Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:ChrisBaker

2015-09-12T23:05:42Z

ChrisBaker:

{{Useful links}}

==My Growing List of Web Services with Liberal Bias==
:1. [[Mozilla Firefox]], of course, for their support of the [[gay agenda]], and for repeatedly raising false security flags since I began visiting [[Conservapedia]] in an attempt to punish me for using free thought.
:2. [[Avast! Antivirus]], for behavior similar to that described above, and for attempting to dissuade users from [[Conservapedia]] by insinuating it to be unsafe, but promoting [[Wikipedia]] as safe regardless.
:3. [[Nationstates]] for its anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[conservative]] slant.
:4. [[Wikipedia]], of course: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

User:ChrisBaker

2015-09-11T22:48:49Z

ChrisBaker:

User:ChrisBaker

2015-09-11T22:48:26Z

ChrisBaker:

{{Useful links}}

==My Growing List of Web Services with Liberal Bias==
:1. [[Mozilla Firefox]], of course, for their support of the [[gay agenda]], and for repeatedly raising false security flags since I began visiting [[Conservapedia]] in an attempt to punish me for using free thought.
:2. [[Avast! Antivirus]], for behavior similar to that described above, and for attempting to dissuade users from [[Conservapedia]] by insinuating it to be unsafe, but promoting [[Wikipedia]] as safe regardless.
:3. [[Nationstates.net]] for its anti-[[Christian]] and anti-[[conservative]] slant.

User:ChrisBaker

2015-06-24T16:45:35Z

ChrisBaker:

United States Presidential Election, 2008

2015-06-21T22:41:10Z

ChrisBaker: /* Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate */

[[Image:Gp_ppl_obama_mccain_flag-capitol.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Barack Obama and John McCain]]
[[Image:2008 US Electoral College Polling Map.png|right|300px|thumb|Election Results]]
The '''2008 United States Presidential Election''' took place on Tuesday, November 4, 2008,<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> with Barack Obama being voted in as the next President of the United States. [[Barack Obama|Senator Barack Obama]] of [[Illinois]], the [[Democratic Party]] nominee, with Senator [[Joe Biden]] of [[Delaware]] as his Vice Presidential running mate defeated Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]], the Republican candidate, and his Vice Presidential nominee, [[Alaska]] Governor [[Sarah Palin]].

==Differences between 2008 and other elections==
In 2008, [[CNN]]-[[YouTube]] held the first debate in which the questions asked of the nominees in each party came primarily from YouTube viewer submitted videos. The debates received high ratings, however, CNN was criticized for not picking questions that were 'tough' or pertinent enough. One such example was during the Democratic Debate, when CNN chose to ask a question from a snow man, talking about [[global warming]]. During the Republican debate, some claimed that many of the questions were from Democratic supporters just meant to embarrass the Republican candidates. For example, a question over whether or not homosexuals should serve in the U.S. military was asked by retired general and gay activist Keith Kerr, an adviser to [[Hillary Clinton]]'s campaign.

The internet has also played a major role in the election, with then-Republican presidential candidate [[Ron Paul]] and Democratic candidate Barack Obama being very active on the internet.

===Young voters===

In 2004, 64% of voters aged 18-29 were registered to vote. This year 75% of voters in that age group are registered. This demographic usually favors Democrats.

== Fewer Uncommitted ==

Fewer people were undecided this election than in most previous elections. As of the beginning of October, 2008 approximately 6-8% of poll respondents were undecided, an amount that continued to decline as the election drew closer.

== Election Day ==
The turnout was about normal, except for higher than usual rates among blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and voters under 30--all Obama groups. The turnout of evangelicals and whites was similar to 2004. There have been allegations of Democrats driving voters around to different voting stations, and as these are Obama groups, this would strengthen the voter turnout of this demographic.

==Opinion polling==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Polling Outfit
! Date
! Sample*
! Obama (D)
! McCain (R)
|-
|[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll Rasmussen Tracking]
| 11/01 - 11/03
| 3000 LV
| '''52'''
| 46

|-
|[http://www.zogby.com/index.cfm Zogby Tracking]
| 11/01 - 11/03
| 1200 LV
| '''54'''
| 43
|-
|-
|[http://www.gallup.com/poll/111661/Gallup-Daily-Obama-52-McCain-42-Among-Likely-Voters.aspx Gallup Tracking Traditional]
| 10/31 - 11/02
| 2516 LV
| '''53'''
| 42
|-
|-
|[http://www.gallup.com/poll/111661/Gallup-Daily-Obama-52-McCain-42-Among-Likely-Voters.aspx Gallup Tracking Expanded]
| 10/31 - 11/02
| 2480 LV
| '''53'''
| 42
|-
|}

*RV refers to registered voters, LV refers to likely voters.

== McCain vs. Obama ==
McCain had the early edge, wrapping up the Republican nomination before Obama was known to be the choice of the Democrats, but this was one of the few advantages he has had. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama raised far more money than McCain, and the Democratic primary saw a surge of new voters coming out leading to a large increase in the rolls of Democrats. From the historical position of a generally equal number of Republicans and Democrats, the numbers have now tilted 41% Democrat to only 32% Republican. From the time that Obama was declared the nominee, opinion polling showed him with a modest advantage over McCain in terms of who the voters would choose to be their next President.

Obama's strategy was to tie McCain to George Bush, a very unpopular President, even though McCain was not a part of the Bush administration and often clashed with Bush during his time as senator. McCain, for his part, had to walk a fine line with accepting praise from the President to woo conservatives, while at the same time keeping enough distance so as to not alienate moderates. When possible, McCain went after Obama's lack of foreign policy experience.

The trends heavily favored the Democrats, especially after their major gains in 2006. Overall, Democrat candidates have a +10% advantage over Republicans in a 'generic' election - the current unpopular President is a Republican, and the economy is treading water. Also, based on statistical percentages of articles on each candidate, Obama was being focused on by the press far more than McCain. When McCain chastised Obama for his lack of foreign policy experience and that he hadn't been to Iraq or Afghanistan in years, Obama's campaign set up for him to take a trip to both countries. While this is expected in politics, the decision of every major network to send a team of reporters to follow him was unprecedented. Obama spoke to 200,000 people in Berlin in a highly covered speech. McCain spoke to 50,000 in Buffalo shortly thereafter and barely got a whisper. Obama's numbers started to rise, but a good deal of the populace was noticing the disparity as 48% of those polled felt the press was trying to help Obama win.

Obama seemed pleased to coast on his advantages, but McCain realized he needed to shake things up. He scored by pushing offshore drilling for oil during a time when oil prices were climbing almost daily. Obama rejected the idea, but the poll numbers started to show a greater percentage of Americans warming to the concept<ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/61_say_congress_should_vote_on_offshore_drilling_right_now Offshore Drilling poll]</ref> and McCain's numbers started to improve. Obama announced he would accept some measure of offshore drilling, and McCain's momentum was halted and his gains retreated by a couple of points. McCain started an ad campaign that acknowledged Obama's celebrity status, but asking what it meant. A few days later at the start of August he called out Obama for 'playing the race card' when Obama made a reference to McCain and Bush trying to scare people because he (Obama) doesn't look like other Presidents on dollar bills. The Democrats fired back, but quickly let the issue drop when poll numbers showed that most voters did consider Obama's statement to be racist.<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/only_22_say_mccain_ad_racist_but_over_half_53_see_obama_dollar_bill_comment_that_way</ref>. The bounce for Obama after the Berlin speech shrank back to pre-trip levels. While Obama continued to enjoy a slight lead in the polls, McCain continued to keep the race close without either candidate breaking away.

In mid-August, both candidates came together at the invitation of Pastor [[Rick Warren]] where each was asked a series of the same questions dealing both with political and personal views. While not a debate, it was the first televised forum where both candidates had a chance to express themselves and their positions. Obama hoped to appeal to Christian conservatives by expressing a religious side while McCain hoped to solidify the conservative base by sharing his own conservative and religious credentials. The difference in style between the two was evident as Obama spent more time explaining and expounding on his positions while McCain was more straight-forward and received more laughs with his candid speaking style. The polling numbers continued as they had been.

There was a bounce at the start of the Democratic convention, but not what was expected as McCain suddenly drew even in the race. The friction between Hillary Clinton and Obama as well as the perceived slight of Hillary when Biden was chosen as the Vice Presidential candidate hurt Obama at a time when his approval was expected to climb. McCain then made a mistake by airing an ad of Hillary Clinton that 'supported' him. Clinton was set to speak at the convention and it was no secret that there was bad blood between her and Obama and it was widely believed that her support for Obama would be lukewarm at best. Instead, apparently galvanized by McCain's hubris before her speech, she came out strongly for Obama and rallied those who supported her. Obama's pre-convention edge returned. Obama followed it up with a very strong speech the next day in a huge stadium with fireworks and a Greek temple. [[Dick Morris]], a former Bill Clinton political strategist who gave advice to the Republicans in 2008, felt that Obama had done such a good job reaching out to the groups that he needed that he would pull ahead by double-digits. In order to suppress the bounce from the convention, McCain announced his Vice Presidential candidate the next day, a woman, Alaskan governor [[Sarah Palin]]. The bounce for Obama was muted at first, but increased in the following days to surpass pre-convention levels, especially as Sarah Palin came under heavy attack in the media.

The edge continued as the Republican convention began. Losing a day to the hurricane, their shortened convention came out strong as well, emphasizing John McCain as a patriot and a maverick for change who is tested and will do what is right for the country regardless of political affiliation. It was notable for the secondary role that the sitting President played, talking only briefly and barely being mentioned after that. The convention tied McCain to [[Ronald Reagan]], a popular Republican President who was able to gain the support of a good number of conservative Democrats, an ability that McCain would badly need to emulate. While the convention had very high ratings starting with Palin's well received speech, it was unclear what the impact would be in the polls. Indeed Obama continued to lead directly afterward, but that soon changed with a turn of about 8 points and a slim lead for McCain. The Republican convention had actually more than balanced out the powerful Democratic convention.

While Obama had stated that his campaign would avoid negative advertising, as it became clear that the bounce from the convention was continuing to last and he might lose the election, his campaign turned more forcefully to negative advertising. In ads aired since the Republican convention through mid September, McCain's ads were about Obama 56% of the time, but Obama's ads were about his opponents 77% of the time.<ref>http://news.aol.com/article/campaign-ads-not-getting-much-air-time/142625</ref> Obama also received a large boost from the press which vigorously attacked McCain, but even more so Palin. Obama appeared on ''[[O'Reilly Factor|The O'Reilly Factor]]'' and was treated with civility and respect, even if not with agreement. McCain and his wife appeared on ''The View'' and were treated to openly antagonistic attacks. The constant negative barrage and reporting slowly moved the numbers back to even.

As the negative articles on Palin continued to intensify, some of which just quoted celebrities who had never met her calling her "whacko" or a "hater of women", her first major interview with Gibson was a turning point. Gibson asked Palin about the Bush Doctrine, but wouldn't define it for her even as she asked questions for clarifications. When she then answered with her understanding, Gibson rebuked her by implying that she misunderstood the doctrine. In truth, since the term is only a press invention, it has taken on different meanings at different times and the definition that Palin gave matched one that Gibson himself had used years earlier. Nevertheless, it was a moment and was jumped on by the press. Those who saw the interview voted heavily that they were now less likely to vote for Palin. The attack on her had muted her effectiveness, even if it was unjustified.

Stemming the tide of the McCain campaign's lead became a strong swing for Obama with a series of events that went to the Democratic nominee's favor. The polls began to tack to Obama's favor with the collapse of Lehman Brothers and a subsequent 500-point drop in the Dow Jones Index. Then, President Bush sounded a major alarm on the economy and proposed a huge 700 billion dollar rescue plan for the mortgage industry, which sent shock waves through the American populace and swept them with even more fear on the economic picture. Bush called both Presidential nominees to meet with him and Congress. It gave Obama a boost in legitimacy, his previous Achilles' heel. While he had a weak record in accomplishments and showing leadership, the chance to be propelled to a position of prominence handed it to him on a silver platter. Moreover, the plan was more problematic among Republicans than it was among Democrats, giving Obama another boost merely by supporting it while putting McCain on more shaky ground. Both candidates supported it once again blurring McCain's advantage in experience if both men were seen as interchangeable in their reaction.

McCain chose to suspend his campaign until a deal on the rescue package was reached, a mistake. The Democrats could add pork to the plan and make it even more unpalatable to the Republicans, and they did. As the first debate loomed and no deal had been reached, McCain was in a quandary. He chose to attend the debate under the view that the plan was well under way to being passed. After the debate the plan was actually defeated and wouldn't be adopted, with more changes, until the following week.

McCain's debate with Obama went well and he was viewed as having done better than expected. Unfortunately for him, Obama was also viewed as doing better than expected and was seen as looking Presidential, further cementing his standing and locking in a lead in the polls that had become rather substantial. The Vice Presidential debate was the most watched in history and Palin was given high marks for her performance, but unfortunately for the Republican ticket, Biden was also on his game that night and also came across well. There were no changes in the polling numbers and the number of undecided voters began to quickly dwindle. The second and third debates caused little change as well.

With Obama spending 110 million dollars on TV advertising in October alone, including 30 minute specials on each of the major networks, McCain was hard pressed to make up the necessary ground to win the election after being outspent by 3 to 1 for TV adds over that time period. He couldn't count on regular TV to help put in a good word for him either, as late night political jokes are running at a pace of 7 jokes against McCain/Palin for every 1 joke against Obama/Biden and a study of news stories on McCain and Obama since the end of the conventions found that 57% of news stories about McCain were negative while only 29% were for Obama.<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/study-shows-mccain-media-coverage-negative/</ref> A later study by the independent Pew Research Center found that the discrepancy had grown even worse. McCain had 57% of the articles about him negative while only 14% were positive, while Obama had more positive articles than negative. The only network to achieve a balance, 40% negative for both, was [[Fox News]].<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,445846,00.html</ref>

== General Strategy ==

McCain's team emphasized to convince the electorate of the long-term leadership and experience that John McCain has shown in two decades of government service while emphasizing the relative untested nature of Barack Obama.

Obama's team stressed that Obama is the candidate of fresh ideas while downplaying his relative inexperience compared to the more seasoned McCain. When possible, McCain is lumped together with George Bush, an unpopular President.

===Republican Strategy===
With more limited funding than his Democratic rival, McCain had favored open town hall meetings to attract the greatest number of people. He is focusing his advertising on swing states. He also asked for open debates with Obama of the Lincoln-Douglas variety where candidates can talk directly to each other, but this was not accepted by the Democratic camp which prefers the current structured format.

McCain will highlight his record of leadership, his service to his country and stress that as President he can be counted on to keep America safe from outside threats. McCain's strongest supporters are the elderly - the group that most wants stability.

McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential nominee was a departure from what was expected and helped to show that he would go down paths that the Republican party had not done in the past. McCain has touted Palin's record of standing up to the Alaska Republican party when she resigned from an Ethics Commission in protest over a lack of ethics of fellow commissioners, as well as when she ran against, and beat, then-incumbent Governor [[Frank Murkowski]] in the Republican primary in 2006. McCain will continue to tout her as a "maverick" to complement his own maverick image that he is trying to emphasize. Last, by choosing a female running mate, McCain hoped to pick up the votes of female voters disaffected with the perceived slight of Hillary Clinton by Obama. Prior to the start of the Democratic convention, 30% of Hillary's supporters had still not backed Obama and there was a good deal of bad blood between the two.

With the unfolding of the campaign season and watching the Democratic strategy and how it was playing out in the press and polls, the McCain campaign decided not to cede the moniker of change to Obama, but rather to take it upon themselves by emphasizing that McCain has a track record of change - while Obama does not. The McCain campaign feels it needs to have the voters ask who can be trusted more to get the job done, and if that occurs, then they have the advantage.

With the selection of Palin, and the energy it has brought to the conservative base, McCain has taken to larger rallies, as opposed to town hall meetings and press conferences. By mid-September, he had gone four weeks without a town hall, and three weeks without a press conference, instead sticking to larger engagements, appearing alongside his vice presidential nominee, with larger crowds than he had experienced earlier in his campaign.

===Democratic Strategy===
Democrats are confident that the low popularity of President Bush and particularly [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], which John McCain supports, puts them in a highly favorable position for 2008. They have been cautious in the Iraq arena realizing that 'The Surge' worked and they were on the wrong end of that issue. Focus is being put on a timeline for troops coming home, a position that most of the American population favors.

Democrats believe it is their race to lose, but also realize they had a good chance to win the last two Presidential elections and came up short each time. General wisdom also states that a poor economy favors Obama, so they will emphasize the dire times in this area. As in past elections, differences between those who have obtained a high income level and those who have not will be emphasized. In fact, the Democratic strategy in many ways mirrors that of their strategy in 1992 when the Democrat-controlled Congress deliberately caused economic disruption, knowing full well that the public would blame sitting president [[George H.W. Bush]], and thereby allowing [[Bill Clinton]] to win that year's presidential race.

Favored by the young, Democrats will try hard to encourage and get out the young vote, a task that has proven more difficult than expected in the last two election cycles. To their advantage, Obama made his vice presidential pick via text message to cell phone numbers registered on the site. The announcement went to 3 million cell phones, a useful database for "Get Out The Vote" (GOTV) efforts, when voters may not be home or reachable on their [[landline]].

As an extension of the DNC's strategy in the 2006 elections, led by [[Howard Dean]], Barack Obama has been working towards a "50-state strategy." The campaign is working to place campaign offices throughout the country with a focus on voter registration. The increase in the rolls of Democratic voters from the primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Obama played out well for the Democrats and puts pressure on Senator McCain even in typically red states, and more specifically, "Lean Republican" states, to use the Cook Political Report's term. In addition, with a fundraising advantage, Obama is airing ads in those tight states forcing McCain to make decisions about whether to use funds to match ads and campaign efforts in those states or rely on historical results that those states will support him and focus funds in traditional toss-up states instead.

==Fundraising==

Barack Obama had a significant edge over Hillary Clinton in the fundraising department during their contest for the Democratic nomination, but both actually set records for raising money and both raised far more money than John McCain. McCain didn’t have to spend as much since he locked up the Republican nomination much earlier than Obama locked up the Democratic. Both Obama and McCain said they would accept government funds--which would also cap how much the candidates could raise on their own--but Obama, who could presumably raise more through his own sources, changed his mind and later declined. Much of McCain’s war chest will come from the Republican Party in general, which has more money to spend than their Democratic counterparts. McCain’s campaign raised $47 million in August, a very sizable figure for him so far and a personal record, but not as strong as Obama’s best months. In the same time period, Obama set a record with $66 million. Obama, still having an edge in fundraising that has continued throughout his run for the Presidency, saw $10 million collected the day after Sarah Palin’s strongly received convention speech, a new one day record.<ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/04/after-palin-speech-obama-has-record-10-million-day/ After Palin speech, Obama has record $10 million day]</ref> The Palin announcement has been good for John McCain's fundraising as well.

Obama set a new record of $150 million raised in September and over $600 million overall.<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/obama-raises-record-breaking-m/</ref> Obama's camp does not release information on who contributes to the campaign.

==Conventions==

===Democratic National Convention===
''Main article: [[2008 Democratic National Convention]]''

The 2008 Democratic National Convention was held in [[Denver]], [[Colorado]], from August 25 to August 27 at Pepsi Center. There, Senator Obama and his running mate were selected to be the party nominee's. Barack Obama will accepted the party's nomination in front of a crowd of more than 75,000 in a free, open event held at INVESCO Field at Mile High, in a platform resemblant to a Greek temple. House Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] is the Permanent Chair of the Convention.

The convention had a rocky start as friction between supporters of Obama and the Clintons was not resolved. Instead of Obama getting a bump in the polls, his support actually declined. The Democrats also seemed to be at odds on finding a unifying strategy for how hard to attack John McCain and how to present it. As Democratic pundit James Carville said in an interview on [[CNN]], "If this party has a message, it's done a <heck> of a job hiding it tonight, I promise you that."<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080826/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_convention_rdp</ref>

A bleak convention was turned around by the Clintons. Infighting between Obama and Hillary continued through the day of her speech, but a comprise was reached, and, beyond expectations, she gave a rousing speech for Obama - possibly as an angry response to McCain's latest ad that showed her 'supporting' him. Bill Clinton the next night also praised Obama, something that he failed to effectively do in 2000 for Al Gore when he centered on his accomplishments and gave little more than lip service to Gore with statements amounting to 'and Al Gore was there too'. The convention, possibly remembering that, gave him the topic he was to speak on instead of choosing his own. Clinton was angered, but it worked. He came through. By the time Obama spoke on the last night, the theme that was missing at first was clear, and Obama mixed a message of attacking McCain with the need for change and even outlining some expensive programs that would appeal to the target populace who has been lukewarm to him. From a political point of view, the convention did what it was supposed to.

===Republican National Convention===
''Main article: [[2008 Republican National Convention]]''

The 2008 Republican National Convention was held in [[Saint Paul]], [[Minnesota]] from September 1 ([[Labor Day]]) until September 4. The presumptive nominee was Senator McCain. The location has political significance in that [[Minnesota]] will likely be a close state during the general election, as will its neighboring states [[Wisconsin]] and [[Iowa]].

The convention schedule had to be altered due to the upcoming landfall of [[Hurricane Gustav]]. The first day almost entirely focused on raising money for Hurricane relief. This led to a shortened three day convention instead of four and there was some shuffling of who was speaking on which day to accommodate the suddenly shortened time span. In a surprise, George W. Bush was only delivered an eight minute speech by satellite. In another surprise Sarah Palin's speech was watched by as many people as saw Obama give his acceptance speech on the closing night of the Democratic convention, as over 40 million people tuned in.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26548482/</ref> She was considered the highlight of the convention, even surpassing John McCain's speech the next day, and was noted for doing an exceptional job. Recognizing the strong asset that they have in her, the Republicans made reference to her many times on the last day of the convention. McCain, not known for being comfortable reading prepared speeches in a convention hall, delivered a solid speech. While Obama continued to enjoy a lead in the polls, it changed quickly thereafter to a slight McCain-Palin edge. The Republican convention more than canceled out a very powerful Democratic convention.

====Leftist violence====
[[File:SDS at the RNC.jpg|left|thumb|290px|Poster circulated by [[community organizer]]s. Other posters depicted rock throwers with the caption, "Shut Down the RNC!," dead elephants, and derogatory and demeaning comments about gay Republicans. [http://www.facebook.com/photo_search.php?oid=4893988286&view=all] ]]

[[Progressives for Obama]] shares a huge membership overlap with the Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS), a group of former [[Students for a Democratic Society]] (SDS) members and sympathisers. MDS re-founded SDS in 2006 for a new generation of college students and functions as a support group for SDS's 130 college chapters. Independent researcher Trevor Louden refers to MDS as "the brains behind the SDS brawn." The reconstituted SDS was very prominent in the violence at the Republican National Convention at St Paul.<ref>[http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-file-30-former-terrorists-bill.html Obama File 30: Former Terrorists [[Bill Ayers]] and [[Bernardine Dohrn]] Involved in Key Pro-Obama Organisation,] Trevor Louden, New Zeal blog, September 21, 2008.</ref> The founder of [[ACORN]], Wade Rathke, denouncd<ref>[http://chieforganizer.org/2009/01/31/common-ground-infiltrator/ Common Ground Infiltrator,] Wade Rathke: Chief Organizer Blog, January 31, 2009. Retrieved March 14, 2010.</ref> an FBI informer who foiled a [[terrorist]] plot to kill delegates at the Republican Convention.<ref>[http://spectator.org/blog/2009/09/13/acorn-founder-wade-rathke-want ACORN Founder Wade Rathke Wanted Terrorist Attack on Republican Convention to Succeed,] Matthew Vadum, American Spectator, 9.13.09 </ref>

==Vice Presidential Candidates==

===Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate===
On August 23rd, Senator Barack Obama announced, via text message to 3 million cell phone numbers of his supporters, his nomination of Joseph Biden to Vice President. Biden's selection was considered to be a prudent move by Obama, filling a hole in his own foreign policy experience that McCain could exploit. With the implosion of [[John Edwards]], Biden was widely expected to be the choice. In order to help build up suspense, Biden said he was not chosen when he spoke to the press the day before, only to be shown as the Vice Presidential candidate the next day. A long-term senator and Washington insider with over two decades of service in the Senate, his earlier 1988 plagiarism scandal and frequent gaffes (including one in which he insulted Obama in a racist manner during the 2008 election) were deemed to be less negative than the positive that his strong experience credentials could bring to the race.

[[Image:06 biden.gif|thumb|left|100px|Joseph Biden]]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

===Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate===
[[Image:Sarah Palin.jpg|thumb|left|100px|thumb]]
*Governor [[Sarah Palin]] of [[Alaska]] was announced as John McCain's choice early on Friday, August 29th, the day after the Democratic convention ended. A surprise choice not even considered by the press to be on McCain's short list, her selection caught the political world off guard. It had been expected that [[Mitt Romney]] would earn the honor, but McCain had other ideas. At first denigrated by the people in the Obama campaign, Obama's own statement was one of cautious neutrality to feel out what impact her selection would have on the race.
 
 
 
 
 

In an interesting twist, the selection of the Vice Presidential candidates changed the dynamics of the race. By Obama picking Biden, he helped to fill the hole that McCain had been attacking dealing with a lack of foreign policy experience. McCain's strongest point, experience, would lose some of its luster. But the selection of Biden, and the passing over of Hillary Clinton, left another opening. By aligning himself with someone who has been a Democratic stalwart, Obama's claim to change became less pronounced. McCain seized upon that to select a Vice President that no one expected, and a woman, and steal some of the Democratic thunder. Her lack of foreign policy experience would cut into the experience angle that had been in play earlier, but her own maverick streak in becoming governor by ousting another Republican, combined with John McCain's maverick choice in selecting her led to a new emphasis on McCain's own maverick past. Palin arguably had more "executive" / managerial experience than either McCain, Biden or, notably, Obama. Suddenly he saw an opportunity to steal the moniker of change that Obama had been wearing, and he went for it. Such a change in position occurring from the Vice Presidential selection is rare in Presidential politics.

==Debates==
===Presidential Debates===
''Main Article: [[2008 Presidential Debates]]''

There have been three [[Presidential Debates|presidential debates]] for the 2008 election season. The first debate on September 26th discussed "Foreign Policy & National Security" and also dealt at length with the economic crisis. The result was a statistical draw where both candidates did better than expected in the eyes of the public. The longer term impact worked out well for Obama who already had a lead going in, and benefited from solidifying that position.

The second debate on October 7th, followed a town hall-style. The questions came from audience members and the Internet, as chosen by the moderator. Again the result was a statistical draw as far as who was considered to be the winner. But with time running out for McCain, he needed something to make the people move his way, and that required a clear breakthrough that never happened

The final debate was held on October 15th concerned "Domestic and Economic Policy." Both candidates were again viewed as having done well, which was a tactical defeat for McCain as the poll numbers showed only small changes.

