record,<ref>Rethinking The Resurrection, by Kenneth L. Woodward, Apr 8, 1996</ref> and the transformational results of faith in such,[http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/amazing] while failing to provide scholarly evangelical responses which refute their theories.<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/TK-J.html See under Jesus-Resurrection]</ref><ref>[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0401.pdf Alternate Theories of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ— Part Two]</ref><ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/bodily.html The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Dr. William Lane Craig]</ref>

Insidious attempts to marginalize evangelical Christianity continue to be replicated, most recently with the article by editor Jon Meacham (who recently compared President Obama to being like God) writing "The End of Christian America" (Apr 4, 2009), in which he opined that it was "a good thing" that America was "less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago."

In addition, on Nov. 13, 2006 Newsweek featured an article by [[atheist]] Sam Harris, who sees Christianity as "incompatible with genuine morality",<ref>A Case Against Faith, Newsweek, Nov. 13, 2006</ref> based upon his own objectively baseless and mutable moral authority.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Atheism1.html Atheism versus Christ]</ref>

As noted by Don Feder<ref>[http://www.donfeder.com/articles/0611GodComplex.pdf In culture war, Newsweek tells evangelicals – bring the troops home, November 27, 2006]</ref> in response to a Newsweek article titled, “America’s God Complex – Like George W. Bush, The Religious Right Is At The Crossroads”<ref>November 13, 2006</ref> Newsweek advocates a faith that does not take moral stands or become involved in changing moral policy.

Consistent with this ethos, Newsweek proactively attacked historical Biblical morality in regards to [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]],<ref>“Our Mutual Joy, Dec 15, 2008 by religion editor Lisa Miller</ref> which attempts have resulted in extensive refutation by evangelical scholars and writers.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm More than “Mutual Joy”: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus]</ref><ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html Homosexual relations and the Bible]</ref><ref>[http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2881 Turning the Bible on its Head -- Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage]</ref>

=== [[PBS]] ===
The taxpayer-funded Public Broadcasting Service has become a left-leaning channel for the liberal viewpoint. This despite the 1985 rule that all PBS shows must be "noncommercial, nonpartisan and nonsectarian." Their tax-subsidized programming includes celebrating [[lesbian]]-feminist choirs, “transgender” riots, and a liberal teenager fighting against [[abstinence]] education. As part of its wave of secular fundamentalism, PBS celebrates even late-term abortionists with a fanaticism. The PBS show NOW was devoted to smearing the pro-life movement as terrorists <ref>[http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/524/index.html Abortion Providers Under Siege] PBS, June 12, 2009</ref> In a fake display of following the rules, 300-plus PBS stations have been instructed to avoid any kind of religious programming.

=== AP ===
Of all unanswered questions needing journalist investigation; where the stimulus money went, Pelosi's health care takeover costs, Hasan's terror associations-- the Associated Press assigned 11 people to fact check all 432 pages of Sarah Palin's new book ''Going Rogue''. The core of good journalism is holding public figures accountable. Yet, the AP did no such fact checking of books by [[Joseph Biden|Joe Biden,]] [[Barack Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton|Hillary]] and [[Bill Clinton]], and the late Senator [[Ted Kennedy]]. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/ap-turns-heads-devoting-reporters-palin-book-fact-check/ AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check', FoxNews, November 17, 2009]</ref>

==Presidential coverage==

Many conservative and a few liberal commentators have remarked on the seeming extraordinary favor shown toward Barack Obama during his candidacy, and presidency.<ref>Dan Gainor, ''ONE YEAR LATER: Journalists' Love for Obama Still Going Strong'', FOXNews.com November 06, 2009</ref> A 2008 comprehensive analysis conducted by the Media Research Center[http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2008/obama/obama.asp] of every evening news report by the NBC, ABC and CBS television networks, showed that positive stories about Obama since he came to national prominence outnumbered negative stories 7 to 1.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72914 Study: ABC, NBC, CBS strongly support Obama August 20, 2008]</ref> During the Presidents candidacy, MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews stated, "Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work,..."

In November 2008, Mark Halperin of Time and ABC News criticized the media coverage of the 2008 presidential race, stating, "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war." "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."<ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/halperin-decrie.html Political Punch, November 24, 2008 8:06 AM]</ref>

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas is seen by some to confirm the lack of objectivity and tendency to give undue exaltation they see the main stream media often displaying toward the new leader of the United states. Referring to his perception of the President after his recent speeches overseas, Thomas stated,

"I mean, in a way Obama's standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of God."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37B_nOdRTAA]<ref>june 5, 2009, MSNBC interview with Chris Matthews</ref>

==Media bias in education==
[[Education]] in [[America]], especially at its higher levels, is typically seen by conservatives as promoting liberalism and helping to promote [[moral decline]]. A most egregious example is the continued use of ''A People's History of the United States'', by [[Howard Zinn]], which is a radical [[left-wing]] revision of history. Zinn explicitly stated that "objectivity is impossible and it is also undesirable", as he advocated and practiced making the writing of history a polemic for change.

Liberals are evidenced to make up a disproportionate amount of college faculty. A (disputed) study showed that 50% of American college faculty identified themselves as [[Democrats]] and only 11% as [[Republicans]] (with 33% being [[Independent]], and 5% identifying themselves with another party). 72% described themselves as "to the left of center," including 18% who were strongly left. Only 15% described themselves as right of center, including only 3% who were "strongly right."<ref>North American Academic Study Survey (NAASS) of students, faculty and administrators at colleges and universities in the United States and Canada 1999. The Berkeley Electronic Press</ref><ref>http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2</ref> <ref>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/17963/liberal_bias_in_our_schools.html</ref>

This Liberal Bias has even made its way to subjects that make up the very heart of America: [[The Constitution]], and [[Christianity]]. Their venerable age no longer protects them from being criticized in the light of modern exigencies. Moreover, in this view the first duty laid upon the State is to guarantee the economic well-being of the individual citizens. Hence it is judged from the practical standpoint and according to general principles based on the idea of economic returns. The chief representatives of this theory of the State are to be found among the average American socialist, especially our liberal Democrats.

Research on the political leanings of their university professors by members of The George Washington University Chapter of Young America’s Foundation (GWYAF) found substantial liberal bias in the academy. The school’s faculty gave 92 percent of their political donations ($221,490) to Democratic candidates versus only 8 percent ($20,500) to Republicans in the 2008 primary election. Consistent with this, in the presidential election the ratio was 91 percent to 9 percent.

Similarly, the ratio of Yale faculty donations in the 2004 presidential election between Kerry and Bush was 150:3. The ratio at Princeton was 114:1, and at Harvard, 406:13.<ref>http://www.academia.org/george-washington-slanted-here/</ref>

Law professor Richard D. Parker, after 35 years at [[Harvard University]], noted, “On this faculty, there are around 100 professors or assistant professors, and of that 100, I think you’d have to estimate there would be maybe eight registered Republicans." “I’m a registered Independent…and there’s no one else in the 100 who would identify as a populist.”<ref>http://www.academia.org/harvard-still-hates-america</ref>/

Textbooks used in schools of all ages have also been exposed as promoting a decidedly liberal bias against the nation of Israel.<ref>[http://www.academia.org/textbook-bias-against-israel]</ref> A landmark book called ''The Trouble with Textbooks'', by Dr. Gary A. Tobin and Dennis R. Ybarra described results of a comprehensive study they conducted of the 28 most widely used Social Studies textbooks in the United States. The researchers found that U.S. textbooks often contain "repeated misrepresentations that cross the line into bigotry.” Examples included Jesus being called a ''[[Palestinian]]'', Islam being "treated with a devotional tone in some textbooks, less detached and analytical than it ought to be. Muslim beliefs are described in several instances as fact, without any clear qualifier such as ''Muslims believe...''' The Islamic empire of the Middle Ages was presented as “a time of unqualified glory without blemishes”, while various aspects of the wars of Arab states against Israel were misrepresented.

One the glossary of book, ''World History: Continuity and Change'', the entry on the Ten Commandments skeptically describes them as "Moral laws Moses '''claimed''' to have received from the Hebrew G-d Y-hweh on Mount Sinai," while the very same glossary states the [[Qu'ran]] is a "Holy Book of Islam containing revelations received by Muhammad from G-d.” <ref>http://www.israelnationalnews.com/SendMail.aspx?print=print&type=0&item=127797</ref>

One textbook publisher, ''Teachers Curriculum Institute'', has agreed to rewrite its unit on the Middle East after being challenged, and consulting many scholars. The San Fransisco-based Jewish Community Relations Council found that the textbooks were so filled with inaccuracies and biased that they should not be used.<ref>San Francisco Jewish Community Publications, Friday, February 13, 2004</ref>

Professor, Larry Schweikart notes that most textbooks tend to come from New York, Boston, Washington and Philadelphia, all liberal bastions. As concerns American history, Schweikart sees the "Reagan test" as a consistent indicator of whether a book is politically slanted. The majority of books he has examined credit former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev with ending the Cold War, while marginalizing Reagan.<ref>[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/11/president-reagan-gets-the-shaft-in-textbooks/print/ Fox News, March 11, 2010]</ref>

==Conservative Opposition to Liberal Bias==
[[Ann Coulter]] wrote:
*To obscure the overwhelming liberal dominance of the media, the few designated media "[[conservatives]]" are cited tirelessly in testimonies to the [[ideological]] diversity in the nation's [[newsroom]]s. Democrats in the media are [[editors]], national [[correspondent]]s, [[news anchor]]s, and [[reporter]]s. Republicans in the media are "from the right" [[polemic]]ists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth. Republican views must be accompanied by a conspicuous warning: "[[Partisan]] Conservative Opinion Coming!" [[Neutral]] news slots are reserved for Democrats exclusively. "Balance" is created by having a liberal host a debate between a liberal and a moderate Republican. <ref>''[[Slander (book)|]]'', P. 60</ref>

In June 2009, [[Republican]]s in the House of Representatives have created the Media Caucus to fight the Democrat-aligned media propaganda.

==Left-wing defense of Liberal Bias==

The managing editor of ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' Magazine dismissed the need for [[objectivity]] altogether, saying:

:I have felt that we have to actually say, ‘We have a point of view about something and we feel strongly about it, we just have to be assertive about it and say it positively.'"<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2008/04/22/time-editor-objective-journalism-fantasy-justifies-greening-iwo-jima-phot Time Editor: Objective Journalism a 'Fantasy']</ref>

A ''Boston Globe'' editor, Peter Accardi, adamantly proclaimed that he would not publish reader's replies in the Globe's Letters to the Editor critical of homosexuality, erroneously equating such with racism:

:"I won't run any letter that promotes bigotry against any group. You'd be surprised how many anti-Semitic letters we get, but not one will see the light of day on a letters page I handle. Same with anti-black, anti-Italian, etc."<ref>http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=4324&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport</ref>

Note the convoluted logic which assumes that any criticism of the behavior of members of a group must be due to "bigotry", which is itself a bigoted attack on the critics designed to prevent any consideration of the principles or facts supporting their arguments.

==Left-wing denial of Liberal bias==

[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.]] has denied that the New York Times has a liberal viewpoint and has stated the New York Times has an "urban" viewpoint.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> However, in the summer of 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, published a piece on the Times' liberal bias and cited the example of their coverage of [[Homosexuality and Marriage|homosexual marriage]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> Although the New York Times has a particularly heavy bias when it comes to the [[homosexuality]] issue, the New York Times is not unusual in regards to the media having a liberal bias when it comes to the subject of homosexuality; see [[Homosexuality in the Media]]. [[John Stossel]] is an author, consumer reporter, and a co-anchor for the [[ABC|ABC News]] show [[20/20]]. [[Cybercast News Service]] states the following regarding regarding the influence of the New York Times and [[Washington Post]]:
{{cquote|While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents.