===Vice Presidential Debate===
There was one vice presidential debate held on October 2nd. Palin did much better than expected, but Biden was also in top form. No clear winner emerged and the poll numbers remained largely unchanged, a strategic win for the Democratic ticket that only had to maintain their lead to win the election. The number of people who watched the debate was an alltime record for a Vice Presidential debate, and was viewed by more people than any of the three Presidential debates.

==Third parties and Independents==

As usual there were a number of third party candidates, but none made much of an impact. Briefly the Libertarian [[Bob Barr]] had enough strength to become a spoiler for McCain. He faded quickly. See [[United States Presidential Election, 2008 -- Third Party Candidates]].

==Primaries==

For expanded primary information see [[United States Presidential Election, 2008 - Primaries]]

The primary season for both the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Democratic Party]] officially began on January 3, 2008 with the [[Iowa Caucus]]es and ended on June 3, 2008.<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/calendar/</ref> The 2008 election cycle saw a major shift in the primary election calendar, frontloading many primaries into early February.<ref>http://www.miamiherald.com/515/story/43160.html</ref>

John McCain had to get his footing at first, but was pretty much assured the Republican nomination after [[Super Tuesday]]. Barack Obama had a much tougher road, but rode out a string of victories in February to eventually outlast Clinton and take the nomination. During that time he had raised more money than any other candidate in history giving him a huge boost, a trend that would continue into the general election.

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/2008 Presidential Election|Articles about the '''2008 Presidential Election''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign]]
*[[John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign]]

==Further reading==
* Abramowitz, Allen I. and Larry J. Sabato. ''The 2008 Elections'' (2008), state by state statistical analysis
* Balz, Dan, and Haynes Johnson. ''The Battle for America 2008: The Story of an Extraordinary Election'' (2009), by leading reporters with inside information
* Nelson, Michael. ''The Elections of 2008'' (2009), factual summary [http://www.amazon.com/Elections-2008-Year/dp/0872895696/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249801779&sr=1-4 except and text search]
* Todd, Chuck, and Sheldon Gawiser. ''How Barack Obama Won: A State-by-State Guide to the Historic 2008 Presidential Election'' (2009) analysis of exit polls for each state [http://www.amazon.com/How-Barack-Obama-State-State/dp/030747366X/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249801899&sr=1-14 excerpt and text search]

== References ==
<references/>

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:2008, United States presidential election,}}

[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category:United States Presidential Election, 2008]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Talk:Atheism and incest

2015-06-16T03:27:25Z

ChrisBaker:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp7dRpWIdBo Prominent atheist Lawrence Krausson Incest]

In response to the question, "Why is incest wrong?", the prominent atheist Lawrence Krass said, "It's not clear to me that it is wrong."[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp7dRpWIdBo] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:20, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

:Typical. It's sad to see the depravity some have fallen into, but are we really surprised to see such disgusting opinions from the mouths of atheists, and British ones at that? When you take God out of it, you are left with no God but yourself, and all manner of depravity and sin becomes permissible in your own mind. Perhaps the saddest thing is how many people in Britain have been brainwashed into listening to scum like this. --[[User:ChrisBaker|ChrisBaker]] 23:27, 15 June 2015 (EDT)

RINO

2015-06-09T23:53:16Z

ChrisBaker:

[[File:Kel-rino.jpg|thumb|250px|Sergeant [[Jesse Kelly]] runs for Congress in Arizona in 2009 and attacks the RINOs in the GOP]]
A '''RINO''' ('''R'''epublican '''i'''n '''N'''ame '''O'''nly) is an officeholder or candidate who is a member of the [[Republican Party]], but holds views to the political left of most Republican voters, or simply does whatever the [[liberal media]] wants. The term "RINO" describes politicians who claim to be [[Republican Party|Republican]] but are in fact [[liberal]] or puppets of the liberal media, and therefore generally debase the winning conservative coalition base of the Republican Party.

RINOs are often Republican only to the extent it serves their own interests, and will abandon conservative principles as soon as it is in their own interests to do so. RINOs often provide support for raising taxes, [[abortion]] as [[Pro-choice|a right]], [[gay rights]] and [[gun control]]. Some RINOs have connections with [[Planned Parenthood]] or corporations that support goals of [[population control]]; other RINOs pay lip service to [[pro-life]] values while in practice not advancing those values.

[[Double standard]]s by RINOs are common: a birther comment by [[Romney]] during his campaign was supposedly a "nothing", but [[Todd Akin]]'s [[pro-life]] comment would somehow "absolutely" cost RINOs control of the [[U.S. Senate]]!<ref>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/08/todd-akin-rape-missouri-senate-race-reince-priebus-/1#.UDpUhNZlQ7s</ref>

RINOs, like Democrats, typically come from states in [[New England]], the Mid-Atlantic; or states on the [[Left Coast]]. A less-used term is '''[[cafeteria conservative]]''', for a person who picks and chooses which [[conservative]] principles to believe, as a person might choose foods in a cafeteria instead of ordering the full-course ''menu'' selected by the chef at most restaurants.<ref>[http://www.manp.org/association-spotlight/archives/james-carville-mary-matalin-he-said-she-said James Carville & Mary Matalin: He Said, She Said]</ref> In contrast to RINO's and cafeteria conservatives, [[movement conservative]]s understand that since conservative philosophy is a coherent whole, it is untenable to discard part of it without discarding all of it.

A majority of the [[Young Republicans]] leadership are also RINOs and use the [[Twitter]] hashtag #RINOsUnite and #YRMafia.

The RINO targets of attack argue they follow [[middle of the road]] policies and are not liberals; they claim they get results, and insist that without them the [[United States Congress|Congress]] would be totally controlled by liberal [[Democratic Party|Democrats]] and Republicans would rarely have any success. Conservatives respond that in the heyday of "Rockefeller liberalism" in the GOP the Democrats always controlled Congress, and the GOP only took power when [[Newt Gingrich]] launched a national conservative "Contract with America" in 1994, ending 40 years of Democratic control of the [[United States House of Representatives|House]]. The notion that we need to elect Democrat-lite type of politicians is false. The election cycles of 2010 and 2012 proved that many RINO candidates are unelectable. RINO candidates wasted millions of dollars; Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Scott Brown, Linda McMahon, and many others could not connect with the people in liberal blue states.

In recent Republican [[Primary election|primaries]], voters have been rejecting establishment RINOs in favor of those with stronger conservative principles. Their commitment to self and not party is evident in their refusal to endorse the candidate that beats them. In some instances, they refuse the will of the voters and their party by running for office on an [[Independent candidate|independent ticket]]. 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 RINOs.
In Presidential primaries, however, RINOs are often heavily favored. In 2008 and 2012, RINOs [[John McCain]] and [[Mitt Romney]] were nominated, respectively and RINOs such as [[Chris Christie]] are being considered for 2016.

The House of Representatives and the Senate have RINOs in Republican leadership: [[John Boehner]] and [[Mitch McConnell]], respectively.
==Former RINOs who have since left the Republican Party==

* Former [[New Mexico]] Governor [[Gary Johnson]] supports same-sex marriage and abortion (although he opposes abortion once the fetus becomes viable outside the mother's body). After switching to the [[Libertarian Party]] in 2012 to run for President, he openly admitted that he governed New Mexico for eight years as a RINO, even using the phrase "Republican in name only" on multiple occasions. The Libertarian Party is [[liberal]] on social issues (with the exception that they support [[gun rights]]) but are fiscally very conservative.

* Former Senator [[Arlen Specter]] of [[Pennsylvania]] supported ObamaCare and switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party to give the latter a 60-40 edge in the Senate and allow them to enact [[cloture]] on the Republican [[filibuster]].

*Former Senator [[Lincoln Chafee]] of [[Rhode Island]], who became an Independent in 2007. Turned Democrat in 2013.<ref>http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/lincoln-chafee-to-switch-parties-sources-say-91994.html</ref>

*Former Senator [[Lowell Weicker]] of [[Connecticut]], who left the party and formed his own local one in 1990, then became an Independent in 1995.

*[[New York City]] Mayor [[Michael Bloomberg]], who became an Independent in 2007. As it is not possible to campaign as an Independent in New York State, Bloomberg runs on the line of the [[Independence Party of New York]].

*Former Senator [[Jim Jeffords]] of [[Vermont]], who left the Party and became a Democrat in 2001, giving control of the [[United States Senate|Senate]] to the Democrats.

*Former Governor [[Charlie Crist]] of [[Florida]], who became an independent in 2010 after it was clear he would lose his Senate bid. Crist joined the [[Democratic Party]] in 2012.

*Former Representative [[John Anderson]] of [[Illinois]], who became an Independent after losing his party's presidential primary in 1980.

*Former Governor [[Buddy Roemer]] of [[Louisiana]], who became an Independent after losing his party's presidential primary in 2012.

==RINO McCain==

A majority of conservatives distrust RINO [[John McCain]] even though many of his policies are that of a true conservative. Key RINO principles rejected by McCain include support for [[gay rights]], support for [[abortion]], and support for [[earmark]]s. He has positioned his career as a bipartisan moderate, reaching across the aisle whenever possible. This is also his downfall. The era of reaching across the aisle passed -- when [[statist]], [[socialist]] Democrats became Senators. His major political blunders mostly came during the 21st century political period. He was against both the Reagan and Bush [[tax cuts]], and employed [[class warfare]] rhetoric in trying to stop the tax cuts from taking effect. His support for amnesty was the complete opposite of what conservatives wanted. He has always complained about [[waterboarding|enhanced interrogation techniques]], calling them "[[torture]]". In non-election years, he likes to trash conservative positions and icons in order to get the [[Mainstream media|media]]'s and Democrats' approval. However, during the election he refused to go after [[Barack Hussein Obama]]'s associations with [[Jeremiah Wright]]. He believes in the junk science known as [[global warming]], and has supported cap-and-trade programs. Another [[Middle East]] war, without a goal, without full commitment to win, without Congressional approval- McCain supports the President. It didn't stop there and in July 2011, he called the [[Tea Party]], the people that care about fiscal sanity in Washington, they are "hobbits".<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/27/mccain-refers-to-tea-party-hobbits-blasts-bachmann-backed-idea/?hpt=hp_t1</ref>

The sacrifices he has made serving this country cannot be overlooked. John McCain has earned war hero status but also the status as a D.C. zero.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/05/1615233/in-senate-primary-california-republicans.html In Senate primary, California Republicans run away from RINO label]
* [http://www.commieblaster.com/RINO/index.html CommieBlaster RINO Index]

==See Also==
*[[RINO Backers]]
*[[PLINO]] - [[pro-life]] in name only
*[[XINO]] - [[Christian]] in name only
*[[Republican Party]]
*[[Moderate Republican]]
*[[Conservative Democrat]]
*[[Blue Dog Democrat]]
*[[Reagan Democrat]]
*[[Catholic in name only]]
*[[Liberal media conservative]]
*[[Republicans for Obama]]
*[[Steve Schmidt]]
*[[A.J. Delgado]]

{{Liberalism}}

[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:RINOs|*]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Michael Savage

2015-06-07T13:34:44Z

ChrisBaker: /* Banned in Britain */ The text implied Jacqui Smith resigned due to the Savage lawsuit, but the source indicates she resigned and lost over her role in the common expenses scandal

[[Image:Michaelsavage.jpg|right|thumb|Michael Savage]]
'''Dr. Michael Savage''', (born Michael Alan Weiner, March 31, 1942) is a conservative talk show host.<ref name="sourcewatch">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Savage SourceWatch</ref> Savage opposes [[statism]], [[unlimited immigration]] and [[Muslim fundamentalism]]. He defends America’s national sovereignty and distinct cultural identity. In short, he is a nationalist who champions blood-and-soil conservatism.<ref> [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/26/obamas-assault-on-conservative-speech/ By Jeffrey T. Kuhner-The Washington Times 7:20 p.m., Thursday, May 26, 2011]</ref>

Savage is the author of 18 books, including four New York Times Best Sellers: ''The Political Zoo'', ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'', ''The Savage Nation'' and ''The Enemy Within.'' Many of his books have been on [[botany]] and [[Nutritional Ethnomedicine]].<ref name="sourcewatch" /> He holds doctorates in both economics and botany which he received from the University of California, Berkeley.<ref>http://www.thesavagemichael.com/biography.html</ref>

Savage is generally known to be more outspoken, or more direct, than other conservative commentators. Some view this as his way of driving home points to liberals, who he seems to view as cynical. Other conservatives are strongly against such methods. However, many do find them to be effective and count themselves as fans of his show, which was named by ''Talkers Magazine'' as the third most influential talk show in America.<ref>[http://66.227.50.219/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=44 Talkers Magazine 100 Most Important Radio Talk Show Hosts in America, 2008]</ref>

In March 2004, he began a televised version of ''The Savage Nation'' on [[MSNBC]], but was let go<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2003-07-07-msnbc-fires-savage_x.htm MSNBC fires Michael Savage after anti-gay comments</ref> after telling a prank caller who identified himself as a, "sodomite," in Savage's words, to, "get [[AIDS]] and die."<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdtw-WDSzzI</ref> Savage explained that he was making a personal insult to a prank caller, who he considered to be harassing him, not to all gays. This is consistent with his treatment of other prank callers.

In 2007, he won the Freedom of Speech award from ''Talkers Magazine'', a [[talk radio]] trade industry publication.

His nationally-syndicated radio show is called, ''Savage Nation''. In the early weeks of June 2007, Savage spent almost every minute of his show lambasting [[George W. Bush]]'s proposed immigration reform bill. Savage takes credit<ref>Monday, June 25 2007, "The Savage Nation," 750 KPRC (Houston).</ref> for the defeat of the bill. He has also been credited with coining the terms, "compassionate conservative," and, "Islamo-fascist," which have gained wider usage in other circles.<ref>[http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/?pageId=10 World Net Daily Bio on Michael Savage]</ref>

During the introduction and for the bumper music on his radio program, Savage often uses music by the [[heavy metal]] bands [[Metallica]] and [[Rammstein]].<ref>[http://www.nopactalent.com/speakers/Michael-Savage/1271 Michael Savage Bio at Nopac Talent]</ref>

==Banned in Britain==
On May 5, 2009 Savage was placed on a list of persons who have either called for attacks against the British government, or have attacked and murdered individuals based on political or religious hatred; others on the list included Jewish nationalist Mike Guzovsky; imprisoned Russian skinhead leaders Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky; and Islamic leaders Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal, Safwat Hijazi, Amir Siddique, Abdul Ali Musa, Samir Al Quntar and Nasr Javed. Citing the hypocrisy of Britain in general, and British liberalism in particular when they stand by and listen to the calls for murder and destruction by Islamic fanatics ''within'' Britain, Savage said,
:"How can a nation put me on a list and leave hate preachers in England who say that we're going to kill all of you? We're going to convert all of you to Islam. How is it possible that those hate preachers can't be deported from Britain, but I can be banned from Britain? People who advocate actual murder cannot be deported from Britain. How is it that liberalism has gotten so distorted and cowardly?"<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97127</ref>

Knowing that his written and recorded record has never included such urgings, Savage responded by suing several Britons, including Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, the individual who "redefined" terrorism in Britain, and was responsible for putting Savage's name on the list.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97134</ref> She resigned her ministerial position soon thereafter and went on to lose her Parliamentary seat a year later, although this was largely due to her involvement in the Common Expenses Scandal rather than Savage's actions.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1274495/UK-ELECTION-RESULTS-2010-Jacqui-Smith-expenses-scandal-MPs-lose-seats.html?ito=feeds-newsxml</ref>

Savage wrote an account of the ordeal, ''Banned in Britain'',<ref>https://www.savageonlinestore.com/index.jsp</ref><ref>http://www.amazon.com/Banned-Britain-Beating-Liberal-Blacklist/dp/1427642532</ref> and as of May 2011 he is still on the list.<ref>http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/files/filesSavage/savageukletter.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=177961</ref>

==Michael Savage lexicon==
Michael Savage like Mark Levin is also known for his use of humorous and derogatory ways of describing names and organizations.

{|class="wikitable sortable"
!Name!!Epithet
|-
| Mainstream Media || Government-Media Complex
|-
| Newspapers || Local Rags
|-
| [[New York Times]] || Old York Times
|-
| [[New York Times|Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr.]] || Pinchy
|-
| [[The Weekly Standard]] || The Meekly Standard
|-
| [[Nancy Pelosi]] || Nancy Lugosi
|-
| [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]] || The [[Hitler]] of our time
|-
| [[Barack Obama]] || Obummer, The Marxist-in-chief
|-
| [[San Francisco]] || San Fransicko
|-
| [[Al Gore]] || Al Gorlioni of the Gorlioni Crime Syndicate
|-
| [[Prince Charles]] || Prince "Schmuck" Charles
|-
| [[Mark Levin]] || The guy who sounds like Groucho Marx's grandmother on laughing gas
|-
| [[Sean Hannity]] || The Wallbanger
|-
| [[Bill O'Reilly]] || Leprechaun
|-
| [[Rush Limbaugh]] || The Golfer
|-
| [[Glenn Beck]] || The hemorrhoid with eyes
|-
| Neil Cavuto || The sock puppet
|-
| Shepard Smith || Schlep Smith
|-
| Nancy Grace || Nancy Graceless
|-
| [[Whoopi Goldberg]] || Whoopi cushion
|-
| [[Anderson Cooper]] || Anderson Blooper
|-
| [[Lou Dobbs]] || Duffy the Bartender
|-
| [[Ann Coulter]] || Schoolyard hag
|-
| [[CNN|Rick Sanchez]] || King of the worms
|-
| [[Keith Olbermann]] || The guy who urinates on himself
|-
| [[Michael Moore]] || Fatso, Fat Slob
|-
| [[Pat Buchanan]] || Pat "Buchenwald" Buchanan
|-
| [[Chris Matthews]] || Democrat Hack
|-
| [[John McCain]] || John McShame, The Pill
|-
| Meghan McCain || The Whiny Chick, Pill Jr.
|-
| [[Jerry Brown]] || Moonbeam
|-
| [[Timothy Geithner]] || The Tax Cheat
|-
| [[Richard Durbin]] || Turban Durbin
|-
| [[Anita Dunn]] || Anita Dung
|-
| [[Janet Napolitano]] || Big Sis'
|-
| [[Newt Gingrich]] || The Go-PAC tick
|-
| [[Mike Huckabee]] || Mike Hucksterbee
|-
| [[John Boehner]] || "Cry Baby" Boehner, Pink Tie
|-
| [[Al Sharpton]] || Freddy's Fashion Mart
|-
| Kenneth Lewis || The Mad Hatter
|-
| Jamie Dimon || Jamie Demon, Jamie Diamond
|-
| [[Democrats]] || Demoncans
|-
| [[Republicans]] || Republicrats
|-
| Islamic terrorists || throwbacks
|-
| Liberal Jews || Bagel and Lox Jews
|-
| [[Democratic Party]] || Democrat-Socialist Party of America
|-
| Liberal Republicans || Rockefeller Republicans
|-
| Pseudo-Conservatives || Check-pants Conservatives, Country club Conservatives
|-class="sortbottom"
|-
|}

== References ==
<references />

{{DEFAULTSORT: Savage, Michael}}

[[Category:American Jews]]
[[Category:Broadcasters]]
[[Category:Conservative Commentators]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Tom Tancredo

2015-06-07T02:11:53Z

ChrisBaker: Updated the information to reflect the outcome of his run for governor in 2010

[[Image:Tom Tencredo.jpg|right|175px|thumb|U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo]]
'''Thomas Gerard "Tom" Tancredo''' (b. 1945) was a member of the House of Representatives from 1999 to 2008, and in 2010 was the [[American Constitution Party]] nominee for Governor of Colorado. He announced his intentions to run after he claimed the [[Republican]] candidate chosen by the GOP leadership in [[Washington, D.C.]] had no serious chance of winning the seat. That candidate, Dan Maes, polled in the single digits and garnered just over 11% of the vote. Tancredo served as a [[conservative]] Republican Congressman representing the suburbs of [[Denver]] and was outspoken against [[illegal immigration]] <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/03/29/DI2006032901468.html</ref>. Often vilified by [[liberals]] and targeted for defeat, he was re-elected in 2006 in a landslide by a margin of 59%-40%. He announced his retirement from the House in hopes of winning the [[White House]], though he withdrew from the presidential race in December of 2007. In 2011, he returned to the Republican Party.

==Political Views==
Tancredo has a nearly 100% [[conservative]] voting record and has even criticized President [[George W. Bush]] over his [[immigration]] policy<ref>[http://www.issues2002.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=5&a2=5&a3=5&a4=1&a8=4&a9=1&a10=1&a5=3&a6=1&a7=1&a14=5&a15=5&a16=4&a19=5&a17=1&a18=3&a20=4&a11=5&a12=1&a13=1&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=8&e=85&t=5 Voting record on Abortion]</ref>. Tancredo was one of 33 congressmen to vote against the 25-year extension of the Voting Rights Act, which requires local governments to print multilingual ballots at its own expense.

Rep. Tancredo has been awarded a career grade of A+ and a career score of 100% from Americans for Better Immigration for his Congressional record of support of border control and opposition to amnesties.<ref>http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgradescategory.php3?District=CO06&Category=8&Status=Career&VIPID=146</ref>

Tancredo has a lifetime rating of 97.8 from the American Conservative Union<ref>http://www.acuratings.org/2006all.htm#CO</ref>.

Congressman Tancredo has achieved a score of "100%" from the National Right to Life Committee for the 106th<ref>http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard/?chamber=H&session=106&x=6&y=8#CO</ref>, 107th<ref>http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard/?chamber=H&session=107&x=13&y=15#CO</ref>, 109th<ref> http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard/?chamber=H&session=109&x=16&y=11#CO</ref> and the ongoing 110th Congress<ref>http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard/?chamber=H&session=110&x=9&y=13#CO</ref>.

He said [[Barack Hussein Obama]] poses a bigger threat than [[Al Qaeda]]. Speaking in defense of the [[Constitution]] Tancredo said, ''"It's not Al Qaeda, it's the guy sitting in the White House."'' <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1324879/Obama-bigger-threat-US-Al-Qaeda-says-Tom-Tancredo.html Obama is a bigger threat to the U.S. than Al Qaeda, says Colorado governor candidate, DailyMail.uk, October 31, 2010</ref>

==2008 Presidential Campaign==
Tancredo entered the Presidential race in April 2007 because, he asserted, no other candidate was willing to take a strong stance on immigration.<ref>Zeleny, Jeff. "The 2008 Campaign: Rep. Tancredo of Colorado Enters GOP Presidential Race." April 30, 2007. New York Times.</ref> His campaign announcement was scrutinized by the media which felt he was running on a single issue platform. In fact, the nature of his campaign as a whole was highly criticized for being drastically underfunded, reliant on conservative talk radio show appearances and affiliated largely with right-wing conservative groups.<ref>Zeleny, Jeff. "The 2008 Campaign: Rep. Tancredo of Colorado Enters GOP Presidential Race." April 30, 2007. New York Times.</ref> His anti-immigration issue was vilified in the liberal media during the height of controversy for anti-immigration advocate Lou Dobbs, who had attributed increasing leprosy rates to illegal immigration.<ref>Leonhardt, David. "Truth, Fiction, and Lou Dobbs." May 30, 2007. New York Times.</ref> The New York Times quickly branded the two as ''"demogogues"''.<ref>Downes, Lawrence. "When Demogogues Play the Leprosy Card, Watch out." June 17, 2007. New York Times.</ref>

He heavily campaigned in [[Iowa]] in an attempt to place high in the unofficial [[Iowa Straw Poll]]. In August 2007, fellow Republican presidential primary contestant [[Sam Brownback]], attacked Tancredo for allegedly receiving money from the "founder of a [[Planned Parenthood]] network."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/07/26/VI2007072601105.html</ref> The Tancredo campaign stated that they did not endorse funders' values and that the allegations did not line up with Tancredo's consistent [[pro-life ]]voting record and statements. <ref>Tancredo on Abortion, http://www.ontheissues.org/Sam_Brownback.htm</ref> Leading conservatives asked Brownback to retract the claim, although he refused.<ref>http://www.rightwingwatch.org/individuals/john_tanton/index.html</ref>

Tancredo verbally attacked other fellow Republican presidential primary candidates, including [[Mitt Romney]], Sam Brownback, [[Fred Thompson]] and [[Mike Huckabee]]. Former governor Mike Huckabee stated that Tancredo's ad claiming Huckabee held a pro-amnesty position was "blatantly dishonest", and that Tancredo's campaign either did sloppy research or deliberately mischaracterized his position<ref>http://www.rightwingwatch.org/individuals/john_tanton/index.html</ref>.

In August, 2007, Tancredo suggested that bombing the cities of [[Mecca]] and [[Medina]] might be a useful deterrent to [[terrorism]]. <ref>http://www.wftv.com/politics/13817698/detail.html?rss=orlc&psp=nationalnews</ref> These comments were criticized by the U.S. State Department and by other [[Republicans]], such as Huckabee.

In August, 2007, Tancredo condemned the [[Sanctuary City (Immigration)|sanctuary city]] policy at city hall in Newark, [[New Jersey]].
<ref>[http://teamtancredo.typepad.com/team_tancredo/2007/08/transcript.html Newark, NJ Presser Transcript]. August 20, 2007</ref>

On December 20, 2007, Tancredo dropped out of the race and endorsed Romney. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ifmdfhiuSQfh-kyCJ-a8bLEQjVAwD8TLEA4O0</ref>

==2010 Midterms==
Despite a late surge, Tancredo lost the 2010 Gubernatorial election to John Hickenlooper, losing 51%-36.5%-11%. [[Dick Morris]]: [http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/TomTancredoPollcolorado/2010/09/15/id/370345 "Tom Tancredo Surges in Poll for Colorado Governor."] As he closed in down the stretch, he used quotes such as the one below on his Facebook page to rally support:
{{cquote|This is our way of life. Fight for it. This is our flag. Pick it up. This is our [[Colorado | state]]. Take it back.}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.tancredoforgovernor2010.org/ Campaign website]
*[http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tancredo-for-Governor-2010/135354983166883 Facebook page]
*[http://twitter.com/ttancredo Twitter page]
*[http://www.youtube.com/user/tancredomediafiles YouTube channel]
*[http://tancredo.house.gov/ House Website]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Tom_Tancredo.htm Tancredo's Voting Record]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS3ShRWB_GA Tom Tancredo CNN video discussing Sotomayor]

{{Conservatism}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Tancredo, Tom}}
[[Category:Former United States Representatives|Tancredo, Tom]]
[[Category:110th United States Congress]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:2010 Midterm Elections]]
[[Category:Tea Party Movement]]
[[Category:Colorado]]

Daily Mail

2015-06-04T02:14:36Z

ChrisBaker: Changed "and also" to "but" to avoid falsely connecting Christian conservative views to euthanasia.

[[Image:Dail Mail front page.jpg|right|thumb|250px|July 15 2005 edition]]
The '''''Daily Mail''''' is the second biggest selling British [[tabloid]] newspaper. It supports the Conservative Party. It is right-wing in its editorial stances, but supports euthanasia<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1215710/A-N-WILSON-I-wake-night-wishing-I-killed-mother-But-Keir-Starmer-wrong.html</ref>, and is noted for its stance on gun control and the NHS. It has a Sunday edition called ''The Mail on Sunday''. Its two million plus circulation is one of the largest of any daily newspaper in English. <ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/dailymail/home.html?in_page_id=1766</ref>

==Early History==

The ''Daily Mail'' was founded as a [[broadsheet]] newspaper in 1896, but changed to a tabloid format 75 years later. Its closest rival in terms of being less liberal is the ''[[Daily Express]]'', which sells far fewer copies.

When it was launched by Alfred and Harold Harmsworth (who later became respectively [[Lord Northcliffe]] and [[Lord Rothermere]]) it made an unashamed bid for the mass market. It was published at half the price of other newspapers, and kept its coverage both more concise and more populist. This approach led to it being highly successful.<ref> Taylor, S. J. ''The Great Outsiders: Northcliffe, Rothermere and the Daily Mail.'' </ref>

The ''Daily Mail'' also set out to be entertaining, using in particular competitions as a means of promotion, and focusing on human-interest stories as a way of attracting readers to whom in-depth political analysis did not appeal. Among other promotions, they began the [[Ideal Home Exhibition]], which continues to be held in [[London]] every year.

The paper lost circulation during [[World War I]], when it spoke out in favor of [[conscription]] after the outbreak of war, and particularly when it attacked [[Herbert Kitchener|Lord Kitchener]], who was at that time a national hero. It was accused by the Prime Minister, [[Herbert Asquith]], of disloyalty to the country.

After the resignation of Asquith, [[David Lloyd George]] asked Lord Northcliffe to join his cabinet, but Northcliffe refused.

==1920s==

After Northcliffe died in 1922, his brother Lord Rothermere took control. It was under his regime that the ''Daily Mail'' published the "[[Zinoviev Letter]]", a forgery that seemed to indicate that the [[Communist Party of Great Britain]] was planning a violent revolution. The letter was leaked by the Foreign Ministry. Four days later the [[Labour Party]] was defeated in the 1924 general election, and since then some Labour party members have been known to refer to the ''Daily Mail'' as “The Forgers’ Gazette”. Historians agree the letter was a forgery but their consensus is that it made little difference in the election. What is more important, after the election Labour leaders used it as an excuse for their failure; it became a roadblock to needed internal reforms in the Labour party.

==1930s==

In the 1930s, the ''Daily Mail'' was politically sympathetic to [[fascism]], and Lord Rothermere wrote articles praising the [[British Union of Fascists]] and their leader [[Oswald Mosley]] in particular for showing “sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine”. One headline notoriously read "Hurrah for the Blackshirts". However, he toned down his support after the Fascist party was involved in street violence. The ''Mail''’s political stance was also influenced by Rothermere’s personal friendship with both [[Benito Mussolini]] and [[Adolf Hitler]] and his [[Nazi Party]] – the only newspaper to support them both consistently. Rothermere sent Hitler a telegram of congratulations after Germany invaded the [[Sudetenland]] in 1938. The paper also published ''[[The Protocols of The Elders of Zion]]'' in serial form, and ran inflammatory articles about Jewish immigrants.<ref> Griffiths, Richard. ''Fellow Travellers of the Right: British Enthusiasts for Nazi Germany, 1933-39''.</ref>

[[Neville Chamberlain]]’s [[appeasement]] policy was supported by the ''Daily Mail'' until after the [[Munich Agreement]], but the newspaper changed its stance after the Nazi invasion of [[Poland]] in 1939. This change of attitude may have been influenced by Chamberlain’s threat to close them down.

==Support for euthanasia==

The Daily Mail recently published an article in support of euthanasia<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1215710/A-N-WILSON-I-wake-night-wishing-I-killed-mother-But-Keir-Starmer-wrong.html</ref>. The article and author of the piece stated that:

*"When I wake up in the watches of the night, I still wish that I had killed my mother. In her late eighties, this spirited, independent, active (almost hyperactive) old lady began to slither downhill."
*"For a few months, I felt almost grateful that she did not know what was happening to her."
*"She was never happy for a single minute in those last years, until the last day when a kind of peace descended…If only she had died before she reached this state! If only her hitherto dignified life had ended as nature so plainly meant it to end."
*"As I began by saying, I wish I had possessed the courage to smother her with a pillow, rather than leaving her in that living hell for over two years. Had the roles been reversed, I would have begged her to kill me."
*"I do not know whether my poor mother would have wanted an assisted suicide or not. All I know, since watching her agonisingly slow death, is that I would most definitely want to take my own life, or for someone to take it for me, before I reached this stage."
*"I see no virtue whatsoever in these terminal circumstances, in pretending that there is some mystical thing called 'life' which God or Morality have forbidden us to terminate…The half-life of paralysis, and pain, and misery for all around you is no life at all. In my view it is far better to end it all in circumstances which are, if possible, in your control."
*"So yes, I would welcome the legalisation of assisted suicide in this country and would support any moves to bring it on to the statute books…The trouble is that Keir Starmer's guidelines are no help at all - in fact, they mean we are in the ludicrous position of the law saying one thing and doing another."
*"Increasing numbers of people in this country believe, like me, there is an overwhelming case for changing the law. The two objections to changing the law do not stand up…One is that the system is open to abuse. It is claimed that unscrupulous carers or family will force sick or elderly patients to 'opt' for suicide because they do not want to be a burden…But the sorry reality is that unscrupulous and unpleasant people will always abuse the weak and the elderly, whatever the law. Their malign activities will go on whether the assisted suicide is legalised or not…The second objection to legalising assisted suicide is that there is often something noble about people suffering an illness for as long as nature or God decree…There are those who cite the example of Jade Goody - a girl who lived in many ways a terrible and immoral life but who bravely used her terminal cancer to give her children a decent future…Yet most cancer patients are not represented by Max Clifford and will not make a million from their prolonged deaths…On the contrary, for many families the continuation of a terminally sick patient's lingering condition in expensive care can be ruinously expensive, especially if the relatives have to give up their jobs to become carers."
*"It is true that unscrupulous children might make parents feel that they are a burden. But the illness and decrepitude of some patients is often placing a burden - an intolerable burden - on families, making it impossible for them to live their lives and calling for reserves of goodness or sheer energy which they simply do not possess."
*"It is not immoral for carers and younger family members to feel entitled to a bit of a life apart from the agonising bedside, and I fail to see why the preservation of life in such circumstances is always to be seen as virtuous."
*"But beyond this, in a free society, it seems intolerable that grown-up sentient beings can not decide when to bring life to an end, without the added horror that those they love best will be criminalised."

==Recent history==

The fortunes of the ''Daily Mail'' were revived after a decline in the 1950s by its then-editor Sir David English, and its current editor Paul Dacre continues that trend. He has widened the paper’s market by launching an Irish edition and a summarized edition for UK expatriates.

The newspaper's website "MailOnline" has been criticised by the newspaper's readers for pandering to people with left-wing views.

==Political and editorial stances==

The ''Daily Mail'' claims to represent Middle England and Conservative values, opposing the [[liberal]] establishment. It generally opposes the [[European Union]] and the increasing trend to see Britain as part of [[Europe]]. It is usually against immigration, although it has supported the wish of white asylum-seekers from [[Zimbabwe]] to remain in [[Britain]]. It is generally against [[abortion]], [[same sex marriage|same-sex "marriage"]] and in favour of the [[monarchy]], tax cuts and harsher penalties for criminals. It is generally supportive of [[Israel]], although it has recently been attacked for its lack of support for the war in [[Iraq]].

It generally takes a strong stand against criminality. It is often referred to by the left wing press as "The Hate Mail" or "The Daily Hate", because of a quotation from Lord Northcliffe that said the formula for success was to give readers a "daily hate".

It perceives many public media such as the [[British Broadcasting Corporation|BBC]] as biased to the left politically. Its columnists tend to be politically right-wing. It endorses the [[Conservative Party]] in most elections, and publicly repudiates groups like the [[British National Party]], who are associated with far-right politics.

The Mail is often accused of fear mongering with numerous health scare articles (recent examples include "How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer" and "Mouthwash 'causes oral cancer' and should be pulled from supermarkets, say experts").

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:United Kingdom Newspapers|Daily Mail]]
[[Category:United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Media]]
[[Category:Conservative News Organizations]]
[[Category:Conservative Newspapers]]
[[Category:Newspapers]]
[[Category:Conservative Media]]

Jimmy Carter

2015-06-04T02:12:01Z

ChrisBaker: /* Camp David Accords */ Capitalized "Middle Eastern"

{{Officeholder
|name=Jimmy Carter
|image=Jimmy Carter by Abrams.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=Rosalynn Carter
|religion=[[Baptist]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=39th
|terms=January 20, 1977 – January 20, 1981
|vp=[[Walter Mondale]]
|preceded=[[Gerald Ford]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Ronald Reagan]]
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=76th
|state=Georgia
|terms=January 12, 1971 – January 14, 1975
|preceded=Lester Maddox
|former=y
|succeeded=George Busbee
}}
}}
'''Jimmy Carter''' (formally James Earl Carter, Jr., born 1924) was the 39th [[President of the United States of America]], defeating Republican [[Gerald Ford]] in 1976. Carter was a [[Democrat]] who served from 1977-1981, after being a one-term Governor of [[Georgia]]. At that time, the Georgia Constitution did not permit the Governor to succeed himself. After a failed presidency marked by disasters in the economy and foreign affairs, and poor leadership, Carter was defeated by a landslide for reelection in 1980 by [[Ronald Reagan]], as the nation moved sharply more [[conservative]].

Coming out of nowhere in 1976, Carter promised a restoration of honesty to Washington after [[Watergate]], and built a coalition that included most of the South, thanks to his strong support among blacks and his considerable support (in 1976 only) among fellow white Baptists.

In an October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, Carter's presidency was rated in the "Below Average" group; he ranked 30th, with a mean score of 2.47 out of 5.00.<ref>''Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House'' (Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref> This survey, sponsored by the ''Wall Street Journal'' and the conservative Federalist Society, ranked Carter ahead of Richard Nixon, and below George H.W. Bush.

Carter has been unusually active as an ex-president, serving as an election monitor in many emerging democracies, working with [[Habitat for Humanity]], and as a self-proclaimed "peace advocate", was recognized with the [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. Carter considers his accomplishments in his post-presidency as "superior" to his fellow office-holders.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017049-503544.html Jimmy Carter: I'm A Superior Ex-President], [[CBS]].com , September 20, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32895021/ns/politics-cq_politics/ Obama, Racism, and Jimy Carter,] By Jeff Stein, CQ Politics, 9/17/2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v09n1/eugenics.html The Roots of the I.Q. Debate, Eugenics and Social Control], By Margaret Quigley, [[Political Research Associates]].
</ref> In recent years, he has become very controversial because of his vicious attacks against [[Israel]] and his alleged [[Anti-Semitism|anti-semitic]] sentiments.

==Early Life==
Carter was born and raised on his father's farm in Georgia. He entered the Naval Academy at [[Annapolis]] and graduated from there in 1946. Shortly afterwards, on July 7, he married Rosalynn Smith. Carter worked in submarines, attaining the rank of [[lieutenant]], until he resigned in 1953. He became a peanut farmer afterwards. <ref>[[Encyclopedia of Presidents, Jimmy Carter]], by Linda R. Wade, Children's Press, Chicago, 1989, pp. 11-33. </ref> Carter entered politics by running for the Georgia State Senate. He almost lost a close race against Homer Moore, but Carter beat him in the final tally.

==Governor of Georgia==

In 1966 Carter unsuccessfully sought the Democrat nomination for [[Governor]] of Georgia. This failure significantly affected Carter personally by influencing him to turn to [[religion]] for comfort, convincing him that he had been "born again."<ref>The Presidents by Richard Kirkendall, pg. 552</ref> Carter did succeed in his second bid for Governor in 1970. [[Racism]] was a major factor in his campaign, in which he criticized his primary challenger Carl Sanders for paying tribute to [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], in an effort to depress Sanders's white vote. Carter said "I have no trouble pitching for [George] Wallace votes and black votes at the same time, I can win this election without a single black vote." <ref>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Jimmy-Carters-racist-campaign-of-1970-59499482.html</ref> Carter was elected governor, with almost no [[African American]] support. For the next four years he presided over state affairs. He presented himself as a [[populist]], the representative of the people as opposed to special interests. Carter emphasized [[welfare]] reform, [[education]]al advance and budget reform. Once [[pro-life]], he [[abortion betrayal|changed his position]] and supported the legalization of [[abortion]] and worked to replace [[capital punishment]] in Georgia with life in prison. In 1974, the Georgia Constitution prohibited the Governor from seeking a consecutive term, and Carter was succeeded by Joe Frank Harris. The Georgia Constitution was amended in 1976 to permit the Governor to serve two consecutive terms, and Harris was re-elected in 1978.

==1976 Presidential Campaign==

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

Carter had decided well before his term as Governor ended to run for the Presidency in 1976. His campaign, which began in early 1975, stressed Washington's defects such as the [[Watergate affair]] in 1974. He campaigned on a widespread call for [[change]]. In the Democrat primary, Carter was able to defeat [[George Wallace]] in the southern primaries and established himself as a person who could win the south and reestablish Democrat control of the [[White House]]. He won the primary because of his inspiring and well organized campaign. <ref>The American Vision, pg. 966</ref> Running against President [[Gerald Ford]] in the general election, Carter had little experience in national politics, however he used that to his benefit by promising to restore honesty and morality to [[government]]. On election day, Carter edged out Ford with 50 percent of the vote to 48 percent.

==Presidency (1977-1981)==
[[Image:Carter1977.jpg‎|thumb|250px|President Carter's inauguration, 01/20/77]]On taking office Carter proposed radical energy programs, redistributive tax reform, public campaign financing, a consumer protection agency (that Ralph Nader had long championed), labor law reform, and enactment of the [[Equal Rights Amendment]]. He fought with fellow Democrats in [[Congress]] and achieved little or nothing. Meanwhile "stagflation" hit the economy hard, as energy shortages, slow growth, escalating inflation and very high interest rates sapped the economy.

It was worse in foreign affairs. Carter did broker a temporary peace in the Middle East, but was forced to abandon détente when the Russians began to exploit American weaknesses around the globe. Carter was forced to restart the [[Cold War]] when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, but his belated actions validated the complaints of conservatives that he offered too little too late. Meanwhile the nation was humiliated in [[Iran]], where militants held American diplomats captive for 444 days, while Carter proved helpless.
[[Image:000carter.jpg|thumb|400px|]]
===Administration===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Office
! Name
! Term
|-
| [[President]]
| Jimmy Carter
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]]
| [[Walter Mondale]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of State]]
| [[Cyrus Vance]]
| 1977-1980
|-
|
| [[Edmund Muskie]]
| 1980-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Treasury]]
| [[W. Michael Blumenthal]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[G. William Miller]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Defense]]
| [[Harold Brown]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Attorney General]]
| [[Griffin Bell]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[Benjamin R. Civiletti]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Interior]]
| [[Cecil D. Andrus]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Commerce]]
| [[Juanita M. Kreps]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[Philip M. Klutznick]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Labor]]
| [[Ray Marshall]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Agriculture]]
| [[Robert Bergland]]
| 1977–1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare]]
| [[Joseph A. Califano, Jr.]]
| 1977-1979
|-
| [[Secretary of Health and Human Services]]
| [[Patricia R. Harris]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Education]]
| [[Shirley M. Hufstedler]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Housing and Urban Development]]
| [[Patricia R. Harris]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[Maurice Landrieu]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Transportation]]
| [[Brock Adams]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[Neil E. Goldschmidt]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Energy]]
| [[James R. Schlesinger]]
| 1977–1979
|-
|
| [[Charles W. Duncan]]
| 1979-1981
|-
|}

=== Economic Crisis ===

[[Image:001carter.jpg‎|thumb|250px|left|President Carter during White House Press Conference.]]Carter inherited a [[recession]] when taking office. First he tried to reduce unemployment by both increasing government spending and cutting [[tax]]es. However, when [[inflation]] skyrocketed in 1978 he changed his mind. He delayed tax cuts and vetoed the spending programs that he himself proposed to the [[Congress]]. Carter then tried to ease inflation by reducing [[money]] supply and raising [[interest rates]]. All of his efforts proved to be unsuccessful. Inflation and interest rates soon reached their highest levels since [[World War II]].

The rapid change in interest rates led to disintermediation of bank deposits, which sowed the seeds of the Savings and Loan crisis. Investments in fixed income were becoming less valuable. Holders of both bonds, and pensions being paid to retired people had their life savings wiped out. The stagnant growth of the economy (causing unemployment), in combination with a high rate of inflation, has often been called stagflation, an unprecedented situation in American economics. By 1979, public opinion polls had Carter's popularity lower then [[Richard Nixon]]'s during Watergate, partly because of his inexperience and difficulties working with [[Congress]].

=== Energy Crisis ===

Carter proposed a national energy program to conserve [[oil]] and promote the use of coal and renewable energy sources. He also persuaded Congress to create the Department of Energy, and asked Americans to personally reduce their energy consumption. Although oil companies were insisting on deregulation of the energy industry, Carter advocated a "windfall profits tax" to prevent oil companies from overcharging consumers. Carter's plan did not solve the country's energy crisis. In the summer of 1979 a major oil shortage in the [[United States]] took place because of instability in the middle east. After increasing pressure to act, Carter gave several televised address' where he complained that there was a "crisis of confidence that had struck at the very heart and soul of our national will." Although Carter meant the speech to be a timely warning, many Americans interpreted it as President Carter blaming the public for his failures. Critics dubbed it Carter's "malaise speech."

=== Foreign Policy ===
[[Image:Decline1978.jpg|thumb|290px|The nation feared it was losing its world power, as this magazine cover shows, Nov. 1978]]

In contrast to Carter's economic policies which were uncertain and left the public confused, his foreign policy was more clearly defined, although foreign policy is where Jimmy Carter suffered his worst defeats. In his inaugural speech he stated that "our commitment to human rights must be absolute." He singled out the [[Soviet Union]] as a violator of human rights and strongly condemned the country for arresting its citizens for political protests. However, he was criticized for not doing enough to promote his proclaimed human rights foreign policy stance in his administration, such as continuing to support the Indonesian government even while it was implicated in the commission of acts of genocide in the occupation of [[East Timor]].

Carter also tried to remove the U.S. image of interventionism by giving Panamanians control of the [[Panama Canal]]. Over conservative opposition he did so--but Panama fell into the hands of a dictator who threatened Americans and had to be overthrown by an American invasion in 1989.

Détente with the Soviet Union collapsed when Soviet troops invaded [[Afghanistan]] in December 1979. President Carter responded by imposing an [[embargo]] on the sale of grain to the Soviet Union, humiliating Moscow by orchestrating a western boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympic Games in Moscow, and start funding and arming the anti-Soviet forces inside Afghanistan. The policy of détente that was established by President Nixon was over and the "Second Cold War" began.

=== Camp David Accords ===

Carter's greatest and arguably only triumph while in office was a historic peace [[treaty]] known as the Camp David Peace Accords, between [[Israel]] and [[Egypt]], two nations that had been bitter enemies for decades. [[Image:Iran1979.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Blindfolded American hostages being paraded before the public by their Iranian captors, November 5, 1979.]] The treaty was formally signed in 1979, with most Middle Eastern countries opposed to it.

=== Iran Hostage Crisis ===
:''Main article: [[Iran Hostage Crisis]]''
In 1979, a new radical [[Islamic]] regime lead by [[Ayatollah Khomeini]] in [[Iran]] overthrew America's close ally Shah. Thousands of modernizers were arrested, expelled or executed. In November 1979 student revolutionaries stormed into the American embassy in [[Tehran]] and captured 52 United States diplomats as hostages. The US seized all Iranian assets and tried to bargain, a process that dragged on for 444 days. Despite pressure to use military action Carter tried to negotiate with Iran, which proved to be unsuccessful. In April 1980 President Carter approved a rescue attempt (over the opposition of [[Secretary of State]] [[Cyrus Vance]]). To the nations dismay, the attempt failed when several helicopters malfunctioned. Eight serviceman died in the accident. Carter's negotiations with Iran continued throughout 1980. Ironically, the hostages were released just after Carter left office on January 20, 1981, as they were fearful of what President Reagan might do.

==1980 Reelection Campaign==

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

By the time of President Carter's reelection campaign, the country was plagued by problems, including high levels of unemployment, inflation, interest rates and the Iranian hostage crisis. Although incumbent Presidents usually win their party's nomination easily, Carter faced a primary challenge from the more [[liberal]] [[Massachusetts]] Senator [[Ted Kennedy]]. Carter was able to maintain a lead over Kennedy and defeated him with 51 percent of the vote to 38 percent. In the general election, Carter faced two opponents: [[Conservative]] and charismatic [[California]] Governor [[Ronald Reagan]] as the Republican nominee and moderate [[Illinois]] Congressman [[John Anderson]] running as an [[Independent]]. Reagan locked the election in late October of the campaign when, at the Presidential debate, he asked the voters, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" His relaxed performance helped to dispel fears from the Carter camp that Reagan was a war monger. Reagan won by a large margin, 43.9 million votes for Reagan and 35.5 million votes for Carter. Democrats maintained control of the [[House of Representatives]] but by a narrower margin, and lost control of the [[United States Senate]].

Carter left office disappointed and unhappy. He became the first elected President since [[Herbert Hoover]] to lose a bid for a second term.

==Post Presidency==
[[Image:Palestine peace not apartheid.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Cover of Jimmy Carter's book, ''Peace Not Apartheid'', which accuses [[Israel]] of practicing racism.]]
Carter has been active in foreign affairs since his presidency. His continued work mediating international disputes, organizing election observations, and working with organizations on disease and hunger were cited when he was awarded the 2002 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. In his Nobel lecture, Carter declared his support for "international law":

<blockquote>
Our President, [[Woodrow Wilson]], was honored here for promoting the [[League of Nations]], whose two basic concepts were profoundly important: "collective security" and "self-determination." Now they are embedded in international law. Violations of these premises during the last half-century have been tragic failures, as was vividly demonstrated when the Soviet Union attempted to conquer Afghanistan and when Iraq invaded Kuwait. <ref>[http://jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/nobel.phtml Text of Carter's Nobel Lecture] Jimmy Carter Library and Museum, 2002.</ref>
</blockquote>

In one book, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid", he made the point that any peace accords reached would fundamentally have to be accompanied by the ceasing of terrorist activity towards Israel, he wrote:
<blockquote>
It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.
</blockquote>
The sentiment was widely criticized. He apologized for the wording of that sentence, but not for his larger message.<ref>Washington Post, January 24, 2007 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012301668.html?nav=rss_artsandliving/books]</ref>

*His 2006 book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," caused a top aide to resign. Professor Kenneth Stein resigned from the Carter Center because of its depiction of Israel through three decades of diplomatic and military dealings with the Palestinians. Mr. Stein had served as an aide to Mr. Carter during most of those years and considers the book deceitful and malicious. As the book's title suggests, Carter compares Israel with the white supremacist regime of old South Africa. Fourteen members of the Carter Center's advisory board have resigned over the book.

In September 2009, Carter caused controversy when he stated that conservative criticisms of [[Barack Obama]] are due to racism.

"I think, an overwhelming portion, of the intensely demonstrated animosity towed President Barack Obama, is based on the fact that he is a black man. That he's African American...because of a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country." <ref>http://erickbrockway.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/the-new-radicals-vs-the-new-racists/</ref>

[[John McCain]] responded to Carter's remarks, "I'm deeply disturbed by those accusations because it's an unfair and untrue commentary on the American people, and them exercising their God-given rights to disagree with the administration. '''It seems to me that President Carter has earned his place as, if not the worst president in history, certainly the worst in the 20th century.'''" <ref>[http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/09/mccain-jimmy-carter-worst-president.html McCain:Jimmy Carter worst president ever, freedomeden.blogspot.com, September 18, 2009]</ref>

As President, Carter expressed a goal of making government "competent and compassionate." In pursuit of that vision, he has been involved in a variety of national and international public policy, conflict resolution, human rights and charitable causes.