"The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so important, and they are, is because the TV and radio - all of the media - copy it sycophantically," he [John Stossel] said. "That's how bias at the Times becomes bias in other media."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200401/CUL20040128a.html</ref>}}

==Statistical data==

In 2008, John Perazzo, writing in FrontPageMagazine.com, presented major research findings <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=32928 In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias By John Perazzo FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, October 31, 2008]</ref><ref>[http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf Mostly from Media Research Center, The Liberal Media Exposed]</ref> regarding the underlying beliefs of news media professionals.

* Between 90 and 97 percent of news media professionals have consistently affirmed themselves to be pro-choice on the matter of abortion, with more than half of the respondents agreeing that abortion should be legal under any and all circumstances.<ref>Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1981 survey of 240 journalists at top media outlets; Los Angeles Times 1985 survey of 2,700 journalists at 621 American newspapers; Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1986 study of the media’s attitudes and their influence on society, as published in the National Federation for Decency’s Journal; Indiana University journalism professors David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1992 survey of 1,410 newspaper, magazine, television, and radio journalists; Stanley Rothman and Amy Black’s 1995 study of the media elite.</ref>
* Between 6 and 8 percent attended religious services regularly, a tiny fraction of the corresponding rate for the public at large.<ref>Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1986 study of the media’s attitudes and their influence on society, Op. cit.; David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1992 survey of 1,410 journalists, Op. cit.; Annenberg Public Policy Center and Annenberg Foundation Trust’s 2005 survey of 673 journalists from newspapers, television, magazines, radio, and Internet; Pew Research Center’s 2008 survey of 222 journalists and news executives.</ref>
* Fully 81 percent of news media professionals favor affirmative action in business and academia.<ref>Los Angeles Times 1985 survey of 2,700 journalists at 621 American newspapers, Op. cit.</ref>
* More than half of respondents said that adultery could be acceptable under certain circumstances; only 15 percent said it was always wrong.<ref>Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1981 survey of 240 journalists at top media outlets, Op. cit.</ref>
* Between 67 and 76 percent were opposed to prayer being permitted in public schools.<ref>Los Angeles Times 1985 survey of 2,700 journalists at 621 American newspapers; Journalist and Financial Reporting’s 1988 poll of 151 business reporters from 30 major publications.</ref>
* In 1964, 94 percent of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.<ref>Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1981 survey of 240 journalists at top media outlets, Op. cit.</ref>
* In 1968, 86 percent voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.<ref>Ibid.</ref>
* In 1972, 81 percent voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.<ref>Ibid.</ref>
* In 1976, 81 percent voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.<ref>Ibid.</ref>
* In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than Republican Ronald Reagan.<ref>California State University survey of reporters from the 50 largest U.S. newspapers.</ref>
* In 1984, 58 percent supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.<ref>Los Angeles Times 1985 survey of 2,700 journalists at 621 American newspapers, Op. cit.</ref>
* In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.<ref>U.S. News & World Report writer Kenneth Walsh’s 1995 study of 28 White House correspondents.</ref>
* In the 1992 Presidential election, among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89 percent vs. 7 percent, in Clinton’s favor over the incumbent Bush.<ref>1996 Freedom Forum survey of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, Op. cit.</ref>
* All told, White House correspondents during the late ’80s and early ’90s voted for Democrats at 7 times the rate at which they voted for Republicans.<ref>U.S. News & World Report writer Kenneth Walsh’s 1995 study of 28 White House correspondents, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 2004, poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, D.C., supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio<ref>.New York Times columnist John Tierney’s 2004 survey of 153 campaign journalists covering the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts.</ref>
* In a 2004 nationwide poll of 300 newspaper and television journalists, 52 percent supported Kerry, while 19 percent supported Bush.<ref>University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy’s 2005 survey of 300 television and newspaper journalists nationwide.</ref>
* In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.<ref>MSNBC investigative reporter Bill Dedman’s study of the campaign contributions of 144 journalists.</ref>
* A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.<ref>William Tate’s July 2008 report in Investor’s Business Daily.</ref>

*In a 1988 survey of business reporters, 54 percent of respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 9 percent as Republicans.<ref>Journalist and Financial Reporting’s 1988 poll of 151 business reporters, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 1992 poll of journalists working for newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, 44 percent called themselves Democrats, 16 percent Republicans.<ref>David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1992 survey of 1,410 journalists, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 1996 poll of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers, 61 percent identified themselves as Democrats, 15 percent as Republicans.<ref>American Society of Newspaper editors 1996 survey of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers of all sizes nationwide.</ref>
* In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, media professionals were nearly 7 times likelier to call themselves Democrats rather than Republicans<ref>.Kaiser Family Foundation 1996 poll of 301 “media professionals,” 300 “policymakers,” and 1,206 members of the general public.</ref>
* In a 1981 study of 240 journalists nationwide, 65 percent identified themselves as liberals, 17 percent as conservatives.<ref>Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1986 study of the media’s attitudes and their influence on society, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 1983 study of news reporters, executives, and staffers, 32 percent identified themselves as liberals, 11 percent as conservatives.<ref>David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1982-83 study of more than 1,000 reporters, executives, and staffers nationwide.</ref>
* In a 1992 study of more than 1,400 journalists, 44 percent identified themselves as liberals, 22 percent as conservatives.<ref>David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1992 survey of 1,410 journalists, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 1996 study of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, 61 percent identified themselves as liberals, 9 percent as conservatives.<ref>1996 Freedom Forum survey of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 1996 study of 1,037 journalists, the respondents identified themselves as liberals 4 times more frequently than as conservatives. Among journalists working for newspapers with circulations exceeding 50,000, the ratio of liberals to conservatives was 5.4 to 1.<ref>American Society of Newspaper editors 1996 survey, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation study of media professionals, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.2 to 1.<ref>Kaiser Family Foundation 1996 poll of 301 “media professionals,” 300 “policymakers,” and 1,206 members of the general public, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 2004 Pew Research Center study of journalists and media executives, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.9 to 1.<ref>Pew Research Center 2004 poll of 547 journalists and media executives, including 247 at national-level media outlets.</ref>
* In a 2005 University of Connecticut study of 300 journalists, the liberal-to-conservative ratio was 2.8 to 1.<ref>University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy’s 2005 survey of 300 television and newspaper journalists nationwide, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 2005 Annenberg Public Policy Center poll of nearly 700 journalists, the liberal-to-conservative ratio was 3.4 to 1.<ref>Annenberg Public Policy Center and Annenberg Foundation Trust’s 2005 survey of 673 journalists, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative.<ref>Pew Research Center’s 2007 survey of 222 journalists and news executives at national outlets.</ref>

A similar landmark study was conducted in 1990, examining the political leanings of the individuals, rather than the organizations, who were most often cited or quoted as experts on various topics in the news. The examination showed that on the subject of welfare and related issues, liberal experts were quoted 75 percent of the time, conservatives 22 percent. On consumer issues, the liberal-conservative ratio was 63 percent to 22 percent. On environmental issues, the ratio was 79 percent to 18 percent. And regarding nuclear energy, the ratio was 77 percent to 20 percent.<ref>Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter, The Media Elite: America’s New Power Brokers (New York: Hastings House, 1990).</ref>

The decidedly liberal majority in news media is similar to that seen in American colleges and faculty, which most journalists were influenced by. A major study showed that 50% of American college faculty identified themselves as Democrats and 11% as Republicans (with 33% being Independent, and 5% identifying themselves with another party). 72% described themselves as "to the left of center," including 18% who were strongly left. Only 15% described themselves as right of center, including only 3% who were "strongly right."<ref>North American Academic Study Survey (NAASS) of students, faculty and administrators at colleges and universities in the United States and Canada 1999. The Berkeley Electronic Press</ref><ref>[http://montages.blogspot.com/2005/04/conservatives-underrepresented-in.html Conservatives: Underrepresented in Academia?]</ref>

== Liberal American entertainment industry, bestiality and other sexual immorality ==
[[File:NBC Tower.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[LifeSiteNews]] reported:"In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to [[adultery]] were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref> See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]] ]]
''See also:'' [[Liberalism and bestiality]] and [[Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality]]

=== American Television and bestiality ===

On August 6, 2008 [[LifeSiteNews]] reported:
{{cquote|The Parents Television Council released a new study, Happily Never After: How Hollywood Favors [[Adultery]] and [[Promiscuity]] Over Marital Intimacy on Prime Time Broadcast Television, which revealed that broadcast networks depict sex in the context of marriage as either non-existent or burdensome, while showing positive depictions of extra-marital or adulterous sexual relationships with alarming frequency....

According to the PTC study, some of the once-taboo-for-TV sexual behaviors that are now found on prime time television include threesomes, partner swapping, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, and sex with prostitutes...

In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to adultery were made.

References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref>}}

== See also ==

*[[Credibility]]
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Liberal bias|Examples of liberal bias from previous "Breaking News" articles]]
*[[More News/Liberal Bias|Articles about '''Liberal Bias''' from "More News"]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Media]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Professor values]]
*[[Journalistic malpractice]]

{{Examples of liberal bias}}

==External links==

*[http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2admissions.asp Media Bias Basics] - Admissions of Liberal Bias
*[http://www.ihatethemedia.com IHateTheMedia.com] - Pointing out Liberal Bias daily
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=fH5H492nmtMC&pg=PA271&lpg=PA271&dq=newsweek+war+against+christianity&source=bl&ots=x8qHuakjQh&sig=sDfIvPwS9893hYoJVO8Tfz8DDrE&hl=en&ei=jUY6SrCIG9G_twfgg6HjDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPP1,M1 Persecution, By David Limbaugh]

{{liberalism}}
[[Category: Deceit]]
[[Category: Liberalism]]

Talk:Liberal Obsession

2012-06-05T20:41:58Z

CWest: per Conservapedia:Tolerance

*Feel free to add to this article about the nonsense liberals obsess over. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:03, 5 March 2009 (EST)

alright, i myself am somewhat liberal, and i have multiple objections. "obsession over celebrities" nope. never picked up a tabloid, a peoples magazine, or an entertainment section of a newspaper in my life. i really don't care that lady gaga crossed the state line last thursday."obsession over legalizing abortion" i support it only in rape cases, and even then i would think it immoral. "obsession on censorship of school prayer" first amendment, anyone? "obsession over censorship of christianity" nope, I'm christian. "obsession over censorship of intelligent design and creationism" only in schools. i myself am unsure on evolution. "obsessing over affirmative action" nope, affirmative action is ridiculous."obsession over global warming" and thats bad why? "obsession over keeping pornography legal" i support it being legal, but, its not a terribly big deal to me. it doesn't help me any."obsession on smearing conservatives" i smear anyone who does something stupid. a lot of the time thats conservatives, but liberals do stupid stuff to. just last night, i was enraged at both obama and Romney. "obsession over gun control" nope, i love guns. "obsession over rights for terrorists" nope. not at all. dislike the ndaa2012, but otherwise I'm fine with giving em what they deserve."obsession over the homosexual agenda" see my response to the one on pornography."obsession over the plight of the palestinians" again, not that big a deal, but you cant blame anyone who it is a big deal to."obsession over g. w. bush, and Conservapedia", only because their funny. idk who richard dawkins is, fox news is a sack of lies, sarah palin irdc bout, i support obama, good but not great, the tea party is idiotic, ivdk bout racist, whats wrong with obsession over environ mentalism? sorry for the unprofessional finish, I need to go. [[User:Kmmnderkoala|Kmmnderkoala]] 20:15, 1 June 2012 (EDT)

Hearsay society

2012-06-05T19:23:05Z

CWest: /* Wikipedia's role */

[[Image:Jdfu6r7.JPG|right|thumb|''Sapere aude!'' The Enlightenment thinker [[John Locke]].]]
The '''hearsay society''' is a term used to describe a prevailing current of thought, stemming in large part from the popularity of [[Wikipedia]], that discourages making statements unless a reference can be found to others having said them already; and if a reference is found, then the statements are considered true regardless of whether the reference consists of unreliable [[hearsay]]. This is a form of [[intellectual cowardice]], and can lead to the propagation of misleading, incorrect or deliberately untrue information, while some individuals abandon even the attempt at using their own [[logic]] or thinking for themselves. In the hearsay society the use of [[hearsay]] is so rampant that participants can lose the ability to recognize the difference between what is hearsay, and what is not.