He founded The Carter Center in 1982 which has the goal of alleviating human suffering. The Center promotes democratic elections and has programmes to improve health in developing countries through the control of parasitic diseases such as Guinea Worm. It is fair to say that ex-President Carter is probably much more respected outside the United States than in his home country.
{{Clear}}

== UFO Sighting ==

[[Image:Carter Sighting Report 2.gif|thumb|right|Jimmy Carter's UFO report.]] Carter reported seeing an unidentified flying object [[UFO]] in 1969. He later recalled, "A light appeared and disappeared in the sky . . . I think the light was beckoning me to run in the California primary." <ref>[http://www.presidentialufo.com/jimmy.htm Jimmy Carter UFO] </ref> Astronomers generally concur that he actually saw the planet Venus.<ref>Val Morgan, et al. '''Rumor''' (1984).</ref>

==See also==
* [[Carter Doctrine]]
* [[Essay:Criticism of Jimmy Carter]]

==Basic further reading==
* Bourne, Peter G. ''Jimmy Carter: A Comprehensive Biography from Plains to Post-Presidency'' (1997).
* Brinkley, Douglas. ''The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter's Journey beyond the White House'' (1998). [http://www.amazon.com/Unfinished-Presidency-Carters-Journey-Beyond/dp/0140276165/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249620205&sr=1-18 excerpt and text search]
*Fink, Gary M. and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Carter Presidency: Policy Choices in the Post-New Deal Era'' (1998)
* Gaillard, Frye. ''Prophet from Plains: Jimmy Carter and His Legacy'' (2007). [http://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Plains-Jimmy-Carter-Legacy/dp/0820333328/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249619928&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
* Hargrove, Erwin C. ''Jimmy Carter as President: Leadership and the Politics of the Public Good'' (1988).
* Kaufman, Burton Ira. ''The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr.'' (1993), the best survey of his administration
* Kaufman, Burton Ira. ''The Carter Years'' (2006), short biographies of all the major players
* Morris, Kenneth E. ''Jimmy Carter, American Moralist'' (1996).
* Venezia, Mike. ''Jimmy Carter: Thirty-Ninth President'' (Getting to Know the US Presidents) (2008), for middle schools [http://www.amazon.com/Jimmy-Carter-Thirty-Ninth-President-Presidents/dp/0516259717/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249620205&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-History-1974-2008-American/dp/0060744812/ref=pd_sim_b_1 excerpt and text search]

==Specialized Bibliography==
===Biography, personality and rhetoric===
*Bourne, Peter G. ''Jimmy Carter: A Comprehensive Biography From Plains to Post-Presidency'' (1997)
*Flint, Andrew R. and Joy Porter. "Jimmy Carter: The re-emergence of faith-based politics and the abortion rights issue. " ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' (March 2005) 35#1 pp. 28–51
* Gaillard, Frye. ''Prophet from Plains: Jimmy Carter and His Legacy'' (2007). [http://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Plains-Jimmy-Carter-Legacy/dp/0820333328/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249619928&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
*Hahn, Dan F. "The rhetoric of Jimmy Carter, 1976–1980" in Theodore Windt and Beth Ingold, eds. ''Essays in Presidential Rhetoric'' (3rd ed. 1992) pp. 331–365
* Mattson, Kevin. '''What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President?': Jimmy Carter, America's 'Malaise,' and the Speech that Should Have Changed the Country'' (2009)
*Ribuffo, Leo P. "God and Jimmy Carter" in M. L. Bradbury and James B. Gilbert, eds. ''Transforming Faith: The Sacred and Secular in Modern American History'' (1989) pp. 141–159, by conservative historian
*Ribuffo, Leo P. "'Malaise' revisited: Jimmy Carter and the crisis of confidence" in John Patrick Diggins, ed. ''The Liberal Persuasion: Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and the Challenge of the American Past'' (1997) by conservative historian
* Stuckey, Mary E. ''Jimmy Carter, Human Rights, and the National Agenda'' (2009) on Presidential rhetoric

===Domestic policy===
* Biven, W. Carl ''Jimmy Carter's Economy: Policy in an Age of Limits'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/read/110717331?title=Jimmy%20Carter's%20Economy%3a%20%20Policy%20in%20an%20Age%20of%20Limits online edition]
* Campagna, Anthony S. ''Economic Policy in the Carter Administration'' (1995) 216 pp [http://www.questia.com/read/27443313?title=Economic%20Policy%20in%20the%20Carter%20Administration online edition]
*Dumbrell, John, ed. ''The Carter Presidency: A Re-evaluation'' (2nd ed. 1995), British perspective
*Fink, Gary M. and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Carter Presidency: Policy Choices in the Post-New Deal Era'' (1998)
*Kaufman, Burton I. ''The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr'' (1993), the standard scholarly survey
*Rosenbaum, Herbert D. and Alexej Ugrinsky, eds. ''The Presidency and Domestic Policies of Jimmy Carter'' (1994), essays by experts [http://www.questia.com/read/27232781?title=The%20Presidency%20and%20Domestic%20Policies%20of%20Jimmy%20Carter online edition]

===Politics===
* Aronoff, Yael S., "In Like a Lamb, Out Like a Lion: The Political Conversion of Jimmy Carter," ''Political Science Quarterly,'' 121 (Fall 2006), 425–49.
* 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]
* Fink, Gary M. ''Prelude to the Presidency: The Political Character and Legislative Leadership Style of Governor Jimmy Carter'' (1980). [http://www.questia.com/read/34288553?title=Prelude%20to%20the%20Presidency%3a%20The%20Political%20Character%20and%20Legislative%20Leadership%20Style%20of%20Governor%20Jimmy%20Carter online edition]
* Freedman, Robert. "The Religious Right and the Carter Administration." ''Historical Journal'' 2005 48(1): 231-260. Issn: 0018-246x Fulltext: in Swetswise
*Gillon, Steven M. ''The Democrats' Dilemma: Walter F. Mondale and the Liberal Legacy'' (1992)
* Hargrove, Erwin C. ''Jimmy Carter as President: Leadership and the Politics of the Public Good'' (1988).
*Jones, Charles O. ''The Trusteeship Presidency: Jimmy Carter and the United States Congress'' (1988)
*Kaufman, Burton I. ''The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr'' (1993), the standard scholarly survey
* Kaufman, Burton Ira. ''The Carter Years'' (2006), short biographies of all the major players
* Morgan, Iwan. "Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and the New Democratic Economics." ''Historical Journal'' 2004 47(4): 1015-1039. Issn: 0018-246x Fulltext: in Swetswise
* Pomper, Gerald M., ed. ''The Election of 1980: Reports and Interpretations'' (1981)
* Ranney, Austin, ed. ''The American Elections of 1980'' (1982), essays by political scientists
*Strong, Robert A. "Recapturing leadership: The Carter administration and the crisis of confidence," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' (Fall 1986) 16#3 pp 636–650
*White, Theodore H. ''America in Search of Itself: The Making of the President, 1956–1980'' (1982), classic narrative of presidential campaigns
*Witcover, Jules. ''Marathon: The Pursuit of the Presidency, 1972–1976'' (1977), very detailed narrative

===Foreign Policy===
* Berggren, D. Jason and Rae, Nicol C. "Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush: Faith, Foreign Policy, and an Evangelical Presidential Style." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2006 36(4): 606-632. Issn: 0360-4918 Fulltext: in Swetswise and Ingenta
* Clymer, Kenton. "Jimmy Carter, Human Rights, and Cambodia." ''Diplomatic History'' 2003 27(2): 245-278. Issn: 0145-2096 Fulltext: in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco
*Dumbrell, John, ed. ''The Carter Presidency: A Re-evaluation'' (2nd ed. 1995), British perspective
*Harris, David. ''The Crisis: the President, the Prophet, and the Shah—1979 and the Coming of Militant Islam'' (2004}
* Houghton, David Patrick. ''US Foreign Policy and the Iran Hostage Crisis'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=David Patrick Houghton&dcontributors=David%20Patrick%20Houghton online edition]
*Kaufman, Burton I. ''The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr'' (1993), the standard scholarly survey
*Rosenbaum, Herbert D. and Alexej Ugrinsky, eds. ''Jimmy Carter: Foreign Policy and Post-Presidential Years'' (1994), essays by experts [http://www.questia.com/read/14250706?title=Jimmy%20Carter%3a%20Foreign%20Policy%20and%20Post-Presidential%20Years online edition]
* Schmitz, David F. and Vanessa Walker. "Jimmy Carter and the Foreign Policy of Human Rights: the Development of a Post-cold War Foreign Policy." ''Diplomatic History'' 2004 28(1): 113-143. Issn: 0145-2096 Fulltext: in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco
* Skidmore, David. ''Reversing Course: Carter's Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, and the Failure of Reform'' (1996).
* Stein, Kenneth W. ''Heroic Diplomacy: Sadat, Kissinger, Carter, Begin and the Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Kenneth W. Stein&dcontributors=Kenneth%20W.%20Stein online edition]
*Strong, Robert A. ''Working in the World: Jimmy Carter and the Making of American Foreign Policy'' (2000)
* Thornton, Richard C. ''The Carter Years: Toward a New Global Order'' (1991) 572 pp. [http://www.questia.com/read/10415810?title=The%20Carter%20Years%3a%20Toward%20a%20New%20Global%20Order online edition]

===Post-presidential years===
* Brinkley, Douglas. ''The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter's Journey beyond the White House'' (1998). [http://www.amazon.com/Unfinished-Presidency-Carters-Journey-Beyond/dp/0140276165/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249620205&sr=1-18 excerpt and text search]
* Dershowitz, Alan. ''The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Israels-Enemies-Exposing/dp/0470490055/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249619928&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Evans, Mike. ''Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos: A Carter/Obama Plan That Will Not Work'' (2009), conservative critique

==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

===Books by aides===
* Califano, Joseph A., Jr. ''Governing America: An insider's report from the White House and the Cabinet''. 1981
* Jordan, Hamilton. ''Crisis: The Last Year of the Carter Presidency''. 1982
* Lance, Bert. ''The Truth of the Matter: My Life in and out of Politics''. 1991

==External links==
*[http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/jec/jcnavy.phtml Jimmy Carter's Naval Service]
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13265 Carter the worst ex-president -- Steven Hayward]
*[http://blogcentral.jpost.com/index.php?cat_id=7&blog_id=59&blog_post_id=935 Jimmy Carter is a liar], [[Alan Dershowitz]], ''Jerusalem Post'', March 13 2007.
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901541.html Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem] by Deborah Lipstadt.
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,918293,00.html "A Man Among Old Friends"], ''Time''Sep. 06, 1976 (article on Carter's favorite books—says the important book in his life is the Bible.]

==References==
<references/>

{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Carter, Jimmy}}
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:Georgia Governors]]
[[Category:Democratic Governors]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[category:Middle East]]
[[category:Human Rights]]
[[Category:Anti-Semitism]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]
[[Category:1970s]]
[[Category:Former Heads of State]]
[[Category:Former Heads of government]]

Arne Duncan

2015-06-04T02:10:00Z

ChrisBaker: Capitalized "Chief Executive Officer"

{{Officeholder
|name=Arne Duncan
|image=
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=
|religion=
|offices=
{{Officeholder/secretary (cabinet)
|of=Education
|state=United States
|number=9th
|deputy=(y or n)
|president=[[Barack Hussein Obama]]
|terms=January 21, 2009-Present
|preceded=Margaret Spellings
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
}}
'''Arne Duncan''', a crony of [[Barack Obama]], was installed by him as the Secretary of the [[U.S. Department of Education]] in 2009. He was formerly "the Chief Executive Officer of the Chicago Public Schools, a position to which he was appointed by Mayor Richard M. Daley, from June 2001 through December 2008, becoming the longest-serving big-city education superintendent in the country."<ref>http://ed.gov/news/staff/bios/duncan.html</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Duncan, Arne}}
[[Category:politics]]
[[Category:Obama Cabinet]]

Essay:Politicians Who Had a Real Career

2015-05-30T14:54:54Z

ChrisBaker:

==Significant politicians with a real former career==

This is a list of significant politicians who had a real career (outside of politics):

*[[Michele Bachmann]] - [[homeschooled]] her 5 children and also helped raise 23 foster children.<ref>Bachmann has also worked as a tax attorney for the IRS [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812104576437830202611222.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy] and runs small business with her husband Marcus [http://bachmann.house.gov/Biography].</ref>
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[Neville Chamberlain]] - Prime Minister of the UK, formerly accountant and businessman (metal trade). Major positive influence on UK domestic policy, especially strengthening economy, but lacked experience in foreign policy at a crucial time.
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] - military general, who was the leader of Allied European forces in the Second World War and Supreme Commander of [[NATO]].
*[[Benjamin Franklin]] - printer, author, postmaster, inventor, and [[Founding Father]]
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - manager of family department store and an air force general before winning a stunning upset victory for the Republican nomination for president in 1964, moving the entire Party to the right.
*[[Denis Healey]] - Long-serving UK Chancellor who laid the foundations of British prosperity in the 1980s and 1990s by introducing monetarism; formerly a soldier (he was [[beachmaster]] at [[Anzio]]).
*[[Mohammed Ali Jinnah]] - Had a successful practice as a barrister, first at Lincoln's Inn in London then at the Bombay High Court, for 31 years; recognised as one of the finest Indian lawyers of his time<ref>http://www.quaid.gov.pk</ref>. Elected to the Legislative Assembly; acknowledged throughout South Asia as one of the three main leaders of the Indian independence movement, with Gandhi and Nehru; and founder of Pakistan where he is known as Father of the Nation.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/jinnah_mohammad_ali.shtml</ref>
*[[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] - Decorated army officer and political writer. First president of the Republic of [[Turkey]] and founder of the modern democratic Turkish state.
*[[Jack Kemp]] - star professional football player (quarterback) and architect of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the 1980s
*[[Harold Macmillan]] - Prime Minister of the UK, previously a soldier and publisher. Ended the British Empire in Africa and strengthened the UK's nuclear defences.
*[[John Major]] - Prime Minister of the UK, bank executive. Major contribution to peace in Northern Ireland and took UK out of disastrous European Exchange Rate Mechanism.
*[[Rand Paul]] - physician (ophthalmologist) and now a major influence in the [[U.S. Senate]] for cutting spending
*[[Ron Paul]] - physician (obstetrician), perhaps the single most influential presidential candidate in the past decade
*[[Ronald Reagan]] - actor, president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], and spokesman for [[General Electric]]; architect of the defeat of [[communism]]
*[[Lech Walesa]] - President of Poland 1990-95, Electrician and [[Labor union|Trade Union]] activist who became President of [[Poland]]. Solidarity strikes in 1980 led eventually to collapse of Warsaw Pact and end of communism in eastern Europe.
*[[George Washington]] - successful military general, land surveyor, <ref>[http://www.landsurveyor.us/learn_washington.htm George Washington as a Land Surveyor]</ref> and real estate investor
*[[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]] - General who defeated [[Napoleon]]. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leading conservative politician of second quarter of 19th century. Legislated for emancipation of Roman Catholics in Britain and Ireland.

== No clear influence in politics ==

*[[William Beveridge]] - Charity worker who was introduced to government by [[Winston Churchill]] and introduced the [[Welfare State]] to the [[United Kingdom]]
*[[Michael Bloomberg]] - two term Mayor of New York, controls the market for stock quote machines used primarily in Wall Street institutions
*[[Bill Bradley]] - Hall of Fame NBA Basketball player who opposed Reagan's first set of tax cuts<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Bill_Bradley_Tax_Reform.htm</ref> but sponsored of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the second of the major Reagan tax cuts.
*[[Jim Bunning]] - Hall of Fame Major League Baseball pitcher and visionary who stood against government spending
*[[George W. Bush]] - 43rd President of the US, oil businessman, co-owner and managing general partner of the [[Texas Rangers]]. Cut taxes and placed two strong [[conservatives]] on the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].
*[[Maria Cantwell]] - software company executive (Real Networks, who make RealPlayer)
*Jimmie Davis - accomplished singer ("You Are My Sunshine") who served two non-consecutive terms as governor of [[Louisiana]]
*[[Stephane Dion]] Professor of Political Science at Université de Moncton and Université de Montreal.
*[[Clint Eastwood]] - actor, film director
*[[Mike Enzi]] - accountant
*[[Bill Foster]] - physicist at the government-subsidized Fermilab
*[[Al Franken]] - US Senator for the State of Minnesota, formerly a comedian (''Saturday Night Live'')
*[[John Glenn]] - former US Senator for Ohio, chief author 1978 Nonproliferation Act, Chairman of Committee on Governmental Affairs 1987-1995, Marine Corps pilot, NASA astronaut
*[[Stephen Harper]] - Economist, head of National Citizens Coalition (Canada's main conservative think tank)
*[[Herbert Hoover]] - 31st President of the USA, former geologist, mining engineer
*[[Rush Holt]] - assistant director of the government-subsidized Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
*[[Chris Huhne]] - journalist, including roles as business editor of The ''Independent'' and The ''Independent on Sunday''
*[[Michael Ignatieff]] Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, author, television host.
*[[Glenda Jackson]] - Member of UK Parliament since 1992, double [[Oscar]]-winning actress who helped force out [[Tony Blair]]
*[[Ron Johnson]] - was CEO of PACUS, a plastics Mfg, before becoming [[U.S. Senator]] for [[Wisconsin]]; rejected [[Obama]] judicial nominees for his area soon after taking office
*John Key - before becoming New Zealander Prime Minister, Key was a succesful businessman and broker for Merril Lynch.
*Steve Largent - National football star for the [[Seattle Seahawks]]
*René Lévesque - Journalist.
*[[Brian Mulroney]] Prime Minister of Canada, Truck driver, lawyer, head of Iron Ore Corporation.
*[[Barack Obama]], one of 43 presidents of the United States; perhaps the least influential in a century. (See also below)
*[[Jacques Parizeau]] Economist.
*[[Condoleeza Rice]] - 66th US Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, professor and Provost at [[Stanford University]], served on the boards of several large corporations, senior fellow at the Institute of International Studies. Major influence on US foreign policy under George Bush Jr.
*[[Alex Salmond]] - First Minister of Scotland, economist and banker
*[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] - Governor of California, professional bodybuilder based on steroid use, actor
*[[Rick Scott]] - former CEO of a major hospital network, now the innovative Governor of [[Florida]]
*[[Heath Shuler]] - former businessman and former National Football League quarterback
*[[Rick Snyder]] - President and COO of Gateway during the 1990s, later elected Governor of Michigan in 2010
*[[Pat Toomey]] - worked for ChemicalBank, opened Rookie's Restaurant & the former president for The Club for Growth; now a Senator for Pennsylvania.
*[[Pierre Trudeau]], Prime Minister of Canada, lawyer, professor at Université de Montréal. Repatriated Canada's constitution.
*[[Mitt Romney]] - former Governor of Massachussets, GOP Presidential candidate in 2008, frontrunner in 2012 GOP Presidential nominees, CEO of Bain & Company, an investment company
*[[Scott Walker]] - worked for IBM and the American Red Cross before politics; now conservative Governor of [[Wisconsin]].

== Careers outside of government that need further discussion ==

*[[Jimmy Carter]] - 39th President of the US, naval officer, peanut farmer ... or was it mostly administrative work and local government positions?
*[[Dick Cheney]] - most of his life was government but he had a Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer position at Halliburton prior to VP.
*[[Winston Churchill]] - cavalry officer for 6 years; then a leading politician for 55 years, becoming Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]] and a renowned wartime leader while also being an accomplished historian
*[[Calvin Coolidge]] - law practice and state politics
*[[Reinhard Heydrich]] - previously a naval officer, arguably the very worst of the senior Nazis.
*[[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin]] - first dictator of the Soviet Union: came from a minor affluent Russian family and became a lawyer specializing in labor rights, though he never saw a case.
*[[John Jay]]-lawyer
*[[Barack Obama]] - President of the US, claimed to organize church community groups, while not attending church himself; was a non-tenure-track part-time instructor in law at the [[University of Chicago]].
*[[Rick Santorum]] - former US Senator of Pennsylvania, Chairman of Senate Republican Conference, GOP Presidential primary candidate 2012, attorney
*[[Margaret Thatcher]] - food chemist then barrister specialising in taxation; the "Iron Lady" who pioneered privatisation, ended trade union control of the British economy and worked with Reagan to end the menace of communism

=== Others ===

*[[Vladimir Putin]] - former KGB operative who rose to be President of Russia, and then Prime Minister
*[[Michael Heseltine]] - UK Deputy Prime Minister, publisher
*[[Stanley Baldwin]] - Prime Minister, businessman (metal trade), industrialist.

(please add examples)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Liberal logic

2015-05-29T04:07:29Z

ChrisBaker:

[[File:Liberal-logic-101-519.jpg|thumb|400px]]
'''Liberal logic''' is a term used to describe arguments made by some [[liberal]]s that may appear logical, but are actually nonsensical. Here are more than 100 examples:

# No matter what happens in the weather, [[global warming]] must have caused it
# Insist on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while promoting [[censorship]] for anything which is [[Christian]]
# If a crime is committed against a member of a predominantly [[Democrat]]ic group, then it's a [[hate crime]]; if committed against a member of a mostly [[Republican]] group, then it is not
# Claim something is true merely because a (nearly bankrupt) newspaper said so (see [[appeal to authority]])
# [[Obama]], [[Obama's Religion|whose statements and activities are]] [[Islam]]ic and does not attend church, is somehow a Christian while [[Thomas Jefferson]], a regular churchgoer, was not
# Assuming what is to be proved, as in implausibly assuming that [[radioactive decay]] has somehow been constant in order to claim that the Earth is old.
# Claim that liberals' viewpoints are being censored, while actually they are the ones censoring their opponents
# Claim that switching from heterosexual to [[homosexual]] is customary, but switching back is somehow impossible
# Insist that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it<ref>[http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1808 Bryn Mawr report on marijuana]. Many commentators said the reporter had no justification for his views since he had never tried marijuana. Examples of such liberal logic included: "There are pros and cons to everything under the sun. That dosen't (sic) mean that you shouldn't try it all...Besides marijuana is so much more beneficial then everyone realizes." which was smartly replied to by another commenter with: "Following your logic, obviously there are PROS to:
*jumping off the Empire State Building
*anorexia
*drunk driving
*smoking crack or meth
*child molestation
*Shall I keep going?...
Sorry, but not only is your drug-induced logic utterly flawed, but you don't exactly exude intelligence. Forgive me if I don't join your crusade." </ref>
# Pretend to base their opinion on an unverifiable or unusual personal experience, when real [[logic]] would be a better guide
# Criticize [[Christians]] for literal interpretations of [[Genesis]], but then insist on even more literal interpretations when it suits the [[liberal]] ideology<ref>For example, [[liberals]] here insist that [[homeschooling]] can only mean being taught while in someone's own home.</ref>
# Belief that a [[correlation]] and/or [[causation]] (e.g., between [[atheism]] and [[suicide]]) can be disproved by a [[counterexample]] (e.g., one [[atheist]] who remained sane)
# Responding to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!"
# Never admitting shame for [[liberal]] behavior, but often telling others they should be ashamed of themselves.
# [[Circular reasoning]] as in demanding censorship of [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]] in schools and scientific journals, while simultaneously citing the resulting lack of those views in schools and journals as proof against it!<ref>See, e.g., [[Richard Sternberg]].</ref>
# [[Americans]] should "move on" past the misconduct of [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Ted Kennedy]], but should dig up as much old dirt as possible about Republican candidates
# Highly implausible assumptions in "if ... then" arguments, such as "if [[embryonic stem cell]] research will find the cure for paralysis, then would you support it?" (without any consideration of superior alternatives)
# [[Barack Obama]] on [[Afghanistan]]: with fewer soldiers, we didn't have enough ammo and humvees!<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21text-demdebate.html?sq=transcript&st=nyt&scp=2&pagewanted=print]</ref>
# [[Free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion.
# Insisting that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.
# [[Hollywood]] promotion of [[abortion]] is welcomed, but views of Hollywood actresses towards their own children are concealed
# The belief that, although carrying an unborn child to birth reduces risk of breast cancer, choosing [[abortion]] rather than childbirth somehow does not increase the relative risk.
# Requesting increased spending by [[government]] to reduce poverty, when actually poverty is increased by the dependency
# Claiming that an [[atheistic]] culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm
# Claiming that teaching [[abstinence]] does not reduce premarital sex and associated disease.<ref>http://media.www.mustangdaily.net/media/storage/paper860/news/2007/04/10/LettersToTheEditor/Teaching.AbstinenceOnly.Unrealistic-2831363.shtml</ref>
# Claiming that premarital sex is acceptable and normal.
# Claiming that increasing taxes must increase government revenue,<ref>http://capwiz.com/acu/issues/alert/?alertid=11534766</ref> when often people just work less and revenues then decline.
# Denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime.
# Claiming that [[Roe v. Wade]] ''cannot'' be overruled, or can only be overruled if it is a unanimous 9-0 vote (this argument tries to make irreversible law out of the dicta in a weak majority opinion in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', even though the very creation of that "secret opinion" was procured by [[liberal deceit]].)<ref>See Jeffrey Toobin's ''The Nine''.</ref>
# Doing away with traditional language (such as "he" to refer to men '''and''' women), despite centuries of previous use.
# Claiming that getting rid of a sadistic dictator by going into [[Iraq]] was wrong but stepping into [[Sudan]] is not.
# Believing/claiming that the [[United Nations]] is better suited to judge and direct a country's actions rather than the country itself.
# It is a right to dissent against [[American]] policy but never take a stand if that [[logic]] moves beyond dissent and becomes treason.
# Stating "God of the gaps" to justify atheism
# Claiming that the "wondrous, pristine national park of [[ANWR]] needs protection to keep its beauty!" (In reality, it is but a remote barren tundra that few visit.) <ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/MaryFallin/2008/07/24/anwrs_place_in_our_energy_picture ANWR's Place In Our Energy Picture] Townhall.com, July 24, 2008</ref>
# Claiming that it's not fair to the world that [[America]] keeps the thermostat at 72 degrees at all times. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13459 Freedom and the View From Obamaland] American Spectator, July 1, 2008</ref>
# Using a double-standard for racism and sexism when the target person is conservative.
# Claiming that it is extremely offensive to call any culture primitive or barbaric, except when they are talking about the writers of the [[Bible]].
# Many liberals claim that even if Obama wasn't born in America then he should still be president.
# Claiming that divine creation is “illogical” but creation from a spontaneous explosion of absolutely nothing at all “makes perfect sense.”
# Failing to respect (and sometimes utterly disrespecting, such as in flag desecration) the United States of America in general while continuing their residency herein and actively demanding the benefits and liberties that come with being a citizen.
# Claiming that Christianity is not a form of diversity while praising Islam for this same reason. Later (whenever it benefits them), liberals will compare the two, claiming that few differences exist between them.
# Dodging statistics when doing so will favor the liberal agenda. A clear example of this is claiming that capital punishment is too expensive to taxpayers while they allow illegal immigrants to fly under the radar.
# [[Cherry picking]] [[democracy]]: Liberals will laud the wisdom of the people when democracy produces a liberal result, but when it produces a conservative result, liberals will complain about [[mobocracy]] and demand [[judicial activism]].
# Assuming that any book espousing a liberal position is automatically authoritative and unquestionable.
# Misplacing the [[burden of proof]]: Liberals insist that things like [[UFO|reports of extraterrestrial visitors]] have to be true until they have been conclusively disproved.
# Claiming that the [[First Amendment]] protects only expression that they like, whereas any expression that [[Logical_fallacy#Appeal_to_pity|offends]] them is subject to [[politically correct]] censorship.
# Arguing that an opponent is inconsistent because he does not take silly extreme views, such as complaining that people are pro-life without preserving life in all circumstances.
# Tacitly assuming that their preconceived notions must be true and then dismissing all other explanations as [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong|contradicting their preconceived notions]].
#That a nation can borrow its way out of debt and spend its way out of a recession.
#Claiming that economy is a [[zero-sum game]] (see [[false zero-sum game]])
#Defending evolutionism by attacking a [[straw man fallacy|straw-man]] version of creationism rather than addressing what creationists actually say.
# Liberals claim that they value freedom and at the same time want to [[gun control|restrict freedom to own weapons]].
#Claim that if God exists he demands a designer. Yet at the same time claim that the universe can be self-existing.
#Claim that the [[AIDS]] epidemic is due to prejudice against homosexuals, rather than the dangers associated with the homosexual lifestyle.
#Paying full attention to [[pedophiles]] in the Catholic Church, whilst completely ignoring pedophiles in the homosexual community.
#Claiming that legalization of [[recreational drugs]] will reduce crime.
#Denying that Hitler's [[evolutionary belief]] played a part in the [[Holocaust]]
#Ranting about racism in the Republican party whilst ignoring the more prominent racism made by Democrats.
#Claim that liberal secular bias in the media is a right-wing conspiracy.
#Claim that atheism is not a religion
#Claims that the Bible and prayer should be banned in within education in the name of [['Seperation of Church and State']] whilst preaching for state-sanctioned atheism.
#Claims that Seperation of Church and State is found in the constitution. When in fact it is only found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.
#Claim that homosexuality is genetically inherited.
#Believe fervently in bogus homosexual statistics e.g. 'out of every two men, three were gay.'
#Claim that domestic violence is due to patriarchy rather than drunkenness or simple anger.
#Focus entirely on child abuse within private homes, whilst ignoring child abuse and severe neglect in state-funded orphanages.
#Argue that illegal immigrants deserve more rights than locals.
#Argue that crime is caused by poverty and social injustice, rather than bad parenting or the choice of the criminal.
#Claim that the idea of happy marriages is naive, without mentioning the same idea to homosexuals.
#Label evolution scientific and creationism as faith. When in fact both evolution and creation are beliefs as they require the person to believe in one or the other.
#Label Christians as bigoted whilst ignoring the sheer intolerance homosexuals and pro-abortionists have to Christians.
#Claiming atheists are somehow more intelligent than theists.
#Argue that the Iraq War was all George Bush's idea whilst denying the fact that 111 Democrats voted in favor of the Iraq War.
#Condemn hunters for shooting defenseless animals whilst encouraging pregnant women to have their even more defenseless children murdered by abortion.
#Declaring satire against Islam and homosexuality as outrageous. Whilst ignoring or even tolerating satire against Christianity.
#Denying the harm associated with participating in Black Magic.
#Exaggerate the numbers of homosexuals and atheists, whilst understate or completely ignore the respectable number of Christians throughout the world.
#Claim that natural gender roles and gender differences are 'socially constructed.'
#Claim that humans are related to animals and plants instead of being created in the image of the Lord God Almighty.
#Claim that liberalism is democratic but in practice referendums on same-sex marriage and capital punishment are prohibited as it is widely known that the opinion of majority disagrees with the liberals.
#Believe that the opinion of a 'persecuted' minority such as homosexuals or drug-addicts are more important than the opinions of the majority.
#Whenever crime increases, the laws need to be softened rather than hardened or maintained as they are.
#Claim that evolution in the modern world is only opposed by a minority of 'christian fundamentalists'. In fact, poll after poll has found that over 40% of Americans believe in Young Earth Creationism.
#When there are terrorist attacks, America's foreign policy is to blame rather than the terrorists themselves
#Declare all military violence outrageous, whilst proclaiming that civilian rioting and violence from 'pacifists' is their right.
#Dismiss social campaigners such as Mary Whitehouse as lunatics, despite their arguments for acting against the problems being reasonable.
#Dismiss wealth made by a conservative shameful, whilst tolerating wealth made by liberals regardless of whether or not it was done legally.
#Focus purely on rehabilitating criminals, whilst neglecting the rights of the victims.
#Dismiss mainstream religion as 'superstitious', but the same label is not applied to easily refutable theories such as evolution or even beliefs in UFOs.
#Denial the scientific value contained in the Bible (Such as the Bible claiming the Earth is round before man discovered the fact).
#Throw a severe tantrum whenever conservatives contradict liberalism with strong logical arguments, rather than use a calm logical argument in reply or accept the conservative's evidence.
#Claim that conservatives and Christians are 'sexist' just for standing up for traditional womanhood, without admitting clearly offensive sexism made towards women who disagree with liberalism.
#Use unnecessarily complex language to make liberals appear more intelligent than conservatives or to avoid admitting errors.
#Claim that people who did not vote for Obama were racist, when in fact there are wide range of factors for not voting for Obama nor the party he represents.
#Rejection of familiar language for the sake of liberal ideology, for example removal of the words mom and dad for sake of homosexual foster parents.
#Claim that religion and science are supposed to be two separate realities, but in fact there continues to be many scientific arguments for God's existence and many great scientists had a devout faith in the Lord God.
#Claim that Christmas and Easter Sunday are just random days for wild parties rather than a special dedication to Jesus Christ.
#Claim that liberals and secularists have a better tendency to liberate society more, when in fact the worse crimes against humanity were committed by atheist socialists and great events of liberation such as the abolition of slavery were led by Christian conservatives.
#Claim that labeling terrorists as evil is 'down to their opinion', whilst labeling Christianity as evil is absolutely correct.
#Claim that population control is needed to settle down the growing population worldwide, but in fact this is plain propaganda and the twice the amount of the population of 6 billion can fit into Jacksonville, Floridaas it contains over 25 billion square feet.
#Teenagers are too young to access guns so they can defend themselves but they're never too young to have an abortion
#Hippies, unions and Occupy Wall Street whose messages are intimidating and sometimes violent are heroes, but pro lifers are dangerous extremists (the latter idea is silly because only 7 murders by pro lifers have been made in the years since Roe v Wade. Most of these actions are opposed by pro lifers.
#Animals and trees are precious whilst the unborn are just blobs of tissue.
#A conservative who oppose same sex marriage is a bigot, but a liberal believing in the same way (such as Hillary Clinton) is not
#The constitution explicitly guarantees the right to abortion, but not a handgun
#There is subtle racism in campaign ads but nothing racist about affirmative action which puts blacks ahead of whites regardless of merit.
#Protesting against abortion is extremism but allowing hateful messages at military funerals is free speech.
#[[Liberals]] in [[Congress]] refusing to compromise with [[conservatives]] is somehow noble defense of ideology, but making a stand on [[conservative principles]] is obstructionism.

==See also==

*[[Atheism and logic]]
*[[Essay:A peek inside the logic of liberals]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Liberalism}}
[[category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Logic]]
[[Category:oxymoron]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Louisiana Territory

2015-05-27T14:19:23Z

ChrisBaker:

The Louisiana Territory is a large former [[territory]] of the [[United States]]. Purchased from [[France]] in 1803 by [[President]] [[Thomas Jefferson]], the area was nearly as large as the existing United States, and accordingly doubled the size of the young nation<ref>http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Louisiana.html</ref>. The modern states of [[Louisiana]], [[Arkansas]], [[Oklahoma]], [[Kansas]], [[Missouri]], [[Iowa]], [[Minnesota]], [[Nebraska]], [[South Dakota]], [[North Dakota]], [[New Mexico]], [[Colorado]], [[Montana]], and [[Wyoming]], as well as parts of [[Texas]] were formed from territory acquired via the purchase<ref>http://geography.about.com/od/historyofgeography/a/louisianapurcha.htm</ref>, and the area was explored from 1804-1806 by an expedition led by [[Meriwether Lewis]] and [[William Clark]]<ref>http://www.lewis-clark.org/</ref>.

===Pre-U.S. Control===
Louisiana was originally claimed by French [[explorer]] Robert de la Salle in 1666 and named for the French King [[Louis XIV]] in 1682, and established French control over the entire Mississippi River Basin<ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/326519/Rene-Robert-Cavelier-sieur-de-La-Salle</ref>. Despite the claim, the only major development outside of modern-day [[Louisiana]] was the city of [[St. Louis]], which is almost certainly due to the growing [[atheism]] in France in the 17th and 18th centuries<ref>http://about-france.com/religion.htm</ref>. Atheists in the French government opposed the [[missionary]] nature of France's colonization, and as such attempted (largely unsuccessfully) to limit French expeditions to [[North America]] as much as they could, and as a result the overwhelming majority of the territory remained unexplored by any government as late as 1803. The conclusion of the [[French and Indian War]] saw France surrender the territory to [[Spain]] to prevent its acquisition by [[Britain]], but it came back under French control when [[Napoleon]] placed a proxy of his on the Spanish Throne <ref>http://geography.about.com/od/historyofgeography/a/louisianapurcha.htm</ref>.

Napoleon intended to use Louisiana as an agricultural center to support a renewed French empire in North America, but a [[slave]] [[revolt]] in [[Haiti]] that lasted from 1791 to 1804 denied the France a critical [[seaport]] and source of [[sugar]] and rendered holding Louisiana against the British unrealistic<ref>http://www.blackpast.org/gah/haitian-revolution-1791-1804</ref>. As a result, Napoleon began seeking to sell the territory either to the Spanish or the United States, which would also give him additional capital to direct against the British.

===The Purchase===
Thomas Jefferson, unaware of Napoleon's desire to sell, had dispatched U.S. [[ambassadors]] to attempt to purchase trading rights in the city of [[New Orleans]]. The ambassadors were stunned by the offer to sell the entire territory outright, and Jefferson quickly accepted the offer [[unilaterally]] without consulting [[Congress]], which raised serious [[Constitutional]] concerns<ref>http://geography.about.com/od/historyofgeography/a/louisianapurcha.htm</ref>.

===The Lewis and Clark Expedition===
With the U.S. now in possession of a massive swath of unexplored territory in addition to the major cities of St. Louis and New Orleans, President Jefferson commissioned [[Meriwether Lewis]] and [[William Clark]] to lead the [[Corps of Discovery]] along the [[Missouri River]] in order to map the new American territory and, if possible, discover whether the river represented the long-sought [[Northwest Passage]], the sea route to the [[Pacific Ocean]]<ref>http://www.lewis-clark.org/</ref>. Guided by [[Sacagawea]], a [[Shoshone]] woman and wife of a French [[fur trapper]] named [[Toussaint Charbonneau]]<ref>http://www.biography.com/people/sacagawea-9468731</ref>, the pair at last discovered that the Northwest Passage did not exist, but did reach the Pacific in 1805 and wintered along the coast before returning to St. Louis the following year. Several new species, including [[prarie dogs]], [[grizzly bears]], and dozens of species of [[birds]] and [[fish]], including the [[Chinook Salmon]], were discovered by the expedition, and contact was made with hundreds of [[American Indian]] tribes, which would bear fruit in later years in the form of [trade]] relationships, military intelligence and scouting, and assistance rendered to [[pioneers]] heading west along the [[Oregon Trail]]<ref>http://www.lewis-clark.org/</ref>.

===Organization===
The Louisiana Purchase was initially designated the "Louisiana Territory" and was governed similarly to how [[Indian Territory]] would be overseen many years later <ref>http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=368</ref>, but was renamed the "Missouri Territory" in 1812 after Louisiana's admission as a state to avoid confusion<ref>http://www.missourihistorictowns.com/missouri-first-settlers-history/</ref>. The territory slowly shrank as various parts were admitted as states or organized into other territories, finally disappearing in 1889 with the admission of North Dakota as the 39th state (a small section of present-day North Dakota was officially not part of the Dakota Territory and was considered "unorganized"<ref>http://history.nd.gov/archives/stateagencies/dtrecords.html</ref>). The statehood dates of the states with all or part of their territory in Louisiana are listed in order<ref>http://www.50states.com/statehood.htm#.VWVJ9UbHjIU</ref>:
Louisiana: April 30, 1812
Missouri: August 10, 1821
Arkansas: June 15, 1836
Texas: December 29, 1845
Iowa: December 28, 1846
Minnesota: May 11, 1858
Kansas: January 29, 1861
Nebraska: March 1, 1867
Colorado: August 1, 1876
North Dakota: November 2, 1889*
South Dakota: November 2, 1889*
Montana: November 8, 1889
Wyoming: July 10, 1890
New Mexico: January 6, 1912

*North and South Dakota's admission documents were shuffled, so it is unknown which is first. However, the [[U.S. Mint]] considers North Dakota first on the basis of the [[alphabet]].

===Impact on Modern U.S. Political Landscape===
Nearly all the states in the former Louisiana Territory vote for [[Republican]] [[Presidential]] and [[Congressional]] candidates, with the exceptions of Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, and New Mexico, seven have not voted for a [[Democrat]] since 1976, and three more (Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri) did so only in 1992 and 1996, and Colorado only three times during that period (in 1992, 2008, and 2012)<ref>http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/elections.php</ref>. As a result, the Louisiana Purchase represents a critical bloc of [[conservative]] voters, which makes it extremely important in the modern American [[politcal sphere]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: American History]]

Louisiana Territory

2015-05-27T04:57:50Z

ChrisBaker: Created page with "The Louisiana Territory is a large former territory of the United States. Purchased from France in 1803 by President Thomas Jefferson, the area was nearly as ..."

Andrzej Duda

2015-05-26T05:39:35Z

ChrisBaker:

Andrzej Duda '''(Born 16 May 1972)''' is the fifth [[President-elect]] of [[Poland]] in eastern [[Europe]]. He is a member of the pro-[[Christian]], pro-[[free market]], pro-[[traditional marriage]] Law and Justice Party, which controlled the Presidency from 2005-2010 and would have done so longer had popular President [[Lech Kaczynski]] not been killed in a suspicious plane crash in [[Russia]] <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612825.stm</ref>. He defeated the [[liberal]] President Bronisław Komorowski on May 25, 2015 in a runoff election to become the fifth President-elect of Poland since 1990, in a result which, along with smashing [[Conservative]] victories in the UK, likely heralds the decline of liberalism both in Poland and in [[Europe]] as a whole.

===Political Stance===
Duda, as a member of the Law and Justice Party, represents the [[conservative]] and [[Christian]] views within Polish politics, supporting [[free market]] principles, reducing [[tax]] rates, ending government [[corruption]], strengthening national defense, promoting and protecting [[traditional marriage]], restricting [[abortion]], and preventing [[Communists]] and former members of the oppressive [[Stalinist]] regime that was imposed on [[Poland]] from 1945-1989 from serving openly in positions of authority <ref>http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/organizations/law-and-justice-party</ref>.

===Importance of Election===
Duda's election coupled with a smashing [[Conservative Party]] victory in the [[United Kingdom]] <ref>http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-32633099</ref> to signal a decline in [[liberal]] power across Europe. With Parliamentary elections set to take place in many nations whose Parliaments are currently controlled by liberals, including [[Poland]], [[Argentina]], [[Spain]], [[Turkey]], [[Canada]], [[Mexico]], and [[Myanmar]] throughout the latter half of 2015, strong [[conservative]] victories in early elections likely herald large defeats for liberals across the world and a restoration of [[conservative]] power in many nations.

===References===
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]

Andrzej Duda

2015-05-26T05:38:01Z

ChrisBaker: Created page with "Andrzej Duda '''(Born 16 May 1972)''' is the fifth President-elect of Poland in eastern Europe. He is a member of the pro-Christian, pro-free market, pro-[[tr..."

Nationstates

2015-05-05T03:27:57Z

ChrisBaker:

'''Nationstates''' (URL: www.nationstates.net) is a [[fictional]] nation-simulation website created by [[socialist]] [[Australian]] author [[Max Barry]] on November 13, 2002 to promote his anti-[[capitalist]] book Jennifer Government. The website is notable for its heavy population of [[liberals]], who regularly engage in [[liberal deceit]], [[liberal denial]], and [[double standard]] to silence [[conservatives]] and [[Christians]] and prevent [[biblical]] or [[logical]] arguments from being seen; and for openly plagiarizing Conservapedia with it's "Conservative" theme, which allows users to display the Conservapedia logo with the word "Nationstates" replacing the word "Conservapedia." <ref>https://www.nationstates.net/page=news/2010/03/31/index.html</ref>

===Jennifer Government===
[[Max Barry]]'s 2002 novel served as inspiration for Nationstates, which Barry intended to use to drum up interest in his book before it ballooned into a safe-haven for liberals to compare [[logical fallacies]] without fear of logical rebuttal from conservatives. The novel is notable for its many [[socialist]] and [[communist]] themes and attacks on the [[free market]], including depictions of [[AT&T]] and [[Verizon]] employees being shot on the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange and the painting of [[Nike]]'s marketing department as a villainous organization willing to sanction murder to sell shoes. <ref>http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33356.Jennifer_Government</ref>

===Nationstates and Liberalism===

With the book's blatant appeal to [[liberal]] wishful thinking, the website quickly attracted a massive amount of liberal users, who soon outnumbered conservative users and drew false authority from the [[logical fallacy]] of proof by numbers to shout down any conservative argument with waves of illogical rebuttals and [[strawmen]]. While the presence of a forum on the website could have allowed it to become a vein for conservatives to demonstrate the superiority of their position and rebut many of the points presented in the book and by liberalism at large, the overwhelming population of liberals make it impossible, as any point that does not line up with their twisted worldview is dismissed out-of-hand and falsely mocked as incorrect. Repeated claims of bias to the site admins have gone unanswered, indicating that the [[liberal bias]] is not only present among the common users but also among those who are supposed to ensure fair debate.

===Evidence of Liberal Bias in Site Administration===
Max Barry does not allow user-created nations to use the [[swastika]] on their flags, but does allow the [[communist]] [[hammer and sickle]] emblem, under which far more people have been murdered, in a clear example of liberal [[double standard]]. Challenges to this stance are repeatedly shut down by site admins without explanation. <ref>http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=16394962#p16394962</ref>

As noted above, conservative appeals to the administrators about the unfair treatment received at the hands of liberals, who far outnumber them are summarily dismissed.

The website bans any use of "political nicknaming" (i.e. referring to Barack Obama as "Barack Obummer"), and the rule is mainly used to silence conservatives from mocking the mistakes of liberal leaders or making unfavorable comparisons between them and other leaders ("Hitler-y Clinton"), while liberals are allowed to unfairly mock conservatives at will, with tactics that approach [[libel]].

===References===

{{reflist|1}}

Nationstates

2015-05-05T01:35:57Z

ChrisBaker: Created page with "'''Nationstates''' (URL: www.nationstates.net) is a fictional nation-simulation website created by socialist Australian author Max Barry on November 13, 2002 to p..."

'''Nationstates''' (URL: www.nationstates.net) is a [[fictional]] nation-simulation website created by [[socialist]] [[Australian]] author [[Max Barry]] on November 13, 2002 to promote his [[anti-capitalist]] book Jennifer Government. The website is notable for its heavy population of [[liberals]], who regularly engage in [[liberal deceit]], [[liberal denial]], and [[double standard]] to silence [[conservatives]] and [[Christians]] and prevent [[biblical]] or [[logical]] arguments from being seen; and for openly plagiarizing Conservapedia with it's "Conservative" theme, which allows users to display the Conservapedia logo with the word "Nationstates" replacing the word "Conservapedia." <ref>https://www.nationstates.net/page=news/2010/03/31/index.html</ref>

===Jennifer Government===
[[Max Barry]]'s 2002 novel served as inspiration for Nationstates, which Barry intended to use to drum up interest in his book before it ballooned into a safe-haven for liberals to compare [[logical fallacies]] without fear of logical rebuttal from conservatives. The novel is notable for its many [[socialist]] and [[communist]] themes and attacks on the [[free market]], including depictions of [[AT&T]] and [[Verizon]] employees being shot on the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange and the painting of [[Nike]]'s marketing department as a villainous organization willing to sanction murder to sell shoes. <ref>http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33356.Jennifer_Government</ref>

===Nationstates and Liberalism===

With the book's blatant appeal to [[liberal]] wishful thinking, the website quickly attracted a massive amount of liberal users, who soon outnumbered conservative users and drew false authority from the [[logical fallacy]] of proof by numbers to shout down any conservative argument with waves of illogical rebuttals and [[strawmen]]. While the presence of a forum on the website could have allowed it to become a vein for conservatives to demonstrate the superiority of their position and rebut many of the points presented in the book and by liberalism at large, the overwhelming population of liberals make it impossible, as any point that does not line up with their twisted worldview is dismissed out-of-hand and falsely mocked as incorrect. Repeated claims of bias to the site admins have gone unanswered, indicating that the [[liberal bias]] is not only present among the common users but also among those who are supposed to ensure fair debate.

===Evidence of Liberal Bias in Site Administration===
Max Barry does not allow user-created nations to use the [[swastika]] on their flags, but does allow the [[communist]] [[hammer and sickle]] emblem, under which far more people have been murdered, in a clear example of liberal [[double standard]]. Challenges to this stance are repeatedly shut down by site admins without explanation. <ref>http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=16394962#p16394962</ref>

As noted above, conservative appeals to the administrators about the unfair treatment received at the hands of liberals, who far outnumber them are summarily dismissed.

The website bans any use of "political nicknaming" (i.e. referring to Barack Obama as "Barack Obummer"), and the rule is mainly used to silence conservatives from mocking the mistakes of liberal leaders or making unfavorable comparisons between them and other leaders ("Hitler-y Clinton"), while liberals are allowed to unfairly mock conservatives at will, with tactics that approach [[libel]].

===References===

{{reflist|2}}

Talk:Bible

2015-05-03T05:09:58Z

ChrisBaker:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
{{protect|MountainDew}}

[[Talk:Bible/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Bible/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
==Epistle to the Hebrews==
I would argue that Hebrews was probably not written by Jesus, primarily because he had no reason to write anything. He was there among the Hebrews and was followed by large crowds everywhere he went. His deeds and teachings were known throughout Judea and Samaria, and if he wanted to reveal something he merely had to say it.

On the matter of it containing information known only to Jesus, we know Paul spoke directly to Jesus on at least one occasion (the Damascus Road) and possibly on others, so such information could have been given to Paul by Jesus to aid in his ministry, since Paul was one of the major driving forces behind the spread of the Church, even more so after Peter was crucified. --[[User:ChrisBaker|ChrisBaker]] 01:09, 3 May 2015 (EDT)

==What the serpent said==
In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did.

Unfortunately, the situation today regarding the Bible is pretty much the same, and it caused some heated debates here. This article is about the description and history of the Bible, nothing more. Textual criticism belongs in a separate article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==''La'' or ''Ta''==
Look, Karajou. Let's be reasonable about this. The fact is that ''la'' is not a definite article in Greek. Not in Ancient Greek, not in Koine Greek and not in Modern Greek. If you do a Google search of [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22definite+article%22+Greek "definite article" Greek], you'll get dozens of pages that all show the exact same declension. Or go and look it up in a dictionary or grammar. ''Biblia'' is neuter plural, thus the correct article is ''ta'' - ton biblion, ta biblia.

This is not a question of doctrine or scripture or exegesis or anything. It is a simple question of what the definite article is in Greek. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 16:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with you as to the definite article in Greek, and I do agree with you on being reasonable. If the term ''ta biblia'' was used in the 2nd century AD to describe the books of the Bible as a whole, I most certainly will change the article to reflect that. I am going to hit the books tomorrow at MTSU, and I will go through many works by experts in ancient languages (the term has to be 2nd century Greek, not 20th century Greek); the results of which and where they came from will be posted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::That sounds like a lot of work for one entirely uncontroversial detail. Just look it up in in '''A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature''' by Friedrich Blass ''et.al.'', or '''A Grammar of New Testament Greek''' by James Hope Moulton ''et.al.'' [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, since you researched it, I'm going to post the info immediately. All I need now is the page numbers of the books where they are located (as per MLA), plus publisher and date published for the reference section. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Very well, if you insist. They're in my office, and it's after hours here. I'll get them for you sometime tomorrow or the day after that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Still waiting on the page numbers. I found the publishers, and I used the American published version of the Blass work as the source. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:24, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here we go:

<blockquote>Moulton, James Hope. '''A Grammar of New Testament Greek'''. Wilbert Francis Howard, ed. Vol 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920. P. 117.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Blass, Friedrich and A. Debrunner. '''Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch.''' Friedrich Rehkopf, ed. 14th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. §249-276.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Bauer, Walter. '''Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Scriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Litteratur'''. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, eds. 6th edition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. Heading βιβλίον, columns 281-82.</blockquote>

:Moulton has an excellent table of the inflections of the definite article. If more information is needed, Blass contains more than anyone would ever want to know about articles in Κοινὴ. And in case there is still doubt, Bauer shows quite clearly that the correct article for βιβλίον is το, hence τα βιβλία. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 15:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Much appreciated; in fact, the German titles have been included as well in the reference section. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I come in late on the discussion, probably after the fact, but the Greek plural for "the Scriptures" is probably much effected by the underlying current Hebrew. Though "the writings" (which is what the Scriptures means), is used for the 3rd compilation of the three part title, The Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, it is also used for all three together."HaKetuvim". This word is in the plural form, and is most naturaly translated, "the writings" or "the Scriptures", which would make its appearance, at a later stage, in the Greek "ta biblia". "ton Biblia" (ta biblia in plural) properly means "the book" reflecting a stage that the writing (graphe) was no longer on scrolls (megilah). The word, and the way behind it, was taken from the city of Biblos (the ancient Geval) on the coast of what is now Lebanon where the book form came to be as opposed to the previous scroll form. There was another Hebrew word then in use for the whole Old Testament as well as "ketuvim". This is the word "Mikr'a", which properly means "reading". The frequent use of the word Scriptures in the New Testament probably reflects the Hebrew underlying HaKetuvim, which itself denoted some sort of closed canon of what was considered Holy Writings. The Old Testament that we know

Just a comment on the Greek words now no longer in contention "La" or "Ta", I don't really know what fed into the idea of "La" (which is not Greek}, but "La" does mean something ''in Hebrew'' and does possibly bear on the original discussion. "La"( which is the normal contraction of Le (to) and Ha (the), in front of Scriptures means "to the Scriptures" or "pertaining to the Scriptures"[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 08:22, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

==Article Name==
This name of this article should be The Holy Bible. [[User:Epicon|Epicon]] 02:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== New American Standard Bible ==

Who created the NASB? The Catholic Church[http://www.bible-researcher.com/nab.html] or the Lockman foundation?[[User_talk:Ymmotrojam#New_American_Standard_Version|Discussion on this matter]]. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 13:34, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:[http://www.scionofzion.com/nasvx.htm This] also makes for interesting perusal [[User:Fox|Fox]] 13:40, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, I didn't realise there were 2 New American Bibles (''Standard'' and Catholic). [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 21:56, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request SysOp==
Would it be possible, and agreable, to add another translation/version to the list currently held on the page? The version I would like to propose adding is the [[Complete Jewish Bible]], which is the version used by the majority of [[Messianic Judaism|Messianic Jews]]. Some brief blurbs can be seen [http://www.onlinebible.org/html/eng/bible-info/complete-jewish-bible.html here] and [http://www.messianicjewish.net/jntp/complete-jewish-bible.html here]. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Concordia Self Study Bible ==

Please add [[Concordia Self Study Bible]] to version. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Changes Needed ==
The article appears to be locked, so here's some changes that need to be made:
* Intro paragraph: Assumes every Bible adheres to the Palestinian canon; some do not. Some sects have three parts to their Bible: The OT, the Apocrypha, and the NT. Some have an OT, an NT, and an Appendix. Some have a larger OT than others.
* The Old Testament: Again, assumes Palestinian canon. The Tanakh is not the same thing as the Old Testament; it coincides with the OT of some sects, but it is a subset of the OT of other sets.
* Tyndale: Says that Tyndale's translation led "finally to the KJV." Since there have been many revisions/new translations using the KJV as a base, one might say that the Tyndale stream has not yet reached its end. Where it will finally lead, no one knows. Recent Bibles claiming a Tyndale genealogy include the NRSV and the ESV.
* KJV: The "Textus Receptus" was not a translation (except for a few portions of Rev backtranslated from Latin), and it is arguable whether a Textus Receptus even existed at that time.
* KJV: The possessive form of it should be its.
* KJV: Shakespeare did not use the KJV throughout most of his life, and it is doubtful that he used it very much near the end. He would've used the Geneva or Bishop's Bibles.
* KJV: Milton probably used the Geneva, not the KJV.
* KJV: Ref number 5 is a broken link. Suggest removing it until a source for the quote can be found.
--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 09:59, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:Regarding your first two points, I think as it stands the current article is specifically about the [[Christian Bible]]. We Jews, of course also use the term ''the Bible'' to refer to our own scriptures (needless to say, exclusive of the NT).