'''Example''': when confronted with the logic and even miracles performed by [[Jesus]], [[Pharisees]] insisted that Jesus cite "authorities" for his truths. Imagine listening to the [[Prodigal Son]] and then asking the absurd question, ''do you have any references for this?''

==Wikipedia's role==
The online encyclopedia [[Wikipedia]] is fundamentally based on a form of [[hearsay]]. Assertions made in Wikipedia articles are required to be supported by references (it should be noted that this is also one of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]]); this superficially gives an impression of rigor, but in practice it leads to a [[parrot]]ting of the opinions of others and a negation of the individual's ability to use his intelligence to make connections and insights based on [[logic]]. Wikipedia typically dismisses logical inferences as original research; according to Wikipedia policy, this is contrary to the aspiration (itself highly problematic) that articles should present topics from a neutral point of view. As a result, such inferences are swiftly deleted, regardless of their insight or obvious truth.

While original research is permitted on other Wikimedia projects, such as [[Wikiversity]] and [[Wikibooks]], these sites are typically obscure and have negligible impact compared to Wikipedia. They may even have been established deliberately to channel original thought away from the mass exposure it would receive on Wikipedia.

Thanks to the growth and popularity of Wikipedia, the flawed expectation that all statements must be referenced has spread elsewhere, both in online communities and wider society, to the point where many are reluctant to express any view unless others have said it first. The result is a '''hearsay society''', where popularly-espoused "facts" are repeated and circulated endlessly, while truths and new insights are shut out, ignored or actively [[censorship|censored]]. Influenced by Wikipedia, some individuals will vehemently demand references in all kinds of situations where it is patently unnecessary or even absurd to do so.

===Degradation of standards===
An insistence that all statements must be referenced also leads to a gradual lowering of standards for what references are acceptable. For example, a contributor might want to add obvious statement A to an article, but has difficulty finding a reference. He eventually finds statement A made in source B, which is of questionable quality; he adds the reference and the source is allowed to pass in that instance because of a commonsense desire among those involved to have statement A in the article. But future contributors can then take that use of source B as a precedent and use it to reference other, more questionable statements. Over time, this flawed system inevitably leads to progressively worse and worse sources being used, resulting in ever more hearsay and misleading or wrong information diluting the usable content.

==Comparison with the Enlightenment==
[[Image:392.jpg|right|thumb|180px|[[Voltaire]]: An opponent of [[censorship]] who would not have approved of the hearsay society.]]
Ironically, this subservience to hearsay and the authority of others is antithetical to the spirit of the [[Enlightenment]] which gave birth to the first encyclopedia and the [[scientific method]] - even though many of its most diligent proponents would claim to be scientists themselves. The motto of the Enlightenment was ''Sapere aude!'' - ie "Dare to know [for yourself]!" rather than uncritically accept what you are told. This has been twisted out of all recognition by today's self-proclaimed "scientific community" and other groups, as they claim to idolize the great scientific thinkers while rejecting the spirit of inquiry that brought them their success.

The hearsay society attitude also compares unfavorably with [[Voltaire]]'s famous maxim "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the [[death]] your right to say it." Those who insist on censoring obvious truths on the pretext that no one can be found to have said them before are effectively saying the exact opposite: "I do not necessarily dispute what you say, but I am nevertheless going to try to stop you from saying it."

==Comparison with Declaration of Independence==
One of the founding documents of the [[United States of America]], the [[Declaration of Independence]], begins by asserting certain truths as "self-evident". The [[Founding Fathers]] who wrote it did not see the need to look for references or other parties who had made the assertions before, and that tone of self-reliance and confidence chimes throughout the rest of the Declaration, and indeed has informed the US's enterprising and pragmatic spirit in the centuries that followed.

This example shows how Wikipedia and the hearsay society are at odds with the approach taken by history's great men - including those with great practical achievements as well as thinkers. The hearsay society might even be considered "un-American".

Conversely, [[socialist]] and other left- or [[liberal]]-leaning societies have been characterized by a deference to authority, even when those in authority are clearly mistaken or deliberately acting against the interests of the society in question. This deferential tendency is of a piece with the attitudes that drive the hearsay society - supposed authorities, whether scientific, political, social or trivial, are taken as arbiters of truth regardless of their real credentials, and even when individuals' own logic ought to guide them otherwise.

==Pharisees==
The similarities between the hearsay society and the [[Pharisee]]s who opposed [[Jesus]] are marked. As a group, the Pharisees were characterised by a petty and inflexible adherence to rules whose observance had long been divorced from their original purpose; and by a scandalized reaction to anyone who dared to think for himself rather than accept the views of authorities who they saw as beyond question.

The hearsay society is perhaps the most common modern manifestation of both of these Pharisee-like tendencies. Where the Pharisees ignored or tried to suppress truths because they came from Jesus (a carpenter by trade) rather than the priests of the temple, the hearsay society similarly censors or refuses to acknowledge anything not recycled from a limited pool of approved sources. Where the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus for spurious violations of the [[Sabbath]], so the hearsay society censors through recourse to rules on citation, regardless of how badly they might be misapplied, or how irrelevant they might be to the case in question.
[[Category:Wikipedia]]
[[Category:Epistemology]]
[[Category:Censorship]]

Liberal

2012-06-05T19:16:54Z

CWest:

[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|180px|President [[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that John Maynard Keynes was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ Keynes's "Jew Boy" Quickie, The Atlantic]
</ref> ]]
[[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref>]]

A '''liberal''' is someone who favors [[censorship]] of [[Christianity]] plus increased government spending and power, as in [[ObamaCare]]. Increasingly liberals side with the [[homosexual agenda]], including [[same-sex marriage]]. Many liberals favor a [[welfare state]] where people receive endless entitlements without working. Liberals are often anti-Christian, or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American [[Christian|Christians]]. The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically delusional views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of [[conservative]] principles without having any meaningful values of their own.

Polling data has consistently shown that an increasingly percentage of Americans identify as conservative than as liberal, currently by a ratio of 2:1.<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance</ref>

The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Spending money on government programs (the significant economic problems in the [[Eurozone]] due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)
* Government solving economic problems<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the only reason Muslim extremists hate us is because of bad foreign policy <ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* Censorship of teacher-led [[prayer]] in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Affirmative action<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* Government-funded medical care, such as [[Obamacare]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* The denial of traditional [[gender roles]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]] and homosexual adoption
* [[Tax and spend]]
* Support for economic sector regulations<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support and spreading of [[political correctness]]
* Support of non-syndicalist [[labor union|labor unions]]
* Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from premarital sex<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref> and environmental organizations, for example [[Greenpeace]]</ref>
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition to the integration of church and state.
* Opposition to full private property rights.<ref> For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Withholds support to the [[War on Terrorism]] and the [[War in Iraq]]
* Tolerance of different ideas and lifestyles
* Supports financially irresponsible policies
* Following policies which are proven to be incorrect
* Do not support a laissez-faire capitalist economy and support regulation of business
* Encouragement of [[Global Warming|global warming alarmism]]

Liberals currently use two clauses to try and expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The general welfare clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich out of existence and redistributing that money. The commerce clause on the other hand is in the constitution and says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government vastly expanding its power. The latest example is [[Obamacare]]. In Obamacare, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states. This is clearly a stretched interpretation of the clause as there is a difference between regulating commerce and forcing citizens to participate in commerce that Congress can regulate.

Current dictionaries sugarcoat the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"<ref>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00</ref> or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref> In practical usage, the term "liberal" is more closely synonymous with "immoral," "anti-freedom," or "bad."

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] liberals give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and charity]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

=== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ===
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his lack of charitable giving]].

== Liberalism and bestiality ==

See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|260px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]
[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of bestiality (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]])<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>. Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]] (Princeton University is a very liberal school - see: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]).<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity. <ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref> In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref>

Joe Carter's ''[[First Things]]'' article entitled ''The Dangerous Mind'' declares concerning Peter Singer declared:
{{cquote|Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the [[Animal rights|animal liberation movement]] and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).<ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>}}

On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality "rights" have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality "rights" (see: [[Homosexuality and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/ The dark side of sexual freedom: American 'zoophiles' take on the language of equality - October 5, 2011 - The Telegraph]</ref>

In 2010, the liberal state of [[Washington]] has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: [[Washington state and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/state_ranking.php?year=2010&search=go Pet Abuse -2010]</ref><ref>[http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php 2010 United States Census data]</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ 2011 Political map - CNN]</ref>

In 2005, four legislators in the liberal state of [[Massachusetts]] tried to soften it bestiality laws.<ref>[Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]</ref>
[[File:NBC Tower.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[LifeSiteNews]] reported:"In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to [[adultery]] were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref> See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]] ]]
The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the [[Old Testament]] [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]).

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686 A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.]</ref> The atheist population [[Atheism and suicide|has a higher suicide rate]] and [[Atheism and marriageability|lower marriage rates]] than the general population (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and health]]). In addition, ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men.<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>

For more information please see:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Liberalism and bestiality]]

*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]

*[[Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality]]

*[[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Sweden|Liberal Sweden and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Britain|Godless Britain and bestiality]]

*[[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality|The liberal Netherlands and bestiality]]

*[[Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality]]

*[[Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments]]
=== Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant ===

''See also:'' [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>

Below is an excerpt of the chant:
{{cquote|Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>}}

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in the United States Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly liberal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: SIN. Liberals (1) '''s'''hift the subject, they (2) '''i'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''n'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]
{{cquote|There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

=== American liberalism, demographics and expected tipping point in the decline of American liberalism ===
''
See also:'' [[American atheism]] and [[Decline of atheism]] and [[Global atheism]]

Due to the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]] in traditional cultures and their influence on Western [[Christianity]] and the higher birth rate of [[Conservative Christianity|conservative Christians]] and religious conservatives, social conservatism is expected to rise.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning America:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-years-2012-and-2020-key-years.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Infamous liberals ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.|ANSWER - Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]]
*[[CAIR|CAIR - Council on American-Islamic Relations]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[PETA|PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[SEIU|SEIU - Service Employees International Union]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==Quotes on Liberals==
"I never use the words [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]]. It's [[liberals]] and [[Americans]]." -James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under [[Ronald Reagan]]

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

==See Also==

* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]
* http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Republican Party

2012-06-05T19:10:18Z

CWest: /* 2009 */

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name = Republican Party
| party_articletitle = Republican Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:Cjjfdjfty.png|200px|"Republican Party Elephant" logo]]
| website = [http://www.gop.com www.gop.com]
| headquarters = 310 K Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Reince Priebus]]
| houseleader = [[John Boehner]]
| senateleader = [[Mitch McConnell]]
| foundation = 1854
| ideology = [[moderate|Centrism]] [[Conservative|Conservatism]] [[Classical Liberalism]] [[Neoconservatism]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Free Market]]
| socialpolicy = [[Conservative]]
| international = [[International Democrat Union]]
| colors = [[Red states and blue states|Red]] (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
The '''Republican Party''' or informally the '''GOP''' (short for Grand Old Party), is one of the two major political parties in the [[United States]]. The Republican Party is [[pro-life]] , while the [[Democratic Party]] is [[pro-abortion]].

In the past, the Republican voter coalitions have generally comprised businessmen, military veterans and evangelical Protestants. Some groups have realigned: blacks went from the GOP to the Democrats in the 1930s, while white Southerners became Republicans in the 1980s. Catholics switched from 80% Democratic in 1960 to 50-50 in recent years, primarily due to the embrace of [[abortion]] by the Democrats. In recent years youth and better educated professionals have moved to the Democrats, while blue collar workers have become more Republican, again due to the abortion issue.

The Republican Party was created in 1854 by anti-slavery activists. It soon swept to control of all the northern states, and in 1860 elected [[Abraham Lincoln]] president. The South seceded, and the Union side of the [[American Civil War]] was directed by Lincoln and the new party, with help from "War Democrats." The GOP (as it was also called from the 1880s) dominated the elections of the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1894) as well as the [[Fourth Party System]] or Progressive Era (1894-1932). However the Democrats built a liberal [[New Deal Coalition]] under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], and dominated the [[Fifth Party System]], 1932-1966, with the GOP only electing Eisenhower in that era. The [[Sixth Party System]], since 1968, has been dominated by the GOP.

18 of the 27 US Presidents since 1861 have been Republicans and since that same year a Republican has won 23 of the last 37 presidential elections. The party's most recent candidate [[Arizona]] Senator [[John McCain]], together with his running mate Alaska Governor [[Sarah Palin]], lost the 2008 presidential election to Democrat [[Barack Obama]] and his running mate [[Joe Biden]].

It is important to vote for someone who's more conservative on the issues rather than for a Republican because anyone can join a party and be they can be a [[RINO]].

== Symbol ==
[[image:The_off_year_nast_1877.jpg|left|thumb|1877 Thomas Nast drawing of the Republican elephant]]

The official symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant. Although the elephant had occasionally been associated with the party earlier, a political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]], published in ''Harper's Weekly'' on November 7, 1874, is considered the first important use of the symbol<ref>http://www.harpweek.com/09Cartoon/BrowseByDateCartoon.asp?Year=2003&Month=November&Date=7</ref>. In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Republican party in some Midwestern states was the eagle, as opposed to the Democratic cock. The eagle still appears on Indiana ballots.

A political term referring to the party is "G.O.P.", which was originally an acronym of "Grand Old Party". The term was coined in 1875.

==Ideology==
Historically, the fundamental philosophy and political ideals of the Republican Party are founded on the idea that societal health is rooted in personal responsibility and actions. The Republican Party holds the belief that all material things are earned, not owed. This is seen most often in the party's push for lower taxes. This is fought for in an attempt to treat all citizens equally despite income, race, gender, or religion. They also see taxes as a drag on the economy, and believe private spending is usually more efficient than public spending.

Republicans also show concerns about having big government in charge of such vital issues as food, shelter, or health care, as they believe the private sector and/or the individual are better suited to control their own lives. President [[Ronald Reagan]] who became a Republican in the early 1960s after being a [[New Deal]]er at one time, has been quoted as saying "Government is not the solution, it is the problem."

The party tends to hold both [[conservative]] and [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] stances on social and economic issues respectively. Major policies that the party has recently supported include a conservative foreign policy, including [[War on Terror]], liberating of [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]], and strong support for democracy, especially in the [[Middle East]]. Many party members and politicians have shown a distrust of the [[United Nations]] due to the organization's incompetent bureaucracy, anti-capitalist undertone, corruption on the [[Security Council]] and in UN humanitarian programs. Along with demanding radical reforms in the UN, many Republican politicians also opposes the Kyoto Protocol due the protocol's unfair application to certain countries (especially the United States) and the fact that it prevents economic growth and slows the reduction of poverty.

The Republican Party generally supports free trade, especially [[NAFTA]] and [[CAFTA]]. It is responsible for a series of across-the-board tax cuts since 2001 that have bolstered the economy and reduced the punitive aspect of the income tax. It has sought business deregulation, reduction of environmental regulations that restrict fair use of land and property, and other policies that are pro-capitalism. It supports gun ownership rights, and enterprise zones (low taxes for investing in poverty areas). On social issues the majority of its national and state candidates usually favor the death penalty, call for stronger state-level control on access to [[abortion]], support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at the federal level and by the states, favor faith-based charitable initiatives, support school choice and homeschooling, social welfare benefit reform, and oppose reverse racism, such as racial quotas.

In recent years the party has called for much stronger accountability in the public schools, especially through the "No Child Left behind Act" of 2001 (which also increased [[federal funding]] for schools). The party is split on the issue of federally funding embryonic stem cell research that involves the cloning and killing of human embryos. Many in the party think it unethical to force tax payers who believe this type of research is morally wrong to finance it. Historically Republicans have had a strong belief in [[individualism]], limited government, and business entrepreneurship.

In recent years, the Republican party has downplayed its emphasis on small government. Under the administration of [[George W. Bush]], the federal government has been expanded to record levels, surpassing even the Great Depression era <ref>http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm</ref>. Additionally, the Bush administration has acted to nationalize the country's banking institutions in an effort to stymie the decline of the U.S. economy<ref>http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12078933</ref>

== History ==
[[File:GOP-presidents.jpg|thumb|300px|GOP Presidents by Andy Thomas; clockwise from far right: Nixon, Ford, Lincoln, GHW Bush, Reagan, GW Bush, Eisenhower, Roosevelt]]
The party began in 1854, at the start of the [[Third Party System]]. The '''GOP''' (or "Grand Old Party" as it was nicknamed after 1880) dominated national politics, including most of the [[Fourth Party System]] until 1932. Then the [[Fifth Party System]] (or "New Deal Coalition") was dominant until the late 1960s. Since 1968 the GOP has won 7 of 11 presidential elections (losing in 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2008). Its great rival is the [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democratic Party]].

===Third Party System: 1854-1894===
The Republican party began as a spontaneous grass roots protest against the [[Kansas-Nebraska Act]] of 1854, which allowed slavery into western territories where it had been forbidden by earlier compromises. The creation of the new party, along with the death of the [[Whig Party]], realigned American politics. The central issues were new, as were the voter alignments, and the balance of power in Congress. The central issues became slavery, race, civil war and the reconstruction of the Union into a more powerful nation, with rules changed that gave the vote to former slaves.

====Issues: Slavery====
Republican activists denounced the Kansas-Nebraska act as proof of the power of the [[Slave Power]]--the powerful class of slaveholders who were conspiring to control the federal government and to spread slavery nationwide. The name "Republican" gained such favor in 1854 because "[[Republicanism, U.S.|republicanism]]" was the paramount political value the new party meant to uphold. The name also echoed the former Jeffersonian party of the [[First Party System]]. The party founders adopted the name "Republican" to indicate it was the carrier of "republican" beliefs about civic virtue, and opposition to aristocracy and corruption. <ref> Gould (2003) pp 14-15; republicanism is explored in depth by Foner (1970).</ref>

Two small cities of the Yankee diaspora, Ripon, Wisconsin, and Jackson, Michigan, claim the birthplace honors. <ref>There is also a myth that the town of Exeter, New Hampshire was first by six months, but nothing came of the secret meeting there and scholars dismiss the claim.</ref> Ripon held the first county convention on March 20, 1854. Jackson held the first statewide convention where delegates on July 6, 1854 declared their new party opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories and selected a state-wide slate of candidates. The Midwest took the lead in forming state party tickets, while the eastern states lagged a year or so. There were no efforts to organize the party in the South, apart from a few areas adjacent to free states. The new party was sectional, based in the northeast and northern Midwest--areas with a strong Yankee presence. It had only scattered support in slave states before the Civil War.<ref> There was some strength in border cities such as St. Louis, Louisville, Wheeling, and Baltimore.</ref>

The first presidential nomination in 1856 when to an obscure western explorer [[John C. Fremont]], as the party crusaded against the Slave Power with the slogan, "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free men, Fremont and victory!" Democrats warned darkly that disunion and Civil War would result. The remnants of the Know Nothing movement prevented the new party from sweeping the North, and the Democrats elected [[James Buchanan]]. By 1858 the Know Nothings were gone and the Republicans swept the North. The 1860 election seemed a certain victory, for the party had majorities in states with a majority of the electoral votes. In the event the opposition split three ways, and [[Abraham Lincoln]] coasted to an easy victory, carrying 18 states with 190 electoral votes, while the opposition carried 15 states (mostly in the South) with 123 electoral votes. Lincoln had 1.9 million popular votes.

====Modernization====
Besides opposition to slavery, the new party put forward a modernizing vision --emphasizing higher education, banking, railroads, industry and cities, while promising free homesteads to farmers. It vigorously argued that free-market labor was superior to slavery and the very foundation of civic virtue and true American values - this is the "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" ideology explored by historian Eric Foner <ref> Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men''. 1993. </ref>. The Republicans absorbed the previous traditions of its members, most of whom had been [[Whig Party|Whigs]], and some of whom had been Democrats or members of third parties (especially the [[Free Soil Party]] and Know-Nothings (American Party). Many [[U.S. Democratic Party, history|Democrats]] who joined up were rewarded with governorships. <ref> They included [[Nathaniel P. Banks]] of Massachusetts, [[Kinsley Bingham]] of Michigan, [[William H. Bissell]] of Illinois, [[Salmon P. Chase]] of Ohio, [[Hannibal Hamlin]] of Maine, [[Samuel J. Kirkwood]] of Iowa, [[Ralph Metcalf]] of New Hampshire, [[Lot Morrill]] of Maine, and [[Alexander Randall]] of Wisconsin).</ref> or seats in the U.S. Senate.<ref> The senators included Bingham and Hamlin, as well as [[James R. Doolittle]] of Wisconsin, [[John P. Hale]] of New Hampshire, [[Preston King]] of New York, [[Lyman Trumbull]] of Illinois, and [[David Wilmot]] of Pennsylvania.</ref> Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party, but the amount of flow back and forth of prominent politicians between the two parties was quite high from 1854 to 1896.
====Ethnocultural voting====
Historians have explored the ethnocultural foundations of the party, along the line that ethnic and religious groups set the moral standards for their members, who then carried those standards into politics. The churches also provided social networks that politicians used to sign up voters. The pietistic churches, heavily influenced by the revivals of the [[Second Great Awakening]], emphasized the duty of the Christian to purge sin from society. Sin took many forms--alcoholism, polygamy and slavery became special targets for the Republicans. The Yankees, who dominated New England, much of upstate New York, and much of the upper Midwest were the strongest supporters of the new party. This was especially true for the pietistic Congregationalists and Presbyterians among them and (during the war), the Methodists, along with Scandinavian Lutherans. The Quakers were a small tight-knit group that was heavily Republican. The liturgical churches (Roman Catholic, Episcopal, German Lutheran), by contrast, largely rejected the moralism of the GOP; most of their adherents voted Democratic. <ref> Kleppner (1979) has extensive detail on the voting behavior of groups.</ref>