:It's a matter of terminology. Christians say ''the Bible'' meaning OT + NT. Jews say ''the Bible'' and mean a different, but mostly overlapping set of "books". The Judeo-Christian heritage is based heavily on the first five books of the Bible. Christian study materials for young children (see [[Sunday School]]) draw heavily on Old Testament stories: Creation, Garden of Eden, Noah and the flood, Moses in the bulrushes & leading the people of God to freedom, etc. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:10, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:Ignoring the role of the Reformation in redefining the canon is rather misleading; a niave reader would assume that the Vulgate was correctly defined by the opening paragraph as having those books and no others. [[User:Canuck|Canuck]] 22:10, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

== Best-selling book? ==

This comment, in the first paragraph of the article, really trivializes the Bible. The Bible is not a consumer good, OK? Please remove that comment. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:49, 17 November 2007 (EST)
:No. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:20, 17 November 2007 (EST)

== Please remove categories ==

Please remove categories ''religion'' and ''Book of Worship'', as they are supercategories of ''bible''. Also, if you could change the format to <nowiki>[[Category:Bible|*]]</nowiki> so that bible appears at the top of the list of that category. Thanks. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 12:54, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Suggestions ==
As per TerryH's ideas regarding film adaptations (See my talk page for that.), I feel we should list the film adaptations of the Bible. Also, another English Bible, and the one I use: [www.skepticsannotatedbible.com The Skeptic's Annotated Bible]. Surely, it can't hurt to list that as well, can it? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:07, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I think we should stick to listing versions with credibility. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:50, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::With what respect is due, Philip J. Rayment, I believe that the King James Version of the Holy Bible is, in fact, a version with credibility. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:01, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::: Oh come on! You know full well I was talking about the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, not the AV itself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:10, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Original version of this made no sense. In any case, Philip, do you have an issue with annotations? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:58, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::: With ''those'' annotations, yes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:42, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::What is your issue? Are they factually incorrect, or do you simply disagree with the opinion presented? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:50, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::: More like logically fallacious. Here's an analysis of a few from Genesis 1[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html]:
:::::::* "''(1:1-2:3) The Genesis 1 account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science.''": This is really a case saying "My view is right, your's is different, so yours is wrong". That's the fallacy of begging the question. The same applies to the next two points for the same verses, so I'll skip them.
:::::::* "''(1:3-5, 14-19) ... God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day''": So? Is this trying to claim that God cannot make light by any other means? Given that even us humans can, this is a ludicrous claim.
:::::::* "''And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?''": Quite easily. To mark the days you need a rotating Earth and a source of light. The account already mentions that there was a source of light, so what's the problem?
:::::::* "''God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters.''": The Bible says nothing about a "solid firmament". This is an invention, probably due to a misunderstanding of what the Hebrew for "firmament" means. It has nothing to do with "firmness".
:::::::* "''(1:11-13) ... Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes ''": So? There's two answers to this. First, there was already ''light'', and that's what the plants need, not the sun specifically. Second, they had to survive 24 hours without the sun! Wow! How long do the Skeptics think a plant can survive without light?
::::::: That's enough to give you an idea. I skipped a few, mainly because the explanations would have been a bit longer. But essentially, they've said ''nothing'' accurate in those first few. The annotations have no credibility.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::I might take you seriously if you cited a single fallacy among those, Philip. But, in the interest of fairness, I'll go through and criticise your answers.
:::::::: 1: Yes. It goes against the way things are shown to have happened. How is that fallicious?
:::::::: 2: For one, humans can't, our glorious creations can. For two, yes, that's exactly what it is claiming.
:::::::: 3: No, it says that there was light, not a source of light-- Unless of course you count Yahweh.
:::::::: 4: Then pray tell, what does firmament mean?
:::::::: 5: Not very long. You see, Philip, plants use sunlight in combination with the chloroform in their leaves or needles to create a type of sugar which they use for food. Without this, they'll die rather quickly.
:::::::: Now then, can you please cite something that is actually a logical fallacy, complete with a mention of what logical fallacy it is? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:54, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::: 1. The Bible says it happened one way. Evolutionists say it happened another way. You have two competing accounts, and you are judging the veracity of one account (the biblical one) by comparing it to the other account (the evolutionary one). That is, as I said, the fallacy of begging the question.
::::::::: 2. Humans ''can''. Yes, they have to use tools or "their creations" to do so, but they can. And even if we couldn't, it doesn't follow that God couldn't.
::::::::: 3. If there is light, there must be a source of light, even if that is God Himself.
::::::::: 4. You don't know? How about doing a bit of proper research, instead of just reading Skeptic rubbish?
::::::::: 5. How long is "not very long"? Less than 24 hours?
::::::::: I did name a logical fallacy, in the first one. Most of the rest would fall under Red Herrings, or Excluded Middles.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: 1. One is science, supported by years upon years of research, and the other is religion, supported by a book written by bronze agers.
:::::::::: 2. Of course, right. Deus ex machina. Arguing against the powers of your deity is futile.
:::::::::: 3. Indeed, unless of course we are to interpret the verse as your God creating the concept of light.
:::::::::: 4. Tsk, tsk. It is not my job to define your terms.
:::::::::: 5. Yes, Phil. Less than 24 hours.
:::::::::: ... How do any of them fall under excluded middles? :/ Red herring, maybe, but so much of the Bible is.
:::::::::: Finally, RE: Skeptic "rubbish." Yeah, darn dissenters have never done anything good. Earth's flat, just so you know. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:09, 6 March 2008 (EST)
(unindent)1. When two people disagree, the only way to get agreement is to argue from common ground. Arguing that the other's view is wrong because it doesn't fit with your own view is the fallacy of begging the question. I have pointed out above that the first point listed is a case of begging the question, because it is arguing that the Bible is wrong because it doesn't fit with the evolutionary view. Yet your answer, that one (evolution) is science supported by much research, and the other (creation) is based a book written by primitive people, is not an argument from common ground, but from ''claims'' of evolutionists. That is, the claims that evolution is science and is supported by much research ''are not facts, but evolutionary arguments''! The same applies to your claim about the Bible. So your attempted rebuttal of my claim that the argument is fallacious because it begs the question also ''begs the question''!

2. Your reply is to try and mock because you have no argument. As you have no argument, you've effectively conceded that the Skeptic argument is invalid.

3. Even if it ''could'' be interpreted that way, it doesn't rule out that it ''can'' be read another way, so the argument fails. Proposing another possible way of understanding something does not mean that the first way is wrong, yet the skeptic argument ''requires'' the first way to be wrong.

4. If you are going to make the claim (which you are implicitly doing by endorsing the Skeptic claim), then yes, it is ''your'' job to justify the claim. We are not talking about ''my terms'', but about the correct meaning of a Hebrew word. You (implicitly) claim it to be one thing, so the onus is on you to substantiate that claim, not on me to refute it.

5. I will remind you that I gave ''two'' answers to this one. That is, two ''independent'' answers. So answering one still leaves the other to be answered before the claim is substantiated. But as for your attempt to refute ''one'' of the answers, [http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/tdc02/sci/life/stru/methusweb/index.html this site] indicates that "most plants [can't] live for more than ''a few days'' without at least some light" (my emphasis).

I wouldn't try and use the flat Earth argument if I were you. It doesn't show evolutionists in a particularly flattering light, given that they effectively ''invented'' the story to discredit creationists! (Read the [[Flat Earth]] article for more.)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:1. So let me get this straight. One cannot possibly argue that the genesis account is wrong because it has no basis in science?
:2. The powers of a deity are unfalsifiable, therefore it is useless to argue against them.
:3. Oh. So it is your view that god literally created light-- Everywhere, of course, not in a specific location?
:4. Philly, philly. The crud I go through for you. "the vault of heaven; sky" is the definition I got for firmament. Which makes your original response entirely nonsensical.
:5. Most plants also would've had stored energy beforehand. A plant that had never been exposed to sunlight would not.
:Final: Let me get this straight. Evolutionists went back in time, prodded a bronze ager, and said "Psst... Did you know the Earth is flat?" [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:29, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:: 1. (Your question has an ambiguity, but I ''think'' I know which way you mean it.) No, that's not what I said, but yes, your statement is correct, because you are trying to use ''science'' outside its domain, i.e. determining unobservable, untestable past events.
:: 2. In a sense, that's true. That is, Skeptics keep complaining that the creation account is unfalsifiable, yet here we have the Skeptics trying to falsify it! But it's not totally true, because in this case there are arguments that could, ''in principle'', be made, such as arguing that the text does not allow for the explanation I gave. However, the text ''doesn't'' disallow the explanation, and you have no grounds for excluding it. You can't defend an argument by complaining that you have no way of defending it!
:: 3. Huh? It is biblical teaching (and therefore my view) that God created light. It is deducible from biblical teaching (and therefore my view) that the light came from a ''particular direction'' (which is not the same thins as "in a specific location").
:: 4. Okay, seeing as you've actually gone to the trouble of looking it up, I'll apologise for being misleading. Perhaps the idea of it being solid wasn't "invented" as such, as I think the idea of it being solid did arise inadvertently due to a misunderstanding or something like that. However, I was still correct in claiming that it doesn't mean "solid". Your definition "the vault of heaven" would most likely be a euphemism for "sky", the second part of your definition. In other words, it's still not something solid. Furthermore, anybody who's done a modicum of research on the subject should know that, and it's been pointed out before, so it doesn't excuse the Skeptics for using this at all. The best translation of the word is probably "expanse" ({{Bible ref|Genesis|1:2}}. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1650 here] for a detailed study of the issue.
:: 5. First, how do you know that God didn't create them with stored energy? That is presuming something that supports your case rather than seeing if there really is a problem. Second, it still ignores that I gave two independent answers, and you are only attempting to address one of them.
:: Did you read [[Flat Earth]]? Your answer indicates that you didn't, but then it wouldn't be the first time you've distorted something beyond recognition.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Correction and authorship ==

I believe it is the council of Jamnia not Jemnia.

Also, a reference to what Paul says of scripture 2tim3:16-17 "all scripture is given by god..." and Peter 2Peter1:20-21 "holy men of god spoke as they were moved by the holy ghost" would amplify what the NT says itself about authorship. --[[User:Dale77|Dale77]] 14:33, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:I've fixed the spelling. Your suggestion sounds good. Could you propose some actual wording and say where you think it should go, then I (or someone else) can simply pop it in? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 1 March 2008 (EST)

{{QuoteBox|2.1.4 Inspiration Although the old testament is written by many human authors, new testament authors claim that these men were writing under the inspiration of God. The apostle Paul states in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness". Similarly the apostle Peter states in 2 Peter 1:20-21 "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."}}
{{unsigned|Dale77}}
:Done. I didn't know what Bible version you were quoting from, and the links default to the NIV, so I changed the quotes to that version. Thanks for the great suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:53, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Violence ==
I'm thinking about adding Some Verses about violence in the bible like the Qu'ran page has.Does anyone disagree? {{unsigned|Gobber}}

:And why would you do that when this article does not cover themes? If you feel violence is a part of a story that should be addressed, then do so in the individual books or stories. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:29, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Authorship of Job ==

The article says that Moses wrote Job. I can't say that I've every heard that, and even if I have, I can't say that it's something that is universally agreed. What's the evidence for Mosaic authorship? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
:I am not aware of any direct link. I'm assuming the theory would be based on the idea that both are about equally old, although the Bible itself makes no statement or inference in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:49, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
==Looking for some advise, not sure where to ask==
I am trying to learn more about the early Church(es), and the process of Canonization of the bible, but the only sources I'm finding seem to be very "academic" in that "the bible was written by man" way, rather than the presumption that the bible is indeed holy. What I'm looking for is a good history on how and why the various books of the bible were included in the canon, (Nicene Council), but from a true Christian point of view. Can anyone recommend any books or authors who deal with this area?--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:07, 3 November 2008 (EST)
: See [http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html here] for the Old Testament and [http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html here] for the New Testament. That second one also recommends [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/canonout.html this]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)

== Sources ==

Would some one be able to provide links to the bible's sources? -Brargrar 7:49 11 February, 2009.
: ?
:* The Bible was written before there were hyperlinked documents.
:* Much if not all of the Bible was written by eyewitnesses, not by people using pre-existing documents.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::I not think that is completely true. Off the top my head, 2 Mc 2:23 clearly states that book itself is an abridgement of a lost five-volume work. The author of Jude in verses 14 and 15 cite a prophecy that is in the apocryphal ''Book of Enoch'' (The same Enoch from Gn 5:21-24).

::There are other references if you can call them that; throughout Bible authors either quote or refer to reader to lost books like ''Book of Jasher'' in Jos 10:13 and 2 Sm 1:18; ''Book of Wars of the Lord'' in Nm 21:14. The ''Book of Jubilees'' is quoted in Rom 2:29, 9:24, 4:13. ''Sirach/Ecclesiasticus'' is quoted Jas 1:19, Lk 1:52, and Mk 4:5, 16-17. There are countless others and study bibles will do a better job than me pointing out references.--[[User:Kencaesi|Kencaesi]] 17:46, 12 February 2009 (EST)

::: I did say "''much'' if not all", but yes, you've proved that it's not all. However, I'll point out that ''referring'' to another book is not the same as being based on it, and I think a number of such references are merely that—pointing out that more information can be found in other books. But some will remain as being sources. Nevertheless, ''much'' of the Bible would still be eyewitness accounts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 12 February 2009 (EST)

== error in article ==

The article states that the Bible has been translated into "nearly every language on Earth" The complete Bible has only been translated into about 400 languages and the New Testament into about 700. There are still thousands of languages that the Bible has not been translated into. This article should also be expanded to include the work involved in translating the Bible. I have a large number of foreign language translations of the Bible and would like to help out on this page. --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 22:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: Those 400-700 languages cover ... 99% of the world's population? Also, I think your numbers are on the low side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: The numbers are a bit low, at least the NT one, it seems. [http://www.biblesociety.org/index.php?id=22 This site] lists complete translations being in 438 languages, and "Testaments" translations in 1,168 languages (apparently ''in addition to'' the 438). And yes, they would likely cover the vast majority of the world's population, but the claim that it has been translated into "nearly every language on Earth" is still an overstatement, as worded.
:: TedM, I've unlocked the page; it has been locked long enough.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:38, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

== Biblical Views ==

I would say I am proud not to have any preconceptions about religion, or the lack of it. With this spirit in mind, and a large amount of different educational viewpoints, I decided to read the bible. The overall message of the new testament is a good one (not so much with the old testament), that we should be kind and respect one another. But while this message is one we should all follow, certain things need to be stated. The bible isnt logical, as I've seen many people say. It has many contradictions, things which dont make coherent sence, and stories that can have many different interpritations. Can something about this please be said in the article, in the interest of fairness for all (i.e. the message of the bible). And please dont block me, flame me, or post stupid replys, and bear in mind I have read it, and i can cite opposing statements etc. Oh, and Mr Schlafly, I wouldnt object to a logical conversion attempt, if you agree to civil terms.

PS: I apologise for any bad spelling or grammer, I try my best but dyslexia isnt nice

--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 12:47, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Dear Unlikelyconvert, I would say that it is very difficult to say that one doesn't have any preconception about religion. I can't say that for myself. That is why I often pray for God to undeceive me of anything needing it. I remain a believer in Jesus Christ. There is a great deal in the Bible that seems to be self-contradictory, incoherent, etc. The more I go on in study and in life (I am now 71 years old), the more I see that these flaws are only apparent, with very deep and satisfying solutions. I am sure that if you really quest in the right place and the right way, you will be drawn by God to faith in Jesus Christ.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 05:34, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

==Fixed again==
While I did not delete the recent edits of RJJ and Bert, it needed a slight re-arrangement away from a poor format that pulled some of it off-topic. This article is essentially in three parts: 1) a description of the Bible itself (Old and New Testaments and Apocrypha; 2) the authority of the Bible is religious and daily life; 3) a history of the Bible ''as a document'' only. Anything else, such as specific textual cricisms of different versions, should be addressed in stand-alone articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:07, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

== Controversies ==

I have no objection to including the Evangelical version of Bible history, but it should be clearly labeled as such. The earlier part of the article clearly indicates there re multiple viewpoints--and the Evangelical/Fundamentalist one is not held by most Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. I don't see any possible "synthetic" section that would a) assert Moses wrote key books and b) also assert that Moses did NOT write those books. So let's simply keep the theological assumptions clear; Mark Noll has written a lot about them. (My own background includes a lot of Bible study at Notre Dame and Yale, from two quite different perspectives.) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:23, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
:If it's clearly stated that "so-and-so wrote this", then I have no problem with it, but the main details should be covered in separate articles. From my standpoint, this article and its structure should be about the three points addressed above, as well as respecting God's work as well. The pic I included of the Torah at the Western Wall should be included as well (or a similar one), as it does illustrate the reverence Jews have for it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:34, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

== I fixed the number of books in the OT ==
I changed
:Most Christians, Protestant and Catholic, agree on the books of the New Testament, but the Protestant Bible includes '''66''' books of the Old Testament
to read
:Most Christians, Protestant and Catholic, agree on the '''27''' books of the New Testament, but the Protestant Bible includes '''39''' books of the Old Testament ((by Rickswartzentrover)

:Good correction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:25, 20 November 2009 (EST)

== Liberal Criticism of the Bible ==

Would it be ok to add the following section to the main page?

Liberals, atheists, and secularists frequently attack the Bible and Christians by selectively taking certain passages out of context. Such attacks are excellent examples of [[liberal deceit]] and fall apart in the face of honest, thoughtful investigation.

Particular favorites of liberals include passages they claim are sexist, such as "Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22) or "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12). In reality, those passages reflect deliberate misunderstandings and mistranslations, often by liberals themselves. In the first example, for instance, the phrase "subordinate" would be more accurately translated from the Hebrew "לְהַכפִּיף" as "respectful and loving." Of course, even that might be a problem for liberal feminists.

Another group of passages liberals love to quote is those in which God appears to be violent or wrathful. For example, in Genesis 7:23 God causes a great flood which wipes the earth clean of sinners and evil by drowning the corrupt men who have perverted his vision for humanity. However, while liberals who believe in moral relativism may not understand, God was ensuring the future of humanity by destroying a 'false start' who betrayed his vision by engaging in all kinds of perversion and iniquity.

More importantly, since liberals do not accept that Jesus Christ came to redeem mankind for our sins, they do not understand that the perfection of the Old Testament is found in the New Testament and that the real Truth is His word. What this proves is that God is both stern and merciful; He punishes sinners for their crimes against Him, but also offers them a path to redemption through Christ.

== Weird typos & other issues in "Authority->Roman Catholic" ==

I was glancing at the article at noticed how that section contained odd misspellings ("bishop ov Rome", "Majesterium" instead of "Magisterium", "second comming", "regualtion" should be "regulation"), and there is an attempt to describe papal infallibility in an incorrect manner. Councils (such as Vatican I from which the papal infallibility dogma came) are considered infallible, but only two infallible decisions by a Pope have occurred to this date. It needs to be clarified that the infallible status of infallibility came from the First Vatican Council, not the Pope. Also, the Charismatic Movement is non-denominational. There seems to be a criticism woven into technical language on Scripture interpretation.

I see a lot of other sections with also-unusual typos ("Septuaginta" instead of "Septuagint").

This article is locked - here is my suggested replacement:

'''---BELOW THIS LINE---'''

The Roman Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Churches, has a strong sense of the authority given to the Bishops by Christ to teach, interpret, defend the Faith and therefore to exercise the responsibility to interpret Scripture to the faithful.

Since Vatican II, there has been an increased effort to bring knowledge of Scripture to the laity, resulting in an increase of Scripture reading and study programs throughout the Church. This has been abetted by the non-denominational Charismatic Movement, which has had the effect of promoting individual appropriation of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, and with that, the devotional and intellectual use of Holy Scriptures.

However, the role of "Magisterium", that is the teaching authority of the Church, strongly sets limits to individual interpretation. The Roman Catholic Church understands that while the Magisterium is given to all the bishops, the definitive exercise is limited to one bishop - the bishop of Rome, the Pope. Further, it is believed that the Pope, when declaring dogma (teaching) ex-Cathedra (from the chair) speaks infallibly (on matters of faith and morals). This has happened twice since the dogma was defined in the First Vatican Council (Vatican I). In addition, Catholics believe that doctrine from Councils are also infallible.

Rather than hold to a literal interpretation of Scripture, Catholicism looks for "the meaning" and "the message" contained within, promoting the concept of "apostolic succession" - that the bishops are successors of the Apostles, with the successor of Peter, the Pope, as their leader. Interpretation of Scripture and Catholic Tradition by authorities result in such Catholic teachings as the prohibition of abortion."

'''---ABOVE THIS LINE---'''

-[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:25, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

Your revision looks pretty good to me![[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 23:40, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

== The Bible and Islam ==

There's a section here called "Authority of Bible in religious communities". I think it is worthwhile to note somewhere on the Bible page that Islam considers many Biblical characters to be prophets: Abraham and Jesus, for example, but also people such as Adam, Noah, and Mary (mother of Jesus). This is useful information for people considering how to talk about Scripture with Muslims.

== Bible Versions ==
Since the existence of a special version of the bible for the Jehovah's Witnesses is mentioned, would it be worth mentioning the "Inspired Version" by Joseph Smith? It's not really a "translation" so much as an edit of the King James Version, but is usually regarded by the various Latter Day Saints sects as the "best" version of the Bible (being the most in harmony with Smith's other teachings, for reasons one hopes are obvious). The Other Wiki has a reasonably neutral POV article on it. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 11:54, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

:That's fine. Please add and explain as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:17, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

== Deleted books ==

Shouldn't there be a mention of the numerous (ridiculous and liberal) pagan books that the Church removed early on? [[User:LogicalThinker|LogicalThinker]] 00:13, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:They have nothing to do with the Bible. Perhaps separate articles will do. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:52, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

== Who are the greatest villains of the Bible? ==

I think the top three have to be [[Cain]] (first murderer), [[Haman]] (tried to kill all the Jews), and [[Judas Iscariot]] (betrayed Christ). What do other people think? [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 20:47, 25 November 2011 (EST)

:Don't forget the serpent in the garden (who was Satan) and the Pharaoh who enslaved the Hebrews -[[User:Danq|danq]] 02:22, 3 December 2011 (EST)

Old Testament, specifically, i would have to say the character of God. This is based on His actions as they are presented not as a judgement of God's nature, if He does indeed exist as the concept of God can be expanded beyond the Bible's presentation. --DavidS 15:50, 20 June 2013 (EDT)

== in "See Also" ==

I would like this article [[Singing the Hebrew Scriptures]] in the See Also section

== in "See Also" ==

I would like this article [[Singing the Hebrew Scriptures]] in the See Also section

== Most logical book? ==

Some atheists sent me this link:

http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/biblecontradictions-reasonproject.png

Of course it's nonsense, but could you please provide explanation for every so-called "contradictions" so that I could use it against them.
:How is anyone supposed to respond to that massive list? It would take days to research all those claimed contradictions. I can't speak for all of them, but some of their claimed "contradictions" are particularly silly. For example, number 31, claiming that Prov 26:4 contradicts Prov 26:5. Do you really think two adjacent verses would contradict each other? Wouldn't someone have noticed it by now? Or could it be, that the passage is describing what we call today a catch-22 situation? i.e. arguing with fools is not a wise course of action, but sometimes one has little choice. A Catch-22 situation is contradictory in a sense, but then it is life itself that is being contradictory here, not the Book of Proverbs. [[User:ZackMartin|ZackMartin]] 08:13, 25 June 2012 (EDT)

:::Even more logical than "Spock's Guide To Logic"? --DavidS 19:23, 16 March 2013 (EDT)
::::Yes, so you better accept that fact here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:02, 16 March 2013 (EDT)

== Can be opened for posting? ==

Can this http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/2012/11/jesus-through-fabric-of-our-lives.html be posted under the title "Jesus through the Fabric of our Lives" in External Links ? Thank you!

== Jesus Christ himself may have written the perfect Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament, as no other plausible author has been suggested. ==

*Andrew Schlafly, I'd prefer it if you could keep your pet ideas out of the encyclopedic articles.
*If you have to introduce this speculation, it shouldn't be mentioned in the leading section: please reread the opening paragraph - it just looks out of place there.
The page is prevented from editing, so I assume that this oddity will stay. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:02, 15 May 2013 (EDT)

:August, substantive suggestions or criticisms are welcome. The statement in the entry is correct: other than Jesus Christ, no other plausible author has been suggested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:34, 15 May 2013 (EDT)

::Correct or not, you are (as far as I can see) the only advocate of this theory worldwide, and not only today, but for the last 2000 years. An opinion can hardly be more private... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:51, 15 May 2013 (EDT)

:::For more than a thousand years people were taught that [[Paul]] wrote this Epistle. That has since been disproved, leaving only one logical alternative. The power of logic is that it remains true in spite of [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 15 May 2013 (EDT)

::::Indeed, but from very early on there were doubts (see [[Eusebius of Caesarea]]). These were arguments from ''knowledge'', from analysis of the style. Yours is truly an argument from ''ignorance'': "we don't know, therefore Jesus". And that is simply not convincing...
::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:04, 15 May 2013 (EDT)

:::::It could be augmented to say, "While authorship is unknown, Andy Schlafly has put forth a theory that this particular book may have been authored by Jesus Christ himself."