====Politics 1854-1860====
[[John C. Frémont]] ran as the first Republican nominee for [[President of the United States|President]] in 1856, using the [[political slogan]]: "[[United States Free Soil Party#Positions|Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men]], Frémont." Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party showed a strong base. It dominated in New England, New York and the northern Midwest, and had a strong presence in the rest of the North. It had almost no support in the South, where it was roundly denounced in 1856-60 as a divisive force that threatened civil war. The election of [[Abraham Lincoln]] in 1860 ended the domination of the fragile coalition of pro-slavery southern Democrats and conciliatory northern Democrats which had existed since the days of [[Andrew Jackson]]. Instead, a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial and agricultural north ensued. Republicans still often refer to their party as the "party of Lincoln" in honor of the first Republican President.
{{See also|Third Party System}}

====Civil War: 1861-1865====
Lincoln proved brilliantly successful in uniting the factions of his party to fight for the Union.<ref> Goodwyn 2005</ref> However he usually fought the [[Radical Republicans]] who demanded harsher measures. Most Democrats at first were [[War Democrats]], and supportive until the fall of 1862. When Lincoln added the abolition of slavery as a war goal, many war Democrats became "peace Democrats." All the state Republican parties accepted the antislavery goal except Kentucky. In Congress, the party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a national banking system, high tariffs, an income tax, many excise taxes, paper money issued without backing ("greenbacks"), a huge national debt, homestead laws, and aid to education and agriculture. The Republicans denounced the peace-oriented Democrats as [[Copperheads]] and won enough [[War Democrats]] to maintain their majority in 1862; in 1864, they formed a coalition with many War Democrats as the "National Union Party" which reelected Lincoln easily, then folded back into the Republican party. During the war, upper middle-class men in major cities formed [[Union League]]s, to promote and help finance the war effort.

====Reconstruction: Blacks, Carpetbaggers and Scalawags====
In [[Reconstruction]], how to deal with the ex-Confederates and the freed slaves, or [[Freedmen]], were the major issues. By 1864, [[Radical Republicans]] controlled Congress and demanded more aggressive action against slavery, and more vengeance toward the Confederates. Lincoln held them off, but just barely. Republicans at first welcomed President [[Andrew Johnson]]; the Radicals thought he was one of them and would take a hard line in punishing the South. Johnson however broke with them and formed a loose alliance with moderate Republicans and Democrats. The showdown came in the Congressional elections of 1866, in which the Radicals won a sweeping victory and took full control of Reconstruction, passing key laws over the veto. Johnson was impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate. With the election of [[Ulysses S. Grant]] in 1868, the Radicals had control of Congress, the party and the Army, and attempted to build a solid Republican base in the South using the votes of [[Freedmen]], [[Scalawags]] and [[Carpetbaggers]], supported directly by U.S. Army detachments. Republicans all across the South formed local clubs called [[Union League]]s that effectively mobilized the voters, discussed issues, and when necessary fought off [[Ku Klux Klan]] attacks. Thousands died on both sides.

Grant supported radical reconstruction programs in the South, the 14th Amendment, and equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen. Most of all he was the hero of the war veterans, who marched to his tune. The party had become so large that factionalism was inevitable; it was hastened by Grant's tolerance of high levels of corruption typified by the [[Whiskey Ring]]. The "[[Liberal Republican]]s" split off in 1872 on the grounds that it was time to declare the war finished and bring the troops home. Many of the founders of the GOP joined the movement, as did many powerful newspaper editors. They nominated [[Horace Greeley]], who gained unofficial Democratic support, but was defeated in a landslide. The depression of 1873 energized the Democrats. They won control of the House and formed "[[Redeemers|Redeemer]]" coalitions which recaptured control of each southern state, in some cases using threats and violence.

Reconstruction came to an end when the contested election of 1876 was awarded by a special [[Electoral Commission (United States)|electoral commission]] to Republican [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] who promised, through the unofficial [[Compromise of 1877]], to withdraw federal troops from control of the last three southern states. The region then became the [[Solid South]], giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats until 1964.

In terms of racial issues, "White Republicans as well as Democrats solicited black votes but reluctantly rewarded blacks with nominations for office only when necessary, even then reserving the more choice positions for whites. The results were predictable: these half-a-loaf gestures satisfied neither black nor white Republicans. The fatal weakness of the Republican party in Alabama, as elsewhere in the South, was its inability to create a biracial political party. And while in power even briefly, they failed to protect their members from Democratic terror. Alabama Republicans were forever on the defensive, verbally and physically." [Woolfolk p 134]

Social pressure eventually forced most [[Scalawags]] to join the conservative/Democratic Redeemer coalition. A minority persisted and formed the "tan" half of the "Black and Tan" Republican party, a minority in every southern state after 1877. (DeSantis 1998)

====Gilded Age: 1877-1894====
The "GOP" (as it was now nicknamed) split into factions in the late 1870s. The Stalwarts, followers of Senator Conkling, defended the spoils system. The Half-Breeds, who followed Senator [[James G. Blaine]] of Maine, pushed for [[Civil service reform]]. Independents who opposed the spoils system altogether were called "[[Mugwumps]]". In 1884 they rejected [[James G. Blaine]] as corrupt and helped elect Democrat [[Grover Cleveland]]; most returned to the party by 1888.

As the Northern post-bellum economy boomed with heavy and light industry, railroads, mines, and fast-growing cities, as well as prosperous agriculture, the Republicans took credit and promoted policies to keep the fast growth going. They supported big business generally, hard money (i.e. the [[gold standard]]), high [[tariff]]s, and high pensions for Union veterans. By 1890, however, the Republicans had agreed to the [[Sherman Anti-Trust Act]] and the [[Interstate Commerce Commission]] in response to complaints from owners of small businesses and farmers. The high [[McKinley Tariff]] of 1890 hurt the party and the Democrats swept to a landslide in the off-year elections, even defeating McKinley himself.
====Ethnocultural Voters: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats====

From 1860 to 1912, the Republicans took advantage of the association of the Democrats with "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion". Rum stood for the liquor interests and the tavern keepers, in contrast to the GOP, which had a strong dry element. "Romanism" meant Catholics, especially Irish Americans, who ran the Democratic party in every big city, and whom the Republicans denounced for political corruption. "Rebellion" stood for the Confederates who tried to break the Union in 1861, and the [[Copperheads]] in the North who sympathized with them.

Demographic trends aided the Democrats, as the German and Irish Catholic immigrants were Democrats, and outnumbered the English and Scandinavian Republicans. During the 1880s and 1890s, the Republicans struggled against the Democrats' efforts, winning several close elections and losing two to Grover Cleveland (in [[U.S. presidential election, 1884|1884]] and [[U.S. presidential election, 1892|1892]]).
Religious lines were sharply drawn [Kleppner 1979]. Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists in the North were tightly linked to the GOP. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic Protestants (Methodists, Scandinavian Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ) who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1932), serving as a major issue between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref> See Kleppner (1979)</ref>
===Fourth Party System: 1896-1932: The Progressive Era ===
The election of [[William McKinley]] in 1896 was a [[realigning election]] that changed the balance of power, and introduced new rules, new issues and new leaders. It did not, however, see the emergence of a new major party. The Republican sweep of the 1894 Congressional elections presaged the McKinley landslide of 1896, which was repeated in 1900, thus locking the GOP in full control of the national government and most northern state governments. The GOP made major gains as well in the border states. The [[Fourth Party System]] was dominated by Republican presidents, with the exception of the two terms of Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]], 1912-1920.

====McKinley and realignment====
McKinley promised that high tariffs would end the severe hardship caused by the [[Panic of 1893]], and that the GOP would guarantee a sort of pluralism in which all groups would benefit. He denounced [[William Jennings Bryan]], the Democratic nominee, as a dangerous radical whose plans for "Free Silver" at 16-1 (or [[Bimetallism]]) would bankrupt the economy.

McKinley relied heavily on industry and the middle classes for his support and cemented the Republicans as the party of business; his [[campaign manager]], Ohio's [[Mark Hanna]], developed a detailed plan for getting contributions from the business world, and McKinley outspent his rival [[William Jennings Bryan]] by a large margin. McKinley was the first president to promote [[pluralism]], arguing that prosperity would be shared by all ethnic and religious groups.

====Roosevelt and Progressivism====
[[Theodore Roosevelt]], who became president in 1901, had the most dynamic personality in the nation. Roosevelt had to contend with men like Senator [[Mark Hanna]], whom he outmaneuvered to gain control of the convention in 1904 that renominated him. More difficult to handle was conservative House Speaker [[Joseph Gurney Cannon]].

Roosevelt achieved modest legislative gains in terms of railroad legislation and pure food laws. He was more successful in Court, bringing antitrust suits that broke up the [[Northern Securities]] trust and [[Standard Oil]]. Roosevelt moved left in his last two years in office but was unable to pass major Square Deal proposals.

Roosevelt did succeed in naming his successor Secretary of War [[William Howard Taft]] who easily defeated Bryan again in 1908.

====Progressive insurgents vs. Conservatives====

The GOP was divided between insurgents and stand-patters (liberals and conservatives, to use 21st century terms). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] was an enormously popular president (1901-1909), and he transferred the office to [[William Howard Taft]]. Taft, however, did not have TR's enormous popularity nor his ability to bring rival factions together. When Taft sided with the standpatters under Speaker [[Joe Cannon]] and Senate leader [[Nelson Aldrich]], the insurgents revolted. Led by [[George Norris]] the insurgents took control of the House away from Cannon and imposed a new system whereby committee chairmanships depended on seniority (years of membership on the committee), rather than party loyalty.

The tariff issue was pulling the GOP apart. Roosevelt tried to postpone the issue but Taft had to meet it head on in 1909 with the [[Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act]]. Eastern conservatives led by [[Nelson A. Aldrich]] wanted high tariffs on manufactured goods (especially woolens), while Midwesterners called for low tariffs. Aldrich tricked them by lowering the tariff on farm products, which outraged the farmers. In a stunning comeback the Democrats won control of the House in 1910, as the GOP rift between insurgents and conservatives widened.

Roosevelt sided with the insurgents and, after long indecision, decided to run against Taft for the 1912 nomination. Roosevelt had to steamroll over insurgent Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] of Wisconsin, turning an ally into an enemy. Taft outmaneuvered Roosevelt and controlled the convention. Roosevelt walked out and formed a third party, the "Progressive" or "Bull Moose" party. Very few officeholders supported him, and the new party collapsed by 1914. With the GOP vote divided in half, Democrat [[Woodrow Wilson]] easily won the 1912 election, and was narrowly reelected in 1916.

====State and local politics====
The Republicans welcomed the [[Progressive Era]] at the state and local level. The first important reform mayor was [[Hazen S. Pingree]] of Detroit (1890-97) who was elected governor of Michigan in 1896. In New York City the Republicans joined nonpartisan reformers to battle [[Tammany Hall]], and elected Seth Low (1902-03). Samuel "Golden Rule" Jones was first elected mayor of Toledo as a Republican in 1897, but was reelected as an independent when his party refused to renominate him. In Iowa Senator Albert Cummins came up with the "Iowa Idea" that blamed the trust or monopoly problem on the high tariff, angering the eastern industrialists and factory workers. Many Republican civic leaders, following the example of [[Mark Hanna]], were active in the [[National Civic Federation]], which promoted urban reforms and sought to avoid wasteful strikes.