::::::Andy, I concur with your opinion re knowledge of the angels, although the references to them in Hebrews 1 and 2 are quotations from the Septuagint, and from the Gospel of John. However, only in the Gospel of John (17:3) does Our Lord directly refer to himself (once) in the third person by name, but in Hebrews all references to Christ are in the third person, and this is not Jesus' normal pattern of speech in the Gospels. This is also not his style in the letters he dictated to John in the Book of Revelation (1:10–3:22). Also, the arrest of Timothy the companion of Paul, and the greeting to the Hebrews from those saints (Christians) who came from Italy, in Hebrews 13:23-24, would have taken place long after Jesus ascended into heaven, long after the day of Pentecost, and after the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus. With great respect and sincerity, I would like to know what then is your opinion and explanation of the means by which Jesus himself did write Hebrews? Was it by hand, physically, in which case he would have descended to earth to write it (which would be a secret second coming, and not according to Acts 1:11), or was it by inspiration from heaven through another writer to whom he dictated the letter, or was it written in heaven and then physically delivered by a heavenly messenger or delivered by himself and presented in a vision to a Christian messenger who then made several copies of the letter he was shown and then delivered them to the groups of Christian Hebrews who were being persecuted at the time it was written (Hebrews 12:3-17)? John said that Jesus told him to write to the Churches, but Hebrews has no such statement. These are the only possibilities supportive of your position that occur to me, but the text of Hebrews indicates none of them. (Is there another?) With sincere respect, ''Pax vobis''.--[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] 01:52, 29 December 2014 (EST)

:::::::As explained by [[Epistle_to_the_Hebrews_(Translated)#Chapter_13]], the reference to Timothy is not part of the original. As far as Jesus referring to Himself in the third person, He obviously did that repeatedly in the encounter on the Road to Emmaus, as described near the end of the [[Gospel of Luke (Translated)]]. The perfection in the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is above the ability of any man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:53, 29 December 2014 (EST)

::::::::''" The perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews is above the ability of any man."'' That is a very bold claim! From my experience, no one here on Conservapedia has good enough a grasp of Greek to make such a statement. So, Andy, how do you differ between the words of God and the (inspired) words of men? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:19, 29 December 2014 (EST)

::::::::: Surely you don't think that only a professional athlete may marvel at how good another professional athlete is. Yet your argument against marveling at the perfection of the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is similar in reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:22, 29 December 2014 (EST)

::::::::::I know that [[Usain Bolt]] runs the 100m in 9.58s - that is remarkable. But is this perfection? I enjoyed Germany's win at the world-cup: I know that they are good because there was a competition to prove it. What's you measurement for the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]]? Being told by you that it is perfect is just not enough. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:44, 29 December 2014 (EST)

:::::::::::If you don't want to believe me, then do your own research - preferably, with an open mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 29 December 2014 (EST)

::::::::::::How about you showing us your research? Before you made your proclamation, you certainly have gathered evidence for your position! At least, your comment above implies that you have done some research - so present it to us!--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:27, 29 December 2014 (EST)

"A French commentator, C. Spicq, describes these first four verses of Hebrews as follows:
{{cquote|In a single long sentence, which constitutes without any doubt the most perfect Greek sentence construction in the New Testament, the author of Hebrews presents the Person and the work of Christ, incarnate and glorious Son of God, creator, sustainer, revealer, saviour and sovereign king of redeemed humanity, object of the faith and of the hope of the Christian community. Its excellence results from the four contrasts: between the former and the new revelation; between our ancestors and us; between the Son and the prophets and angels; between the former times and these last times.}} [http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/cr/rR7VHW4CV1FF9K]
{{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

:So what was your "research" exactly? For which phrases did you google? There are so many problems with your comment above:
:*Have you checked out C[eslas] Spicq's writings, or do you rely on '''amazon commentator''' ''trini "HWS"'s'' assessment? After all he/she is in the top 6 million commentators, and nearly half of his/her comments are seen as helpful!
:*What does Spicq think about the authorship of the letter? God or perhaps ''un philonien converti au christianisme''?
:*Was the most perfect verse of the [[Iliad]] written by [[Zeus]]?
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:12, 30 December 2014 (EST)

Andy Schlafly, AugustO: —I should like to point out, August, that the setting forth of proposed hypotheses regarding scripture is a legitimate exercise in exegetical analysis and Christian devotion, and they are always subject to review by informed and competent experts in the field. Andy Schlafly's historical-critical proposal is not nearly as extreme as those of a multitude of others throughout history, such as Marcion, and Mani, and Priscillian, and others more recent such as C. H. Dodd. and Dominic Crossan (The Jesus Seminar). Andy's position is simply, "''When the impossible is eliminated, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.''" (Arthur Conan Doyle.) Throughout the history of biblical exegesis, new insights which have eventually proven to be of inestimable value were novel when they were first proposed by their authors, who at the time had no precedent to draw upon to support their hypotheses and who were also accused of promoting their own "Private Opinions", as in this case. So it does not matter that "''in 2000 years no one has proposed that Jesus wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews''" (actually this proposal is ''not'' new, but you have to dig in the history of biblical exegetical commentary and textual analysis to be aware of this—I strongly recommend you do the research!). Here, then, is my conclusion (and a carefully-reasoned answer to the question, that I posed above, "''by what means?''"):
 Based on [http://biblehub.com/multi/acts/1-3.htm Acts 1:3] we know that Jesus taught his apostles and disciples much more, just as he had promised them ([http://biblehub.com/multi/john/16-12.htm John 16:12]). What did he teach? Certainly he taught everything that we read in the Gospels, including the details of what he experienced and said in the Garden of Gethsemane while the apostles slept, and could not have known what he had prayed, and in the desert with the devil during the 40 days in the wilderness when they were not present as witnesses to that confrontation, and could not have known what was said. Historically many followers of heretical teachers of esoteric doctrines have attempted to promote their teachings as the secret teachings of Jesus which he supposedly revealed during the 40 days after his resurrection, for example, "''These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.''" ([http://lifeintegrity.com/Gospel-of-Thomas-Scholars-Version.pdf Gospel of Thomas]). New Agers see the phrase "living Jesus" as indicating that these are the words he spoke after his resurrection while he was staying at the home of one or another of his closest followers.
 At the other end of the debate we have only the tradition of scholars who have repeatedly assured us that "Jesus never wrote a thing", and that he "never handed them a Bible and said, 'Here, preach this'." If Jesus did take the precaution of writing an authentic explication of his identity as the Son of God superior to the angels, of the superiority of his self-revelation to the law of Moses and of his sacrifice as superior to the ritual animal blood sacrifices of the temple, together with the necessity of remaining faithful to him as the Word of God, and calling on all Hebrew believers to be faithful to "Jesus the Son of God" and to those he had made leaders of the flock, then he would have personally written or dictated to the apostles his core doctrine during the 40 days he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God. The other documents of the New Testament were subsequently written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit after the Day of Pentecost, which happened 10 days after Jesus ascended and returned to the Father in heaven. Now, as for the lack of an introductory address at the opening of this work, an argument from silence would suggest that, as with the possibility of a particular address to the readers and hearers in the opening of the Letter to the Ephesians, it too has been lost. It may reasonably be speculated that a copy of Jesus' letter to his Hebrew followers (who had already been persecuted even before his crucifixion and resurrection, [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%208:31-32 John 8:31-32]; [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%209:22 9:22]) was later made and sent out and circulated with current news about Timothy appended to it, just as it appears, in the last 2 verses of the Letter. Textual historians have frequently found multiple instances of additional writings or text appended to the texts of various works of correspondence written on parchment and vellum throughout history: [http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2002/2002-01-09.html Bryn Mawr], [http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5496 Harvard], [https://books.google.com/books?id=nGQOodBVG9YC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=examples+in+antiquity+of+additional+text+appended+to+literary+works&source=bl&ots=qEooGBmXo0&sig=rH74aGsbnFOrB7327jFIJURMs8A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jt6iVN6KLYn1yAT6gYGoAw&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=examples%20in%20antiquity%20of%20additional%20text%20appended%20to%20literary%20works&f=false A New History of French Literature (googlebooks)].
 If the premises on which Andy Schlafly's hypothesis are valid, then the "possibility that Jesus himself wrote the perfect letter to the Hebrews" is not at all untenable. It is not impossible, and it is not unreasonable; it just can't be demonstrated to have been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt to ''all'' students of the scriptures. I trust these comments will help reduce the intensity of this controversy. It is rare in biblical studies that any speculative hypothesis has ceased to be debated because a universal consensus has been reached, and I expect this one too will be no exception. ''Pax vobis. Semper Fi.'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] 12:38, 30 December 2014 (EST)

:Thanks for your helpful insights. There is no reason for some to assert that Jesus never wrote anything. Why wouldn't he? He was certainly capable of writing. Also, throughout history God has shown a propensity for colorful, sometime humorous, tricks. Walking on water is one of many examples. Leaving an anonymous, flawless writing in perfect Greek is a fascinating puzzle. Perfection is beyond the capability of ordinary men.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:57, 30 December 2014 (EST)

::Many ordinary Christians are also wholly unaware of [http://www.orthodox.cn/patristics/apostolicfathers/abgarus.htm THE EPISTLES OF JESUS CHRIST AND ABGARUS KING OF EDESSA]. It reads beautifully and true to the Gospel, but it was never included in the canons of sacred scripture. Hang in there, buddy, your genuine devotion to Christ is evident and has informed your study of scripture. --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] 20:06, 30 December 2014 (EST)
:::Andy, would you say that "The Epistles of Jesus Christ and Abgarus King of Edessa" are as perfect as the Epistle to the Hebrews? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:18, 2 January 2015 (EST)
::::Andy, it is evident that this man has nothing substantive to offer. Ignore his uninformed envy. (He makes a "''p''"-poor sniper.) As for me, an old warrior, I count it a real privilege and honor to have contributed something to your fine article. May God defend and reward you, lift up his countenance upon you + and give you peace. ''Semper Fi !'' --[[User:Dataclarifier|Dataclarifier]] 10:22, 2 January 2015 (EST)
:::::LOL --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:43, 2 January 2015 (EST)

International Flat Earth Society

2015-05-01T16:26:15Z

ChrisBaker: Corrected a couple of typos in the organization URL

International Flat Earth Society is an [[organization]] that furthers the belief that the [[Earth]] is flat rather than a sphere. The modern organization was founded by Englishman Samuel Shenton in 1956.

== External Links ==
*[http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/ International Flat Earth Society]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2015-04-27T06:07:47Z

ChrisBaker:

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

==Tim Tebow==
I think it's also worth noting that the only quarterback to have any success with the Jets that season (aside from Tebow, who was never given a chance for fear his performance would inspire viewers to see the truth behind his words about Jesus and conservatism) was not Mark Sanchez, from the liberal bastion of California, but Greg McElroy, from conservative Alabama. Not only did the Jets find no success without Tebow at quarterback, the lone bright spot of their year (a 7-6 win over the Cardinals when McElroy led the team while Tebow was being forcibly kept out by Rex Ryan) came as a result of a conservative calling the shots, rather than a liberal. --[[User:ChrisBaker|ChrisBaker]] 02:07, 27 April 2015 (EDT)

== Neutrinos and the speed of light ==

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable <ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp</ref>. Shall I remove this claim?

:The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. Either way, the statement is invalid as there is reasonable concern that the results are inaccurate. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can alwpays re-insert it.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Jon Stewart Curse ==
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394561/The-force-Jon-Stewart-Daily-Shows-ratings-higher-FOX-News.html very] well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==What is the point of this article ?==
It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that ''"As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil."'' - James 4:16 --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

:''Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.'' - Matthew 5:15. Your move!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:45, 29 February 2012 (EST)
::Admittedly, the title is a bit on the nose. I'm inclined to change it to "Conservapedia prescience" or "Presience of conservative insight." Or simply "Conservative Insight." [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:38, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::(edit conflict) Well put, CPalmer. And if "accountability" had been a term known to the [[King James Version]] translators, then it would be in the English translations of the Bible too. It's very important to circle back and check what was right and what was wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:40, 29 February 2012 (EST)

:::Douglas, I'm [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open-minded about this]], but don't think the alternative titles would be an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Gay penguin ==

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)
:::I think the idea of a homosexual animal is wrongheaded and that the homosexual animal notion is a myth. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

== Stalking Horse ==

Don't we need some evidence of intent before deciding that Santorum was a stalking horse for Romney? Was Nader a stalking horse for Bush in 2000? He certainly did more to hurt Gore than Santorum did to hurt Gingrich --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 20:57, 10 April 2012 (EDT)

:I have an [[open mind]] about whether Santorum was a [[stalking horse]] for Romney. But what other plausible explanation is there for the abrupt pull-out by Santorum at this time, stranding so many [[conservatives]] who had rallied behind him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
::Winning less than half as many delegates as Romney. A sick kid at home. Nothing near the financial resources that Romney has. Poll leads in his home state that weren't incredibly solid. [[User:DVMRoberts|DVMRoberts]] 22:03, 10 April 2012 (EDT)
:::Just speculating, but I'd say the potential loss in Pennsylvania had to play a big part in his timing. It's been clear for a while now that he didn't really have much of a chance of turning things around this time out, but the longer he could stay competitive, the more influence he'd have going forward. A loss in his home state would have cost him a lot of credibility he's gained these last few months. It's also not implausible that Romney made some pseudo-promises behind the scenes that now allow him to cancel what was going to be a huge ad buy in Pennsylvania. At any rate, if you/we/Conservapedia still have an open mind about Santorum's status as a stalking horse, is it really an appropriate time to count this as an example of [[Conservapedia proven right]]?[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 00:40, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Yeah, it seems silly to proclaim [[Conservapedia proven right]] about something that isn't even clear is true yet. And if Conservapedia did indeed think Santorum was just a stalking horse for Romney, why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months? Why was this prediction from two years ago not brought up weeks ago? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 01:56, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Although this will unfortunately make me sound like a jerk, this really isn't the place for those questions. Can we focus on trying to improve this particular article? I do appreciate the pro not-yet-a-stalking-horse sentiment though. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 02:09, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::: I think those questions are relevant. Conservapedia is claiming have been proven right about X when it doesn't appear to have actually believed in X and X hasn't been shown to be true. That's about as far away as 'proven right' as you can be. Hence an improvement of this article would be to remove the entry. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 12:01, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::You're right. Sorry about that and carry on. I guess I was more tired than I thought last night. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 12:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::It was asked "why has it portrayed Santorum as the conservative alternative to Romney for the past few months?" - Answer: because, obviously, voters '''''perceived''''' "Santorum as the [[conservative]] alternative to Romney." The strength of the votes for that conservative alternative was significant.

::::::::What Santorum's own intentions have been are, of course, another matter. The sbrupt timing of his pull-out seemed to have been coordinated with the Romney campaign, or at least to help him. Gingrich didn't pull out.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 11 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly. I completely agree. This strongly hints that Santorum might not be as conservative as Romney really is (perhaps the plan was something like this; Romney would appeal to moderates while Santorum distracted the easily amused Liberals as Romney gained support. Now with his "shield" down Liberals have spent all their ammo on Santorum so Romney can advance as the real, true Conservative? When you think about it it's brilliant; the Republicans appear to compromise with the more simpleminded voters when in reality the Conservative train steams ahead with more power than ever! [[User:Insel|Insel]] 00:01, 19 April 2012 (EDT)

== Another case of selective reading.... ==

That's bordering the ridiculous: Aschlafly, have you read your source beyond the headline? Surely you want to differ between man-made quakes and natural ones! And a quote from the article: "''America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents major energy companies involved in natural gas fracking, said it was difficult to conclude anything based on an unpublished abstract. ''" So perhaps you want to wait for the scientific article until you declare triumph - or will this be another article you quote, but don't read? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:05, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:You seem to be focusing on the [[hearsay]] in the article, which of course would be [[inadmissible]] in court for its lack of reliability. The article is cite here for its admissible factual content, which is that large earthquakes are increasing.

:Please see [[hearsay society]] for an enlightening discussion of the key distinction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::I think AugustO's point is that although Conservapedia is technically correct in saying the number of earthquakes is increasing, there is a very real possibility that the increase is due to recent human activity. If this is the case, the increase in earthquakes is not a logical counterexample to an old Earth. Even though the increase in earthquakes has not been conclusively linked to fracking, ignoring this possibility and claiming the counterexample to be definitively true is an example of [[deliberate ignorance]] or [[closed-mindedness]]. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:16, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Previously there was denial that earthquakes are increasing. Conservapedia was correct about that, and there's no denying that now, right? As to why, that's a separate issue, but the claim that mankind is causing this is implausible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

::::To answer your question, yes, you are correct. Whether this item belongs in this article and whether it belongs in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] are two seperate issues. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 15:31, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly would be correct if his claim were that ''the number of magnitude 3 and greater earthquakes increases dramatically in an area that includes Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas''.
:::::But his claim is ''Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.'' That's quite a difference!
:::::And calling ''the claim that mankind is causing this'' [...] ''implausible'' seems to be a sign of severe closed-mindedness! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:17, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

== Predicted Increase in Premature Graying ==

Mr. Schlafly, I know from the [[Andy Schlafly|article about you]] that you have a background in law and engineering, two fields that highly value logic, evidence, and truth. So you must understand that one nonspecific example of one case of premature graying at one point in time - or even the few example given in the [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]] page - does not nearly offer rigorous proof that premature graying is increasing. (Not to mention the almost nonexistent relationship between premature graying and the age of the Earth.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 23:19, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

:The example is specific, and one case can prove a theory. The solitary example of [[Christ]] rising from the dead does prove several theories in [[Christianity]].

:With young people having gray hair with increasing frequency, this does suggest that the slope of man's developmental path is a much sharper incline (downward) than Old Earth believers claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::Of course you are correct that there are some theories that can be proven true with a single example. But this is certainly not one of them. To prove your claim is true, you need to present a substantial amount of data from the past as well as from the present. At the risk of being called part of the [[Hearsay society]], I am going to suggest you present some credible references. (Also, I called the example on this page nonspecific because the "Result" column does not give the person's name or a reference.) --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Good point about the need for specificity. The link is on the front page but this entry should identify the person. I've corrected that.

:::Your request for references is unpersuasive, as evidence is abundant in daily life. Would anyone ask [[Jesus]] for a reference after telling the parable of the [[Prodigal Son]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your point - I doubt anyone asked Jesus for references during his numerous speeches/sermons. But even though it may be obvious to you that the age of onset of gray hair is rapidly decreasing, it may not be obvious to many readers of Conservapedia, so providing substantial evidence would be useful to these readers. --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 00:41, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::No, but you're not Jesus. You need to provide citations to factual claims when asked. You should do it before being asked really. I know you know this. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:02, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
And now we see the "Hearsay Society" defense (...or, as I call it, the "Go Away, You Bother Me" defense) in action. Look Randall, look Nate: I've been coming to this website since 2007. Here's how it works. As stated above, one of the people who never have to provide evidence for their claims is Jesus Christ Himself. The other is Andy Schlafly. People are going gray earlier. Just roll with it, 'cause you ain't gonna get any more than "It's self-evident" or "One case proves the theory." Just kick back and enjoy the fun. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:05, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Nonsense. Mr. Schlafly uses citations all the time. He just needs to cite it his point. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:11, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Mr. Schlafly supported a user who created a template expressly designed to do away with the need for citations. Thus the invention of the notion of the "Hearsay Society." Mr. Schlafly just now on this very page is arguing that, like Jesus Christ, his assertions on this matter are obvious and require no corroborating data. Mr. Schlafly re-wrote the Bible when that particular "data-set," if you would, did not correspond to his own beliefs, and has used articles about events that happened billions of years ago in order to advance the cause of a young creation. Mr. Schlafly has what one might call an interesting approach to the idea of how evidence might support an argument. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::The [[Hearsay Society]] is the ultimate haven for anyone who denies [[logic]] and, in this case, the increasingly premature graying apparent all around in daily life. [[Pharisees]] used the same escape hatch to avoid accepting the compelling parables and indisputable reasoning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:19, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Not it's not apparent at all because none of us is 6000 years old, assuming YEC is why you're saying this it seems to me that arguing without citing authority where necessary is the ultimate escape hatch for anyone who denies logic because arguments are built on supported factual premises. We have no idea how grey people were at age 30 before the invention of photography unless you've got some citations. And you're still not Jesus. This grey hair stuff is not remotely similar to Jesus's sayings and you know it. You're also getting hearsay wrong. It has nothing to do with citing authority. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 10:38, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
ASchlafly, most people who are asked for a bit of evidence to back up a controversial claim don't retreat to constructing societal models out of whole cloth and then charging their interlocutors with being members of that made-up society. Nor do they compare their own arguments to those of the Lord. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 10:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::Wait a minute here Mr. Schlafly - are you suggesting I'm part of this "hearsay society" and that by asking you for a citation to show that people are prematurely graying I'm "continuing the don't-think-for-yourself tradition started by the Pharisees"? [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 12:33, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::That's exactly what he's doing. I'm curious as to why you would find this surprising. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 12:57, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Jesus was infalible. You, Aschlafly, are not. He did not need to provide citations but unless you are now comparing yourself to Jesus you, Aschlafly as a falible human, do. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:56, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:Also - but please correct me if I'm wrong - Jesus did not tell the Parable of the Prodigal Son as a true story, but, well, as a parable. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:59, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Jesus told the [[parable]] as a true story about the good side of human nature. It was not merely fiction. Notice how no one asked Him to provide a citation that human nature was really like this. Instead, listeners of the [[Prodigal Son]] then and now think for themselves, and recognize its truth without resorting to a demand for [[hearsay]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::So you feel yourself to be on a level with Jesus? You feel that because he, the infaliable Son of God, was not asked for a citation then you should not be? Less than 300 years ago you would have been burnt at the stake for making such a claim. You should really reconsider your hubris, and then ask for forgivness for your pride. And then provide a citation - or withdraw your claim. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 13:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::::But ASchlafly, you yourself said that [[parable| a parable is "a fictional narrative."]] Is it a true story or fiction? It cannot be both. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 13:34, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Sylvain, do you think the correct answer to a word problem in math is "merely fiction"? I don't think so.

:::::David, I don't think Christians burned anyone at the stake for making observations about premature graying, without citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
For those of you who argue that Andy Schlafly is not infalible and needs to supply sources, keep in mind that by your own argument you need to supply sources that Andy is not infalible if you wish to state it. I doubt you can. [[User:JacobJ|JacobJ]] 14:16, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::Edit Conflict: No, but they very well might have burned someone who claimed that his pronouncements were as clear and obvious as those of the Lord. And I'm not sure you can equate word problems with empirical statements about the observable world. I could write a word problem about a train taking 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and for the sake of the word problem, that's fine. It's not the same as saying "a train take 20 minutes to go from Baltimore to Chicago, and only a Pharisee would question my word," which is essentially what you are doing here. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]]

::::::::So is the correct answer to a word problem "merely fiction," or not? And, by the way, Christians did not burn people at the stake as much as [[public schools]] might lead people to believe. Opponents of Christianity have been far more violent throughout history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
Let's leave the questions of public schools and burning at the stake aside for the purposes of this discussion. The issue here is whether or not a constructed word problem is the same as an empirical claim about the world. I could construct a word problem where the correct answer is that the train took 20 minutes to get from Baltimore to Chicago. That says nothing about an actual train. You are making a claim about grey hair and when asked for evidence, your position seems to be "Jesus didn't need to provide evidence for his parables, and neither do I for this claim." This implies, to the casual observer, that you think that your claims have the same authority as those of the Lord. Do you not see how the reader might raise his eyebrows at such a position? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 14:31, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:OK, suppose it wasn't Jesus who told the [[Prodigal Son]], but someone else. Would anyone ask for references to confirm how the story illustrates a truth about life?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

::Someone might ask not for references to confirm that the story tells a truth about life, but for references that the events mentioned in the story actually happened. However, whether or not the story happened or not doesn't change the lesson implied in the story. I get that. But you're not simply telling a story to impart a larger lesson. You are making an empirical claim about the world, having to do with the occurrence of gray hairs. The only evidence you seem to give is "Just like Jesus, I don't need any proof." But Jesus wasn't talking about an actual son and an actual father in the parable--he was telling a story. He could have made it all up in order to illustrate the lesson; that doesn't make the lesson any less valid. Story-telling is not making an empirical claim. Surely you can see the difference. Either 1. You do not understand the difference between metaphor and observable reality, or 2. You believe that your word is as unquestionable as that of Jesus Christ Himself. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 15:52, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

===A related issue===
A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture is one thing. A man making a claim with an appeal to Scripture who led a project to re-write the Bible because parts of it did not conform to his political ideology is quite another. Then the claims of the man become self-fulfilling. Step 1: "Here is a claim about the world." Step 2: "For verification of this claim, please consult the version of the Bible that I wrote that reinforces the vision of the world that I am claiming in Step 1." Step 3: "If you have a problem with that, remember that Jesus--at least the version of him that I describe in my Bible--said things without reference to anything, and I can too. Because, like the claims of Jesus (the one in the Bible I rewrote), my claims are obvious." Does that not strike you as problematic? [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 16:01, 29 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Conservative Bible Project]] has always been dedicated to translating the original meaning of the [[Bible]] more precisely, free of [[liberal bias]] that creeps into other translations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
::Which explains why so many noted conservative theologians have given the rewritten Bible that you produced high praises, and why so many conservative churches and denominations are using it instead of those other, more liberal versions, I guess. [[User:Sylvain|Sylvain]] 00:07, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

:::I think the first statement would amount to more reliance on [[hearsay]] concerning what "conservative" theologians supposedly said. And, by the way, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] was never a "rewritten Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:51, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

{{nohearsay}}
What is this?
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 15:50, 29 April 2012 (EDT)
:It's a template that can be used to answer or pre-empt calls for references on pages where they aren't needed. There's also <nowiki>{{nohearsaysection}}</nowiki> for use on specific sections of pages.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Andy, let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that there is a scientist, a well-respected man and a well-known conservative (so no liberal bias involved), who has spent his career investigating premature greying in society, collecting data on the current incidence of premature greying and studying historic records on premature greying. Let us further assume - purely hypothetically - that this man has found that premature greying has not increased since, say, the time of Jesus up to now. If we don't know this man personally, should we take his results seriously or should we dismiss them and all reference to them as hearsay? What if we know him personally, maybe even as a close friend, and know him to be an honest, conservative man? Should we trust him and take his results seriously, even if they contradict what we believe to be true? At what point does information obtained from someone else stop being hearsay? You will surely say that he will not find contradicting results, but my question is not about premature greying (incidentally, I'm in my mid-40s and have been completely grey for at least ten years now). What I really want to understand is the concept of hearsay, its limits and the connection to openmindedness. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 11:36, 30 April 2012 (EDT)
::I'm sorry, I meant what's the point of this. References aren't bad, they prevent people from inventing their own facts.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:21, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

:::When a demand for references is used to shout down logic or obvious truths available to everyone, then that is bad. When references are used to repeat hearsay contained in the references, then that is also bad. Silly demands for references or authority were used to interfere with the logic and obvious truths in the [[Gospels]], which of course contain no references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:44, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
'::good point. However, when used correctly, references help people navigate the facts and content

::::I agree, but too often people demand references as a way of sidestepping clear logic or obvious truths, while accepting worthless references in other situations if the references reinforce their views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::So, I understand that it some situations, references just aren't readily available. Maybe because an insight is either so obvious that no one's bothered to discuss it or so novel that no one's thought to discuss it. But in other situations, they are available. Lots of smart people have studied lots of obscure things. In situations where references are available, is it appropriate to use them? If I, for example, found a study investigating the age at which people go grey, would that be worth considering? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:07, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
::::::Yes, of course references are sometimes - often - wholly appropriate and very useful. They are used extensively on Conservapedia. But Wikipedia has gone beyond that and suffers from a kind of reference-mania - dismissing ''any'' statement that has no reference, and conversely often allowing any old garbage on the grounds that it does have a (questionable) citation.
:::::: See the comics [http://xkcd.com/978/ here] and [http://xkcd.com/906/ here] for two humorous commentaries on the problems caused by Wikipedia's policies (though note that other comics on that site may not be so educational - in fact the second link should come with a mild warning).--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:18, 1 May 2012 (EDT)
:::::::I understand, I think, your criticism of how references are used elsewhere. I'm more interested in trying to understand how you/Andy/Conservapedia want them to be used here. How do I know when it is appropriate to ask for a reference? If I ask for one and am told it is not necessary, by what criteria will we (or even better, objective others) determine who is correct? If I have a reference on some topic, how will I know whether or not it is appropriate to include in an article? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 17:31, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

== Opportunities for improvement ==

I recently stumbled upon this article after a link to it was featured on the main page. After reviewing the article and it's subsequent talk page discussion, I believe I have found a few areas that could stand some attention.