====Harding-Coolidge-Hoover, 1920-1932====
The party controlled the presidency throughout the 1920s, running on a platform of opposition to the League of Nations, high tariffs, and promotion of business interests. [[Warren G. Harding]], [[Calvin Coolidge]] and [[Herbert Hoover]] were resoundingly elected in the elections of 1920, 1924 and 1928 as the Democrats were deeply split on prohibition and religion. The breakaway efforts of Senator [[Robert LaFollette]] in 1924 failed to stop a landslide for Coolidge, and his movement fell apart. The [[Teapot Dome Scandal]] threatened to hurt the party but Harding died and Coolidge blamed everything on him, as the opposition splintered in 1924. The pro-business policies of the decade seemed to produce an unprecedented prosperity--until the Wall Street Crash of 1929 heralded the [[Great Depression]]. Although the party did very well in large cities and among ethnic Catholics in presidential elections of 1920-24, it was unable to hold those gains in 1928. By 1932 the cities--for the first time ever--had become Democratic strongholds.

The African American vote held for Hoover in 1932, but started moving toward Roosevelt. By 1940 the majority of northern blacks were voting Democratic. Southern blacks who could vote (in border states) were split; disenfranchised blacks in the South probably preferred the Republicans.

The [[Great Depression]] cost Hoover the presidency with the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|1932 landslide election]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]. Roosevelt's [[New Deal coalition]] controlled American politics for most of the next three decades, excepting the two-term presidency of Republican [[Dwight Eisenhower]].

==Fifth Party System: 1932-1980 ==
Minority parties tend to factionalize and after 1936 the GOP split into a conservative faction (dominant in the West and Southeast) and a liberal faction (dominant in the Northeast) – combined with a residual base of inherited progressive Republicanism active throughout the century. [[U.S. presidential election, 1936|In 1936]] Kansas governor [[Alf Landon]] and his young followers defeated the [[Herbert Hoover]] faction. Landon generally supported most New Deal programs, but carried only two states in the Roosevelt landslide.

Senator [[Robert Taft]] of Ohio represented the Midwestern wing of the party that continued to oppose [[New Deal]] reforms and continued to champion [[isolationism]]. [[Thomas Dewey]], governor of New York, represented the Northeastern wing of the party. Dewey did not reject the New Deal programs, but demanded more efficiency, more support for economic growth, and less corruption. He was more willing than Taft to support Britain in 1939-40. After the war the isolationists wing strenuously opposed the [[United Nations]], and was half-hearted in opposition to world Communism. Senator [[William F. Knowland]] of California, sobriquet ''Senator from Formosa'' (Taiwan).

[[Dwight Eisenhower]], an internationalist allied with the Dewey wing, challenged Taft in 1952 on foreign policy issues. The two men were not far apart on domestic issues. Eisenhower's victory broke a 20 year Democratic lock on the White House. Eisenhower did not try to roll back the New Deal, but he did expand the Social Security system and built the Interstate Highway system.

The conservatives in 1964 made a comeback under the leadership of [[Barry Goldwater]] who defeated [[Nelson Rockefeller]] as the Republican candidate in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1964|1964 presidential convention]]. Goldwater was strongly opposed to the New Deal and the United Nations, but he rejected isolationism and containment, calling for an aggressive anti-Communist foreign policy.

Any long-term movement toward the GOP was interrupted by the [[Watergate Scandal]], which forced Nixon to resign in 1974 under threat of impeachment. [[Gerald Ford]] succeeded Nixon and gave him a full pardon--thereby giving the Democrats a powerful issue they used to sweep the 1974 off-year elections. Ford never fully recovered, and in 1976 he barely defeated [[Ronald Reagan]] for the nomination. The taint of Watergate and the nation's economic difficulties contributed to the election of Democrat [[Jimmy Carter]] in [[U.S. presidential election, 1976|1976]], running as a Washington outsider.

====Strength of Parties 1977====
How the Two Parties Stood after the 1976 Election:

{| class=wikitable
! Party
! Republican
! Democratic
! Independent
|-
! Party ID (Gallup)
| 22%
| 47%
| 31%
|-
! Congressmen
| 181
| 354
|
|-
! House
| 143
| 292
|
|-
! Senate
| 38
| 62
|
|-
! % House popular vote nationally
| 42%
| 56%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the East
| 41%
| 57%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the South
| 37%
| 62%
| 2%
|-
| align=right | in the Midwest
| 47%
| 52%
| 1%
|-
| align=right | in the West
| 43%
| 55%
| 2%
|-
! Governors
| 12
| 37
| 1
|-
! rowspan=2 | State Legislators
| 2,370
| 5,128
| 55
|-
| 31%
| 68%
| 1%
|-
! State legislature control
| 18
| 80
| 1 *
|-
| align=right | in the East
| 5
| 13
| 0
|-
| align=right | in the South
| 0
| 32
| 0
|-
| align=right | in the Midwest
| 5
| 17
| 1 *
|-
| align=right | in the West
| 8
| 18
| 0
|-
! States' one party control of legislature and governorship
| 1
| 29
| 0
|-
|}
<nowiki>*</nowiki>The unicameral Nebraska legislature, in fact controlled by the Republicans, is technically nonpartisan.

Source: Everett Carll Ladd Jr. ''Where Have All the Voters Gone? The Fracturing of America's Political Parties'' (1978) p.6

====Moderate Republicans of 1940-80====
The term ''Rockefeller Republican'' was used 1960-80 to designate a faction of the party holding "moderate" views similar to those of the late [[Nelson Rockefeller]], [[governor of New York]] from 1959 to 1974 and vice president under President [[Gerald Ford]] in 1974-77. Before Rockefeller, [[Tom Dewey]], governor of New York 1942-54 and GOP presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948 was the leader. [[Dwight Eisenhower]] reflected many of their views. An important leader in the 1950s was Connecticut Republican Senator [[Prescott Bush]], father and grandfather of presidents of [[George H. W. Bush]] and [[George W. Bush]]. After Rockefeller left the national stage in 1976, this faction of the party was more often called "moderate Republicans," in contrast to the conservatives who rallied to [[Ronald Reagan]].
Historically, Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They favored New Deal programs, including regulation and welfare. They were very strong supporters of civil rights. They were strongly supported by big business on Wall Street (New York City). In fiscal policy they favored balanced budgets and relatively high tax levels to keep the budget balanced. They sought long-term economic growth through entrepreneurships, not tax cuts. In state politics, they were strong supporters of state colleges and universities, low tuition, and large research budgets. They favored infrastructure improvements, such as highway projects. In foreign policy they were internationalists, and anti-Communists. They felt the best way to counter Communism was sponsoring economic growth (through foreign aid), maintaining a strong military, and keeping close ties to [[NATO]]. Geographically their base was the Northeast, from Pennsylvania to Maine.

====Suburbia====
The suburban electorate passed the city electorate in the 1950s, as Eisenhower showed unusually strength there. The history of suburban politics is encapsulated in Nassau County (New York), just east of New York City, where a moderate Republican party machine operated. Despite predictions that the New Deal spelled the demise of the political machine, Nassau provided fertile ground for a party organization that rivaled its big city Democratic counterparts. The traditionally GOP county underwent a booming expansion during 1945-60, with an influx of new residents, many with previous Democratic party affiliations. In established villages and new housing developments such as [[Levittown]], under the canny leadership of J. Russel Sprague, the party used patronage and community organizing techniques to build its base among ethnic voters, young people, and new homeowners. The party expanded beyond its white Protestant base, with Italian Americans becoming particularly prominent in party leadership. Sprague was both party leader and county executive. That post was created in 1936 under a new charter engineered by Sprague to update a municipal apparatus unable to meet the infrastructure and development needs of a county that by 1960 had 1.3 million residents. Democrats and reformers had promoted charter revision for decades, and some consolidation of government services did take place. As county "boss," Sprague ruled with an iron hand. Nassau's pluralities for such candidates as Governor Thomas E. Dewey and President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Sprague's fundraising prowess made him a force in national party politics. He advocated a moderate, middle-of-the-road position that recognized expectations created by the New Deal while criticizing what were claimed to be Democratic excesses. After leaving elective office and party leadership, Sprague became a major campaign issue when the Democrats, in a 1961 historic upset, won the county executive post by both lambasting Sprague, tainted by a racetrack-stock scandal, and criticizing the developer-friendly "Spragueland" regime that had governed Nassau for decades. Soon after Sprague died in 1969, the Nassau GOP regained its control of the county government and reestablished virtual one-party rule until the 1990s.<ref> Marjorie Freeman Harrison, "Machine Politics Suburban Style: J. Russel Sprague and the Nassau County (New York) Republican Party at Midcentury." PhD dissertation Columbia U. 2005. 388 pp.
DAI 2005 66(5): 1925-A. DA3174807 </ref>

An even longer reign of power characterized GOP machine control of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, a rural and suburban area south of Philadelphia. William McClure controlled the GOP from 1875 until his death in 1907; his son John J. McClure, was in control from 1907 until his death in 1965. McLarnon (1998) has four main findings. First, political machines were not confined to big cities; the demographic and political peculiarities of suburban counties lent themselves to continued domination by political machines long after the heyday of the city machine had passed. Secondly, neither the New Deal, immigration restriction, nor the rise of organized labor destroyed all the old Republican machines. Delaware was one of several similar counties in southeastern Pennsylvania where the GOP continued to hold sway throughout the 20th century. Thirdly, not all blacks switched their electoral loyalties to the Democratic party in 1936. The black population of Chester, Delaware County's industrial city, generally voted Republican for offices below the presidential level. Finally, the citizens of Delaware County supported and continues to support the Republican machine because the machine delivered and continues to deliver those things that the citizens want most. At the beginning of the century, the machine provided food, work, and police protection to Chester's European and black immigrants. During Prohibition, it supplied the county with liquor. Through the Depression, patronage and close alliances with local industrialists kept a significant portion of machine loyalists employed. In the 1950s and 1960s the machine kept taxes low, initiated a war on organized vice, successfully defeated all threats to home rule, and discouraged blacks from settling in historically white communities. The trash was collected, the snow plowed, the streets repaired. The buses ran on time, the playgrounds and parks were clean, and the schools acceptably average. These were the most important concerns of a majority of county's citizens. While the citizens and their concerns changed over time, two things seem to have remained constant: the McClures', and their successors' ability to read and react to the needs of the electorate; and the fact that rarely, if ever, has a desire for honest, democratic government been high on Delaware County voters' list of priorities.<ref>John Morrison McLarnon, "Ruling Suburbia: A Biography of the McClure Machine of Delaware County, Pennsylvania." PhD dissertation U. of Delaware 1998. 616 pp. DAI 1998 58(12): 4780-A. DA9819160 </ref>

====Rise of the right====
[[Barry Goldwater]] crusaded against the Rockefeller Republicans, beating Rockefeller narrowly in the California primary of 1964. That set the stage for a conservative resurgence, based in the South and West, in opposition to the Northeast. Brennan (1995) stresses that conservatives in the late 1950s and early 1960s had many internal problems to overcome before they could mount an effective challenge to the hegemony of the distrusted Eastern Establishment, typified by [[Nelson A. Rockefeller]]. The conservative movement had some newspapers and magazines (especially [[William F. Buckley]]'s ''National Review'') and one charismatic national leader, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. The movement gained momentum once they had established a unity out of diverse elements on the Right with a common commitment to a militant anticommunism, and once they had succeeded in mobilizing a grassroots base inside a number of state and local organizations in the Sun Belt on behalf of a draft Goldwater campaign in 1960. Although Nixon was acceptable to the conservatives, they worried that he compromised with Rockefeller in 1960. His defeat in 1960 removed a major obstacle and also gave ammunition to those who wanted "a choice, not an echo" (to echo a Goldwater slogan). After 1960 liberals and moderates in the Republican party failed to appreciate the magnitude of the challenge they faced on the grass-roots level. They too readily equated their conservative opponents in the party with the "lunatic fringe" and did not take them seriously until they found themselves deposed by a grass roots insurgency of the sort unknown in the party since 1912.<ref> Brennan (1995) p, 59</ref> Goldwater's landslide defeat opened the way to a liberal Democratic resurgence, but did little to help the liberal wing of the GOP. The failures of the Great Society, especially a wave of major urban riots and a surge in violent crime, led to major gains in 1966, and to Nixon's election in the chaotic 1968 election. The Democrats became deeply divided on the Vietnam war (which did not divide the GOP), and on issues of race, when Alabamian [[George C. Wallace]] set up a third party that carried much of the deep South.

As Goldwater faded to a lesser role after 1964, a new conservative hero emerged: in the largest and most trendy state film star [[Ronald Reagan]] was elected governor of California in 1966 and reelected in 1970.

With the rise of conservatism the national Republican Party became more ideologically homogeneous. This change occurred as conservative politicians and voters joined the party and their liberal counterparts abandoned the GOP. Events in New York State during the 1960s and 1970s facilitated this transformation. Here, ideological conservatives formed a third party for the express purpose of changing a state GOP that both symbolized and contributed to the national GOP's liberal viewpoint. The [[Conservative Party, New York|Conservative Party]] relied on the state's unique election law to crash the New York GOP, either by forcing its way in or by imposing a lethal electoral price. The GOP-Conservative Party relationship began in 1962 at sword's point but achieved a high degree of harmony in 1980. Initially, New York Republicans, led by Governor [[Nelson Rockefeller]], successfully marginalized the new party. As the conservative movement matured, however, the balance of power began to shift. When Nixon was elected president in 1968, the Conservative Party gained an external ally who proved invaluable. The third party achieved partial acceptance in 1970 with the election of [[James Buckley]] to the Senate. For much of the ensuing decade, however, Conservatives struggled with success suffering a series of damaging setbacks. Only in the late 1970s, did the party recover when it embraced a more modest agenda. Finally, the 1980 election settled the overall contours of the relationship between the two parties. Conservatives formed their party to force the state GOP to the right, to drive liberal Republicans from office, and allow ideologically conservative national Republicans to succeed in the state. By 1980, it had achieved these goals changing the nature of politics in the state. This resolution affected politics beyond the state by diminishing the importance of ideological liberals in the national GOP, thus freeing a more ideologically consistent national Republican Party to promote the rise of conservatism.<ref> Timothy J. Sullivan, "Crashing the Party: The New York State Conservative and Republican Parties, 1962-1980." PhD dissertation U. of Maryland, College Park 2003. 458 pp. DAI 2004 64(11): 4181-A. DA3112508 </ref>

====Realignment: The South becomes Republican====
In the century after Reconstruction ended in 1877, the white South identified with the [[U.S. Democratic Party|Democratic Party]]. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the "Solid South." The Republicans controlled certain parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as the civil rights activists they denounced as "outside agitators." Thus there was a serious barrier to becoming a Republican.

However, since 1964, the Democratic lock on the South has been broken. The long-term cause was that the region was becoming more like the rest of the nation and could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization that brought factories, businesses, and cities, and millions of migrants from the North; far more people graduated from high school and college. Meanwhile the cotton and tobacco basis of the traditional South faded away, as former farmers moved to town or commuted to factory jobs.

The immediate cause of the political transition involved civil rights. The [[civil rights movement]] caused enormous controversy in the white South with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic party, but opposed segregation. After passage of the Civil Rights Act most Southerners accepted the integration of most institutions (except public schools). With the old barrier to becoming a Republican removed, traditional Southerners joined the new middle class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican party. Integration thus liberated Southern politics, just as [[Martin Luther King]] had promised. Meanwhile the newly enfranchised black voters supported Democratic candidates at the 85-90% level.

The South's transition to a Republican stronghold took decades. First the states started voting Republican in presidential elections--the Democrats countered that by nominating Southerners who could carry some states in the region, such as [[Jimmy Carter]] in 1976 and 1980, and [[Bill Clinton]] in 1992 and 1996; the strategy did not work with [[Al Gore]] in 2000, or [[John Edwards]] in 2004. Then the states began electing Republican senators to fill open seats caused by retirements, and finally governors and state legislatures changed sides. Georgia was the last state to fall, with [[Sonny Perdue]] taking the governorship in 2002. Republicans aided the process with systematic gerrymandering that protected the African American and Hispanic vote (as required by the Civil Rights laws), but split up the remaining white Democrats so that Republicans mostly would win. In 2006 the Supreme Court endorsed nearly all of the redistricting engineered by [[Tom DeLay]] that swung the Texas Congressional delegation to the GOP in 2004.

In addition to its white middle class base, Republicans attracted strong majorities from the evangelical Christian vote, which had been nonpolitical before 1980. The national Democratic Party's support for liberal social stances such as [[abortion]] drove many former Democrats into a Republican party that was embracing the conservative views on these issues. Conversely, liberal Republicans in the northeast began to join the Democratic Party. In 1969 in ''The Emerging Republican Majority'', [[Kevin Phillips]], argued that support from Southern whites and growth in the [[Sun Belt]], among other factors, was driving an enduring Republican electoral [[realigning election|realignment]]. Today, the South is again solid, but the reliable support is for Republican presidential candidates. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among whites, who comprised 71% of the Southern voters. Kerry had a 90-9% lead among the 18% of the voters who were black. One third of the Southerners said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20%.<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html exit polls]</ref>

===Reagan Era===

In 1980, [[Ronald Reagan]] won the Republican nomination and easily beat Carter and a breakaway Republican with his strong communication skills and message of economic freedom and strength against the [[Soviet Union]]. Reagan produced a major realignment with his 1980 and 1984 landslides. In 1980 the Reagan coalition was possible because of Democratic losses in most social-economic groups. In 1984 Reagan won nearly 60% of the popular vote and carried every state except his Democrat opponent Walter Mondale's home state of [[Minnesota]] and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible). Even in Minnesota, Mondale won by a mere 3,761 votes <ref>http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=1984&fips=27&f=1&off=0&elect=0</ref>, meaning Reagan came within less than 3,800 votes of winning in all fifty states.

Running on a "Peace Through Strength" platform to combat the Communist threat and massive tax cuts to revitalize the economy, Reagan's strong but genial persona proved too much for the ineffective and sour Carter in 1980. Reagan's election also gave Republicans control of the Senate for the first time in decades. Dubbed the "Reagan Revolution" he fundamentally altered several long standing debates in Washington, namely dealing with the Soviet threat and reviving the economy. His election saw the conservative wing of the party gain control. While reviled by liberal opponents in his day, his proponents contend his programs provided unprecedented economic growth, and spurred the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Currently regarded as one of the most popular and successful presidents in the modern era (1960-present), he inspired Conservatives to greater electoral victories by being re-elected in a landslide against Walter Mondale in 1984 but oversaw the loss of the Senate in 1986.

The so-called "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterwards, but who voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 (and for George H.W. Bush in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were primarily ethnic Catholics in the Northeast and were frustrated by their seeing abandonment on cultural issues by the Democratic party's national leaders.

Reagan's Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, a [[World War II]] war hero, was elected in 1988 but was defeated in 1992 as domestic issues took prominence after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and end of the [[Cold War]]. Democratic challenger [[Bill Clinton]] strategically repositioned the Democrats to the right. [[Ross Perot]]'s candidacy was instrumental in Clinton's victory as he took Republican votes with his criticism of deficits. Perot won 19% of the popular vote, and Clinton, still a largely unknown quantity in American politics with 41% of the popular vote took office. Despite his loss, George H.W. Bush left office in 1993 with a 56 percent job approval rating.

House Republican Minority Whip [[Newt Gingrich]]-led the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 and its famous ''Contract With America''. It was the first time since 1952 that the Republicans secured control of both houses of U.S. Congress, which, with the exception of the Senate during 2001-2002, lasted until the 2006 mid-term elections. Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress for the forty years preceding 1994, with the exception of the 1981-1987 Congresses (in which Republicans controlled the Senate).

In the 1994 mid-term election, Republican congressional candidates ran on a platform of promising floor votes to force members of Congress to go on record on a series of popular reforms -- something the Democrats had stifled for decades. These measures and others formed the Contract with America, which represented the first effort to have a party platform in a mid-term election. Seven of the ten Contract items actually became Law. The budget reforms, coupled with reduced defense spending after the Cold War, and the earlier Reagan Tax Cuts for Business Research and Development in the 1980s, led to a high tech consumer boom, rising incomes for all groups, and unprecedented, sustained economic growth in the late 1990s. Democratic President Bill Clinton opposed some of the social agenda initiatives but he co-opted the proposals for welfare reform and a balanced federal budget. The result was a major change in the welfare system, which conservatives hailed and liberals bemoaned. One Contract item, which required Democrats in a two-thirds majority to pass a Constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress, failed.

In 1995, a budget battle with [[President Clinton]] led to the brief shutdown of the federal government, an event which contributed to Clinton's victory in the 1996 election. That year the Republicans nominated Bob Dole, who was unable to transfer his success in Senate leadership to a viable presidential campaign. Ross Perot ran again (this time on Reform Party ticket), once again draining away a large percentage of Dole's support and insuring Clinton another term after the majority of Americans voters voted against him.

With the election of George W. Bush (son of former president George H. W. Bush) in an extremely close 2000 election, the Republican party controlled both the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. However, after [[Vermont]] senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an independent aligned with the Democrats in June of 2001, Republicans lost control of the Senate by a single seat.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, however, Bush pursued a "War on Terrorism" that included the liberation of Afghanistan from the radical Islamist Taliban regime and the [[Patriot act|USA PATRIOT act]]. By early 2002, the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan. On March 20, 2003, U.S. and allied nations initiated "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to liberate the Iraqi people from the brutal regime of [[Saddam Hussein]]. By May 1, 2003, the regime of Saddam was declared officially over. Once US and allied military forces entered Iraq, they discovered that various international terrorists had been given sanctuary by Saddam and ran their terrorist operations from Iraq. Notable terrorists found included Muhammad Zaidan aka Abu Abbas and Sabri Khalil al-Banna aka Abu Nidal.

The Republican Party fared well in the 2002 midterm elections, solidifying its hold on the House and regaining control of the Senate, in the run-up to the liberation of Iraq. This marked just the third time since the Civil War that the party in control of the White House gained seats in both houses of Congress in a midterm election (others were 1902 and 1934).

Bush was renominated without opposition for the [[United States presidential election, 2004]] and titled his political platform "A Safer World and a More Hopeful America". It expressed Bush's commitment to winning the War on Terror, ushering in an Ownership Era, and building an innovative economy to compete in the world.

On November 2, 2004, Bush was re-elected, while Republicans gained seats in both houses of Congress, leaving Democrats in disarray. Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. In that election, he also received more popular votes than any previous presidential candidate, 62.0 million votes. Democrat challenger, Senator [[John Kerry]], won 251 Electoral votes and 48% of the popular vote to Bush's 51%. It was the first time anyone won a popular majority since 1988. 2004 marked the seventh consecutive election in which the Democratic nominee failed to reach that threshold.

== Contemporary Party ==

The contemporary Republican Party represents a wide array of interests such as the conservative evangelicals and the economic libertarians. The party has had some internal conflict over attitudes about how governments should run and how large they should be, what the party stands for, and what the party's attitude towards [[neo-conservatism]] should be especially in regard to foreign policy. The party is also divided over immigration issues with some members (such as George W. Bush) favoring workers visas and permits and some other members favoring strict control of immigration and strong action against illegal immigration. Unlike the Democratic party, the Republican party routinely allows dissenting factions such as the [[Log Cabin Republicans]] to speak at National Conventions.
==2009==
After smashing defeats in 2006 and 2008, the GOP lost control of Congress, the White House, and many states. They confront president who still retains some popularity, but have been able to chip away at support for his domestic policies, as the [[recession of 2008]] continues to drag on. In June 2009 public opinion was favorable toward Obama personally, but increasingly dubious about his plans to overhaul health care, rescue the auto industry and close the prison at Guantánamo Bay. But with a positive job approval rating of 51% , Obama has the backing of most Democrats, even as Republicans turn negative, with only 23% supporting him. Support for Obama's foreign policies and terrorism policies remains high at 57-59%. Meanwhile the GOP weaknesses were glaring: the June poll found that the Republican Party is viewed favorably by only 28% of Americans, the lowest rating ever in a New York Times/CBS News poll. In contrast, 57% said that they had a favorable view of the Democratic Party.<ref> [Jeff Zeleny and Dalia Sussman, "Obama Poll Sees Doubt on Budget and Health Care [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us/politics/18poll.html?th&emc=th ''New York Times'' June 17, 2009]</ref> However, it should be noted that this poll was conducted by the [[mainstream media]] and thus is a clear example of [[liberal bias]].

== GOP (Frisbee team) ==

The term GOP may also refer to one of the frisbee teams of Carleton College, located in Northfield, MN.[https://apps.carleton.edu/campus/rec/club/?item_id=43089]

==Presidents from the party==
# [[Abraham Lincoln]] (1861-1865)
# [[Ulysses S. Grant]] (1869-1877)
# [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] (1877-1881)
# [[James Garfield]] (1881)
# [[Chester A. Arthur]] (1881-1885)
# [[Benjamin Harrison]] (1889-1893)
# [[William McKinley]] (1897-1901)
# [[Theodore Roosevelt]] (1901-1909)
# [[William Howard Taft]] (1909-1913)
# [[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)
# [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)
# [[Herbert Hoover]] (1929-1933)
# [[Dwight Eisenhower]] (1953-1961)
# [[Richard Nixon]] (1969-1974)
# [[Gerald Ford]] (1974-1977)
# [[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)
# [[George H. W. Bush]] (1989-1993)
# [[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009)

==Notable Republicans (Non-presidential)==
*[[James G. Blaine]] (1830 - 1893): Senator from [[Maine]], presidential nominee
*[[Joseph Gurney Cannon]] (1836 - 1926): [[Speaker of the United States House of Representatives]]
*[[Charles Curtis]] (1860 - 1936): United States [[Vice President]], a Native American
*[[Charles G. Dawes]] (1865 - 1951): United States Vice President
*[[Tom Dewey]] (1902 - 1971): Governor of [[New York]]; presidential nominee in 1944 and 1948
*[[John C. Frémont]] (1813 - 1890): First Republican candidate for president
*[[Mark Hanna]] (1837 - 1904): Senator from [[Ohio]], manager of 1896 campaign
*[[George Frisbie Hoar]] (1826 - 1904): Senator from [[Massachusetts]]
*[[Charles Evans Hughes]]: Governor of New York; presidential nominee in 1916, United States Secretary of State, [[Chief Justice of the United States]]
*[[William Fife Knowland]] (1908 - 1974), Senator from [[California]], Senate Majority Leader from 1953-1955, Senate Minority Leader from 1955-1959
*[[Henry Cabot Lodge]] (1850 - 1924): Senator from [[Massachusetts]], foreign policy spokesman
*[[Joseph McCarthy]] (1908 - 1957): Senator from [[Wisconsin]] and noted anti-communist
*[[Thomas Brackett Reed]] (1839 - 1902): Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
*[[Nelson Rockefeller]] (1908 - 1979): Vice President, Governor of New York, leader of liberals
*[[Thaddeus Stevens]] (1792 - 1868): Senator from [[Pennsylvania]], leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction
*[[Charles Sumner]] (1811 - 1874): Senator from Massachusetts, leader of Radicals in Civil War and Reconstruction
*[[Henry Stimson]]: Secretary of War for Taft and FDR, Secretary of State for Hoover
*[[Robert Taft]] (1889 - 1953): Senator from Ohio and presidential hopeful, leader of conservatives
*[[Strom Thurmond]] (1902 - 2003): the oldest serving senator in history (from [[South Carolina]])
*[[Arthur H. Vandenberg]] (1884 - 1951): Senator from Michigan, leader of internationalism in 1940s
*[[Earl Warren]] (1891 - 1974): Vice presidential nominee, [[Governor of California]], and [[Chief Justice of the United States]]
*[[John McCain]]: Senator from [[Arizona]], presidential nominee in 2008
*[[Sarah Palin]]: Governor of [[Alaska]], vice-presidential nominee in 2008
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]: Governor of [[California]]
*[[Jesse Helms]] (1921 - 2008): Senator from North Carolina

==See Also==
*[[RINO]] - '''R'''epublicans '''i'''n '''N'''ame '''O'''nly
*[[Previous Breaking News/Republicans|Articles about '''Republicans''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Bibliography==
===Historical===
*''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online at many academic libraries.
* Abramson, Paul R. et al. ''Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006 Elections'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Change-Continuity-2004-2006-Elections/dp/0872894150/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785751&sr=8-10 excerpt and text search]
* Batchelor, John Calvin. ''"Ain't You Glad You Joined the Republicans?" A Short History of the GOP.'' 1996. 399 pp. well-written popular history, well illustrated
* Chace, James. ''1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft, and Debs - The Election That Changed the Country.'' (2004). 323 pp.
* ''Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections'' (4th ed 2003) 1600pp, vast compilation of data, esp., since 1945
* Foner, Eric. ''Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (1970), influential history of ideas and ideology; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=90104191 online edition]
*Gienapp, William E. ''The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852-1856'' (1987), quantitative voting studies, by state
* Goldberg, Robert Alan. ''Barry Goldwater'' (1995),
*Gould, Lewis. ''Grand Old Party: A History of the Republicans'' (2003), the best scholarly overview.
* Hodgson, Godfrey. ''The World Turned Right Side Up: A History of the Conservative Ascendancy in America'' (1996). by British journalist
*Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15326916 online edition]
*Jensen, Richard. ''The Winning of the Midwest: Social and Political Conflict, 1888-1896'' (1971)
*Kleppner, Paul, et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), applies party systems model
*Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
*Marcus, Robert. ''Grand Old Party: Political Structure in the Gilded Age, 1880-1896'' 1971.
*Morgan, H. Wayne. ''From Hayes to McKinley; National Party Politics, 1877-1896'' (1969) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=94446383 online edition], good survey of era
*Mayer, George H. ''The Republican Party, 1854-1966.'' 2nd ed. (1967), narrative.
*Parmet, Herbert S. ''Eisenhower and the American Crusades'' (1972) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14967951 online edition]
* Patterson, James T. ''Mr. Republican: A Biography of Robert A. Taft'' (1972)
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2002) well written, broad account of 1964
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008), 896pp; covers 1965 to 1972
* Reinhard, David W. ''The Republican Right since 1945'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=91954887 online edition]
*Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Republicans: From Lincoln to Bush'' (1996) popular narrative
*Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period: [http://www.amazon.com/Contesting-Democracy-Substance-Structure-Political/dp/0700611398/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221785707&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
**includes: "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
*Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes good scholarly history and selection of primary document. Essays on the most important election are reprinted in Schlesinger, ''The Coming to Power: Critical presidential elections in American history'' (1972)
* Smith, Richard Norton. An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover, (1987) full-length scholarly biography.
*Summers, Mark Wahlgren. ''Rum, Romanism & Rebellion: The Making of a President, 1884'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104865169 online edition]
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition]
* Thelen, David. ''Robert M. La Follette and the Insurgent Spirit'' 1976. short interpretive biography
===Since 1980===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all incumbent Congressmen and governors with amazing detail. New edition published every two years since 1975.
* Aistrup, Joseph A. ''The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South'' (1996)
* Black, Earl and Black, Merle. ''The Rise of Southern Republicans.'' (2002). 442 pp.
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime'' (2000), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007), by a leading conservative historian
* Edwards, Lee. ''The Conservative Revolution: The Movement That Remade America.'' (1999). 391 pp. by a conservative
*Ehrman, John, ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan'' (2005) by a conservative historian
* Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal attack [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/B000FTWB3K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072365&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Green, John Robert. ''The Presidency of George Bush.'' (2000). 1989-1993
* Lamis, Alexander P. ed. ''Southern Politics in the 1990s'' (1999)
* Layman, Geoffrey. ''The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party Politics.'' (2001). 435pp.
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' Greenwood Press, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Lublin, David. ''The Republican South: Democratization and Partisan Change.'' Princeton U. Press, 2004. 272 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Republican-South-Democratization-Partisan-Change/dp/0691130477/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072384&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) favorable biography by historian; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by conservative historian
* Rymph, Catherine. ''Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism from Suffrage through the Rise of the New Right.'' U. of North Carolina Press, 2006. 338 pp.
* Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (2007), in-depth essays by scholars
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001).
* Schaller, Michael and Rising, George. ''The Republican Ascendancy: American Politics, 1968-2001.'' Harlan Davidson, 2002. 210 pp. Short survey by liberal scholars
* Steely, Mel. ''The Gentleman from Georgia: The Biography of Newt Gingrich.'' Mercer U. Press, 2000. 431 pp.
* Taylor, Andrew J. ''Elephant's Edge: The Republicans as a Ruling Party.'' 2005. 336 pp. academic study of how GOP turned small advantages into power [http://www.amazon.com/Elephants-Edge-Republicans-Ruling-Party/dp/0275985369/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072452&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008) by a liberal historian. [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-History-1974-2008/dp/0060744804/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221786281&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Wooldridge, Adrian and John Micklethwait. ''The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America'' sophisticated study by two British journalists (2004). [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198072420&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]

====Notes====
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.gop.com/ Official GOP Site]
*[http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf 2008 Republican Platform (pdf download)]
*[http://nyyrcrecord.blogspot.com/ New York Young Republican Record]
*[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan.pdf The RSC’s Action Plan for House Republicans], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008
*[http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/rsc_action_plan_(broad).pdf A Detailed Action Plan For House Republicans: Bold, Simple, and Different than the Democrats], Republican Study Committee, May 20, 2008
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/republicans/ What Liberals Say - Category: Republicans], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Modernization]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

User:CWest

2012-06-05T18:45:14Z

CWest: Created page with "created page"

created page