# '''Ambiguousness of predictions''' - Many of the predictions are vague and offer little in the way of an objectively measurable outcome. To be effective, predictions should be as specific as possible, with indisputable results.
# '''Links to predictions''' - Very few of the list items reference the article (and exact edit) on Conservapedia where the actual prediction was made. Critics of the project could easily claim that predictions were being made after-the-fact once the final outcome was known. Citing the specific edit where the prediction was made would preemptively silence such criticism.
# '''"Liberal claptrap" responses''' - Like the predictions themselves, only a minuscule amount of the alleged liberal uproar is actually documented.
# '''The results''' - Surprisingly many of the results do not link to any external source, where the reader can review the material and reach their own conclusion about the accuracy of the prediction.

--[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:06, 10 January 2013 (EST)

:You're welcome to add more references, but the predictions and outcomes are so clear and well-known that even more references are hardly necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:10, 15 January 2013 (EST)

== Item on Armstrong is somewhat ridiculous ==

Lance Armstrong was stripped from his titles in August 2012, so adding him in September 2012 to the list of overrated sport-starts doesn't take a visionary... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:46, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:May seem obvious now, but as you can see from the reference there was objection in September 2012 to including him in the [[Overrated Sports Stars]] entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::I remember this well, as I reinserted the entry. So there were two editors ([[User:Wonders]] and [[User:AugustO]]) who thought that he was overrated, and other Conservapedians disagreed: you have enough convenient predictions to cover any outcome.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:58, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::No, because the deniers were not "Conservapedians" in many meaningful sense. Conservapedians said he was overrated, and non-Conservapedians disagreed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:08, 15 January 2013 (EST)

*the article on [[Lance Armstrong]] was created in '''Sep 2007'''. The first reference to drug abuse was inserted in '''Jan 2012'''
*In '''Sep 2007''' wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lance_Armstrong&oldid=156195303#Allegations_of_drug_use article on Armstrong] already had a long section named '''Allegations of drug use'''
So even if you claim that Conservapedia was proven right, it came quite late to the party... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:34, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::"Predicting" that Armstrong is overrated in September is a bit like "predicting" that Obama would win the election ... on the 7th of November. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:12, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September. There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:47, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::''[[Liberal denial]] about Armstrong continued well past September.'' Evidence?
:::::''There are probably atheist websites today that still list him as being great.'' Link?
:::::There are those thinks called ''facts''... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:57, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::Liberal companies including a beer company and Nike continued to endorse Armstrong for months after September. Now, do you need a citation for that too???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::Just citations which show that [[Anheuser Bush]] and [[Nike]] are liberal companies... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::::::::Oh please ... is it really necessary to provide a citation that Nike and a beer company are liberal???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 15 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Yes. In my country, beer companies belong to the most conservative companies imaginable. And [[Anheuser Bush]] doesn't strike me as a kind of micro-brewery.
:::::::::--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:32, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::Both Nike and Budd dropped him, presumably after looking in detail at their legal options. Besides I cannot imagine how you would even begin to argue that Nike is a "liberal" company - they are one of the biggest exploiters of cheap labour in the world; they are famous for having extremely lax safety standards for employees, and being in favour of countries that reduce them as much as possible. I'm not familiar with the beer company, but given their size I doubt they would meet any sensible definition of liberal. As for "I'm sure there are atheist websites who endorse him still"; that is a meaningless statement unless you actually cite one. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:07, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::It's difficult for me to imagine any corporation as "liberal." When the primary motivator is profit, groups and individuals tend to go conservative. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 00:41, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:::::::::Big corporations have never been friendly to the conservative movement. Except for the union issue, big corporations tend to support liberals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 16 January 2013 (EST)
::::::::::I think the opposite is the case (take, for example, the membership of ALEC). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 01:14, 16 January 2013 (EST)
:::::::::::(EC)And tax policy, and health and safety, and welfare, and discrimination laws, and minimum wages, and healthcare, and political finance reform and etc etc ad nauseum. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:18, 16 January 2013 (EST)
Rupert Murdock a liberal? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:58, 16 January 2013 (EST)

: Rupert Murdoch is whatever will further his business interests. He has at various times supported both sides of politics when doing so helps his various business interests. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 01:13, 16 January 2013 (EST)

:: ''The Australian, "The Times of London", "The Wall Street Journal"'', those rubbish tabloids in Britain. New York and in the various state capitals in Australia - "liberal" papers, Dvergne? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:38, 16 January 2013 (EST)

This is like shooting fish in a barrel guys - just follow the money. In 2012, Anheuser Busch donated [https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00034488 55% of its PAC money to Republicans, 45% to Democrats]. Since 2003, it has donated [http://www.followthemoney.org/database/topcontributor.phtml?u=207 45% of its money to Republicans, and 38% to Democrats]. In 2012, Nike donated [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00142786 63% to Republicans, 37% to Democrats]. Since 2004, Nike has given [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00142786 43% to Republicans, 40% to Democrats]. Although neither are 'overwhelmingly GOP', like, for example, [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00236489 Koch Industries] (98% Republican, 2% Democrat), if the Nike and Anheuser Busch numbers were election results, they would be called a "landslide" for Republicans. The vast majority of corporations will be found to be like this - it's in their interest to support less regulation, lower business taxes, etc, and they almost all line up to support conservatives. [[User:Wonders|Wonders]] 12:27, 18 January 2013 (EST)

:The donations by corporations to Republicans are typically to '''''liberal''''' Republicans, some of whom are more liberal than many Democrats.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 18 January 2013 (EST)
::But Anheuser-Busch is a member of ALEC, at least according to [http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/cied_35-day_mailing_2011_annual_meeting%20New%20Orleans.pdf this source]. I don't think they would belong to ALEC if they were liberal. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:13, 18 January 2013 (EST)
:::Not to mention that Anheuser-Busch donated to Andy's favorite candidate [[Todd Akin]]. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 20:32, 18 January 2013 (EST)

== Relay ==

I read [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/02/130208-super-bowl-blackout-cause/ the National Geographic article], and it appears that the argument is whether the relay mechanically failed or whether it was improperly set. Nothing suggests that relay or its use was not at fault, and certainly nothing suggests that energy rationing of any sort contributed to the outage. Please fix this. Thanks, [[User:GregG|GregG]] 21:25, 9 February 2013 (EST)

:A low setting on a relay (or fuse) would result from guidelines based on rationing energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::Relays almost never fail, and stadiums almost never go dark. You can't prove that a relay didn't cause a blackout by saying that relays almost never fail, just as liberals can't prove that God didn't create the world because worlds almost never are created. --[[User:Praymond|Praymond]] 11:30, 27 May 2013 (EDT)
::There are several other, more plausible reasons. It could have been to prevent larger-scale blackouts due to interruption in the power coming into the stadium. It could have been to reduce the risk of fire (the same kind of reason why circuit breakers in your home trip). Or, the setting may have been too low simply due to human error. The details should be sorted out soon through investigation. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:31, 9 February 2013 (EST)

== Media bullying ==

A simple google search shows that the term "media bullying" was already in use before Conservapedia purportedly coined it. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 09:48, 10 March 2013 (EDT)

:Were prior uses elsewhere of the term "[[media bullying]]" in the same rich meaning as the usage here?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 10 March 2013 (EDT)
::You claim (and literally wrote) that Conservapedia coined the ''term''. However, judging from your reply, what you probably intended to write was that Conservapedia merely coined the highly particular ''usage'' of the term. That is an essential difference. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 09:13, 11 March 2013 (EDT)

== Explained that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer ==

The article cited as proof that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer mentions nothing about abortions, nothing about ''Roe V Wade'' being connected with the increase of cancer in young women. Quote: "Why more young women would be presenting with tumors that have already spread to bone, brain, lungs, or other distant sites ''isn't clear, they noted. Rising obesity rates, changes in alcohol and tobacco use, and genetics are possible causes, according to Dr. Thomas Julian, director of surgical oncology at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh."
''

If you want to find a connection, or have some proof, I recommend adding it, but this is not that proof. Doesn't even come close. It just so happens that the studies started a few years after ''Roe V Wade'' was decided. There is not even a casual connection between the two mentioned in this article. [[User:Vyselink|Vyselink]] 15:03, 26 March 2013 (EDT)

:Newspaper articles often do have the problem of [[liberal denial]], but are cited here for the facts they contain.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
::The article's fact's also don't support the conclusion I'm afraid, which ultimately doesn't make a good case for this thesis. It states:
::The steepest uptick occurred in the most recent era from 2000-2009, during which incidence rose 3.6 percent per year.
::Keeping in mind that the study is about women in the 25-39 age group, the group around 2000 (before the uptick) are not pre-abortion. Even the oldest (age 39) member of the least cancerous cohort (in 2000) would have been age 12 when Roe v. Wade was decided in January 1973. In other words, even the early, healthy, group in the study were of child-bearing age in the abort era. As much as I'd like for this study to support this case, I don't see how it does. [[User:MelH|MelH]] 15:32, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

Here is a link to a reputable source that more than confirms the hypothesis.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1288955/Abortion-triple-risk-breast-cancer.html
--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 16:02, 2 July 2013 (EDT)

==Tamerlan Tsarnaev==
Does anyone else feel like this might be jumping the gun a little?? "Tamerlan Tsarnaev '''probably''' murdered his friend on a 9/11 anniversary, and DNA '''likely''' proves it." The words "probably" and "likely" are not synonyms for "proven right"... especially not when the [[Conservapedia proven right#cite note-56|only citation provided]] is a link back to the [[Main Page|same statement]] (without any external source at the time of this posting) on the main page of this very website. I honestly haven't followed the murder case at all and have no idea what is going on with it, but the information provided here is far from convincing to me. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:24, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
:I stand corrected, there is now a [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0511/Tsarnaev-2011-murders-Boston-bombing-brothers-also-could-be-linked-to-earlier-deaths source] provided on the main page... however, it very clearly states that the evidence only points to them being in the area on the day of the murder and circumstantial at best. Like I said above, I haven't been following the case so I don't know all the details, I just feel it's a little premature to claim CP was proven right on this. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:33, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
::I don't see any "liberal bias" or right-vs-left in any of this. All Americans believe that the Boston Marathon bombing, carjacking, police shootouts etc. were horrible behavior. It is an opportunity for the nation to pull together to respond to this. We all want the police and the criminal justice system to work effectively to identify all related crimes and any possible co-conspirators. America demands a complete and professional investigation. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:13, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

:::Within days the DNA evidence from the [[9/11]] triple-murder was compared with the DNA of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and they likely matched. (If they didn't match, then authorities would surely say so.) '''''Yet [[liberal denial]] about the DNA match continues'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:57, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

==Proposed Enhancements==
It seems my recent edit to this page was more controversial than I intended. I wanted to apologize to the project for the problems that I caused--it was never my intent to remove substantive material. I believe the lay out of the chart can be enhanced, and the following is my proposed methodology. I will not endeavor to make these changes without approval. Each of these phases would be enacted in separate edits with significant time in between them to facilitate review.
 -First: Standardization of the dates. Currently, there is no standard. Some dates are seasons while others are ranges, and those with specific dates are displayed with no specific style. My proposed standardization is as follows--for dates: (Full Month) (Day) (Year). for those that are currently seasons or ranges, I will search for the first relevant edit and use that as the date. I will provide a citation.
 -Second: Citation of Claims. After completing phase one, my intent is to revisit the table and provide internal citations to all predication made.
 -Third: Citation of Results. After completing phase two, my intent is to revisit the table and provide citations to all results.
 -Fourth: Sortability of Table. After completing phase three, my intent is to edit the formatting to create a sort-able table.

I believe these enhancements will improve the visual appeal of the table. Further, I believe these enhancements embody an important principle: credit where credit is due. Conservapedia has often made bold predictions and has been proven right time and time again. Although it is improper to brag, we ought to take pride in, and document, the project's success.

Again, my apologies for any complications my previous edits caused. [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 11:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

:I'm fine with the addition of citations, and with standardizing the form for dates is good too. I don't see how sortability will be a problem. The reason I reverted prior edits to this entry was that content changed. For example, and I don't know if this was your edit, but a correct statement about Manning throwing interceptions in the final key game was changed to incorrectly state that Tebow had done so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:22, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

::As I work through adding dates and internal citations, I have noticed that the archive page of In The News ends in December 2011. Were the months January-December 2012 archived? I ask because searching the archives is simpler than my current method of searching through revision histories. Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 09:06, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

:::I think 2012 is archived here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

::::Ah, great! I was looking at the general archives page here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives] Thanks, [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 11:55, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

==Variability of the Speed of Light==

I suggest deleting the point about the speed of light being variable. The article sited does not in fact say this. It states that the speed of light is constant but that space is not the complete vacuum previously thought. Thus the speed of light is slightly slower traveling through space as it is in any non vacuum. [[User:CenterK|CenterK]] 01:53, 1 July 2013 (EDT)

== The expert, number two seed, Andy Murray won the men's tournament; defeating a field of "best of publics". ==

What does this have to do with a page documenting Conservapedia's correct predictions? Should it not be on a page, if it exists, of incorrect predictions? [[User:EddyJ|EddyJ]] 14:33, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

:I don't see what the victory by the #2 seed in the men's tourney has to do with this. No one is claiming that the experts '''''always''''' lose and underachieve, but they often fail - rougly 50% of the time judging by the [[Wimbledon]] results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:17, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
::Exactly. Thanks for the insight. [[User:EddyJ|EddyJ]] 15:22, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
:::What insight? To suggest that ''anyone'' who gets as far as Wimbledon isn't an "expert" is vacuous at best. The "best of the public" are playing tennis in their gardens or at the local club. The only thing they do at Wimbledon is watch. Every single player there is by any reasonable definition an expert. --[[User:ECornwell|ECornwell]] 17:21, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

::::Why stop there? Why not say that the "public" are people who are playing tennis for the first time. Then we can be sure the public won't win.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:07, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
:ok so who isn't public? Just players who have won before?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 18:31, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

::"Experts" are people like tenured college professors, a select few whom liberals claim know more than anyone else. For athletes, "experts" are the ones who get the big endorsements and hype. The public are those who try just as hard as the experts, but lack the recognition by liberals, sometimes due to political bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
:::You're insane.--[[User:ErinTH|ErinTH]] 19:17, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
:::::I'd have to second Erin here. You do understand that "effort" without results isn't rewarded in sports, right? Particularly tennis has nothing to do with effort - it has to do with who has had the most success in tournaments.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 02:06, 8 July 2013 (EDT)
:::I get what Mr Schlafly is saying, but I think I would label the concept differently. The public in this sense are those who are not well known within the general population but only within their own sport. Serena Williams is well known throughout the world. I would guess their are those who know who she is but unaware she is a tennis player whilst Marion Bartoli is not well known outside the tennis community and her home country. So maybe she is public-plus or expert-minus as she has made over 8 million dollars during her career--[[User:Tomqua|Tomqua]] 23:35, 7 July 2013 (EDT)
::::And I guess Serena Williams used to be "best of the public" before she became well known. After that she was an "expert". --[[User:HyramF|HyramF]] 23:44, 7 July 2013 (EDT)

== 15th seed ==

15th seed is best of the public?!?! So the 15th ranked expert in the world is now best of the public? [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 10:23, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

== 15th seed ==

15th seed is best of the public?!?! So the 15th ranked expert in the world is now best of the public? [[User:JAnderson|Jacob]] [[User talk:Anderson|Anderson]] 10:23, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

:The 15th seed is far below the top four seeds who are expected by experts to produce the winner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:11, 15 July 2013 (EDT)

::So a functioning definition of 'the best of the public' is anyone outside the top four recognized world experts in a particular field?--[[User:DHouser|DHouser]] 16:23, 16 July 2013 (EDT)

== "There are no black holes" ==

This is sensationalist. “The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity.” If Hawking is correct, then black holes still exist, just not in the way previously thought. [[User:Darwon|Darwon]] 17:40, 14 December 2014 (EST)

Andrew Breitbart

2015-04-27T05:50:46Z

ChrisBaker: Added information about the posthumous release of the Obama college videos exposing the President's support for liberal Harvard Professor Derrick Bell

[[File:Breitbart1.jpg|right]]

'''Andrew Breitbart''' (pronounced BRIGHT-bart) (b. February 1, 1969 - March 1, 2012) was one of the most outspoken [[conservative]] journalists in America. He is the founder of [[Breitbart.com]], Breitbart.tv, BigJournalism.com, BigHollywood.com, BigPeace.com, BigGovernment.com and, BigEducation.com. His weekly columns appeared in the [[Washington Times]] and he was formerly a protégé of Matt Drudge's [[Drudge Report]]. He co-wrote a best-selling attack on celebrity culture called ''Hollywood, Interrupted.'' Breitbart worked with Arianna Huffington for a time and helped create the [[Huffington Post]]. Breitbart was a very visible member of the conservative media, constantly going after the [[liberal]] power structure and the [[mainstream media]] and was responsible for bringing [[ACORN]] to its knees with undercover journalism. Breitbart received the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award at CPAC in 2010.

He was born and raised in Brentwood, California. In 2011, Breitbart authored the book Righteous Indignation. Opening rank on Amazon.com #10 and #14 on the New York Times.

On March 1, 2012 it was announced that Breitbart had passed away during the night. He was 43.<ref>http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/01/andrew-breitbart-dead-at-43-according-to-his-website/ Andrew Breitbart dead at 43, according to his website, The Daily Caller, March 1 2012</ref>

==ACORN==
:''Main article: [[ACORN]]''
His greatest success was undercover journalism performed by his employees James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles against ACORN. His associates filmed ACORN giving advice on setting up brothels involving underage prostitution trafficking as well as tax evasion tips at four ACORN offices around the country. In a brilliant strategy, he would release one tape which ACORN would dismiss. Then other tapes to stir the pot. A fourth tape was released that turned into a national firestorm which bypassed the corrupt media who refused to cover the liberal-aligned group. The outrage that followed forced Congress to defund ACORN and Breitbart is credited with having them removed from partnering with the [[Obama Administration]] on the 2010 Census. [[Wade Rathke]], ACORN founder, and [[Bertha Lewis]], his puppet CEO had to change the name of the organization because Breitbart's work had sullied their image. State affiliates reorganized under new names in New York and California, others were banned from operating in Ohio and Maryland. Breitbart put ACORN on the defensive which is still reeling from his work and has announced it's closing business, bankrupt. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589768,00.html ACORN Closing in Wake of Scandal, FOX News, March 22, 2010]</ref> .

==2010 Annual NAACP Conference==
The day after the [[NAACP]] issued a statement calling the [[Tea Party movement]] racist, Breitbart showcased the power of [[conservative media]] by releasing video footage showing Shirley Sherrod of the [[USDA]] addressing a past NAACP conference about how she acted in a racist manner to offer very minimal help to a bankrupt farmer because he was Caucasian. The video went viral and the White House got involved to make Sherrod resign. <ref>[http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/07/20/obama-administration-stands-by-decision-to-fire-sherrod/ Obama Administration Stands By Decision to Fire Sherrod, BigGovernment.com, July 20, 2010]</ref>

==CPAC 2010==
Breitbart was video taped going after liberal columnist Blumenthall, calling him a "despicable human being" for writing lies, treating [[James O'Keefe]] as racist, a now common liberal media attack weapon. He was not afraid to confront dishonest journalists and their corrupt reporting. He gave speeches talking about the mainstream media saying "The Gig Is Up - You’re Not on the American Team."

==CPAC 2011==
Major conservative groups are backing out of the annual conference to protest the inclusion of the [[gay]] group GOProud. Breitbart defends their inclusion and he planned to throw a party for gay conservatives at CPAC. "I'm working on getting a venue," he said. "The first annual Roy Cohn CPAC Breitbart Homocon Welcoming 80's Extravaganza. I'm thinking of DJ-ing." <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cpac-20110108,0,4410541.story Some right-wing groups to skip GOP event, LATimes, January 8, 2011]</ref>

==CPAC 2012==
A major speech from Breitbart with many revelations. First, he wants the public not to be afraid to call [[Barack Obama]] a "[[Radical]]". Next, he described his dinner with domestic terrorist [[Bill Ayers]]. Third, that he has video tapes from Obama's days at college. Breitbart will expose the radical Obama and his radical ties that the [[Lamestream media]] knowingly suppressed from the public. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2012/02/10/hmmm-andrew-breitbart-at-cpac-i-have-videos-of-obama-from-his-college-day/ Hmmm: Andrew Breitbart At CPAC, “I Have Videos” of Obama From His College Day…, Weasel Zippers, February 10, 2012]</ref>

==Congressman Weiner==
Liberal Democrat Rep. Anthony Weiner used Twitter to send lewd photos of himself. Breitbart exposed this act, dubbed WeinerGate. Weiner tried to deny it was him, blamed he was hacked by [[conservative]] vandals and stated in public that Breitbart was lying. As the story went nationwide, Weiner was pressured to step down. Weiner arranged a conference in [[New York]]. Weiner was late to the conference and Breitbart showed up, and took the microphone to denounce Weiner, demanding an apology. Weiner showed up, announced he had lied and was retiring. Also, he apologized to Breitbart.

==Posthumous Release of 'Obama Harvard Tapes'==
Despite Breibart's tragic death on March 1, 2012, the video he had from Obama's college days at [[Harvard]] were released on [[Hannity]] on March 6th. The video depicts Obama speaking at a rally in 1991 held for [[liberal]] [[Professor Derrick Bell]], a longtime [[racist]] who built an academic career out of accusing the majority of Americans of being [[racist]] and [[discriminatory]] to him with no evidence for his accusations<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2012/03/13/words-derrick-bell-0/</ref>. In the course of the rally, Obama praises Bell's views and commitment, and then embraces the "[[Jeremiah Wright]] of Academia" <ref>http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/03/07/obama-harvard-tapes-exposed-hannity</ref>. Liberals seeking to cover up the mounting evidence of Obama's hatred for America and [[conservative]] values led a massive [[smear campaign]] against Breitbart and attempted to portray the tapes as a non-issue<ref>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/andrew-breitbart-bombshell-video-barack-obama-college-days-released-falls-flat-article-1.1035322</ref>.

==Videos==
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnoAXCnbCYU Andrew Breitbart Shuts Down Max Blumenthall at CPAC]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4jLl71BZPE&feature=related Andrew Breitbart CPAC 2010 Speech PART 1 (1 of 2)]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rci_BLmHDc&feature=related Andrew Breitbart CPAC 2010 Speech PART 2 (2 of 2)]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4j6mmVuAKs&feature=related Andrew Breitbart received the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award at CPAC]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E174yCPrR4I&feature=related Andrew Breitbart confronts David Shuster lies from MSNBC]

==References==
<references/>
{{conservatism}}
==External Links==
* [http://www.breitbart.com Breitbart.com]
* [http://www.breitbart.tv Breitbart.tv]
* [http://bighollywood.breitbart.com BigHollywood.com]
* [http://biggovernment.com BigGovernment.com]
* [http://bigjournalism.com BigJournalism.com]
* [http://www.bigpeace.com BigPeace.com]
* [http://washingtontimes.com/staff/andrew-breitbart/ Washington Times - Andrew Breitbart]
* [http://www.facebook.com/andrewbreitbart Facebook -Andrew Breitbart]
* [http://twitter.com/andrewbreitbart Twitter -AndrewBreitbart (Warning: Liberals leave vulgar messages)]
* [http://breitbartbook.com/ Breitbartbook.com]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Breitbart, Andrew}}
[[Category:Conservative Media]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Journalists]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Tea Party Movement]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Pro Second Amendment]]
[[Category:Patriots]]
[[Category:American Gun Rights Advocates]]

Tom Coburn

2015-04-18T19:42:51Z

ChrisBaker: Fixed a typo ("Cobunr") in the earmark fight section

{{Officeholder
|name=Tom Coburn
|image=Coburn.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Carolyn Coburn
|religion=[[Baptist]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Oklahoma
|terms=January 3, 2005 – January 6, 2015
|preceded=Don Nickles
|former=y
|succeeded=[[James Lankford]]
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Oklahoma
|district=2nd
|terms=January 4, 1995 – January 3, 2001
|preceded=Mike Synar
|former=n
|succeeded=Brad Carson
}}
}}

'''Tom Coburn''', M.D., born March 14, 1948 (age {{age|1948|3|14}}), is a former [[Republican]] [[United States]] Senator from [[Oklahoma]].

== Background Information ==
"In 1970, Dr. Coburn graduated with an accounting degree from Oklahoma State University. One of the Top Ten seniors in the School of Business, Dr. Coburn served as president of the College of Business Student Council.

From 1970 to 1978, Dr. Coburn served as manufacturing manager at the Ophthalmic Division of Coburn Optical Industries in Colonial Heights, Virginia. Under his leadership, the Virginia division of Coburn Optical grew from 13 employees to more than 350 and captured 35 percent of the U.S. market.

After the family business was sold, Dr. Coburn changed the course of his life by returning to school to become a physician. Again he emerged as a leader, becoming president of his class at the University of Oklahoma Medical School where he graduated in 1983. He then did his internship in general surgery at St. Anthony's Hospital in Oklahoma City and family practice residency at the University of Arkansas, Fort Smith.

Dr. Coburn returned to Muskogee where he specializes in family medicine, obstetrics and the treatment of allergies. Dr. Coburn and his associates serve more than 15,000 patients for whom he has personally delivered more than 4,000 babies.

Dr. Coburn also is a two-time cancer survivor.

Coburn and his wife, Carolyn, a former Miss Oklahoma, were married in 1968 and have three children and four grandchildren. They are members of Muskogee's New Community Church."<ref>http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorCoburn.Biography</ref>

Dr. Coburn is a personal friend of [[Barack Obama]], though both acknowledge their polar opposition in most political matters <ref>http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/the-president-has-a-friend--on-right-flank-2009-05-06.html</ref>. Their friendship began while Obama was in the Senate and has continued into his presidency.

== A Citizen Legislator ==

"Dr. Coburn represented Oklahoma's Second Congressional District in the House of Representatives from 1995 through 2001. He was first elected in 1994, then re-elected in 1996 and 1998, becoming the first Republican to hold the seat for consecutive terms. Dr. Coburn retired from Congress in 2001, fulfilling his pledge to serve no more than three terms in the House." <ref>http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorCoburn.Biography</ref>

When Coburn was first elected in to the House of Representatives in 1994, the year of the Republican Revolution he stated from the beginning that he would only serve three terms (if he was re-elected each time). Coburn believes in the idea of a term limited citizen legislator. In other words, a citizen who serves in Congress for several years and then goes home to live under the laws they have helped to create.

== Coburn's Activities in the House ==

"During his tenure in the House, Dr. Coburn wrote and passed far-reaching legislation. These include laws to expand seniors' health care options, to protect access to home health care in rural areas and to allow Americans to access cheaper medications from Canada and other nations. Dr. Coburn also wrote a law intended to prevent baby AIDS. The Wall Street Journal said about the law, "In 10 long years of AIDS politics and funding, this is actually the first legislation to pass in this country that will rescue babies." He also wrote a law to renew and reform federal AIDS care programs.

During his three terms in the House, Dr. Coburn also played an influential role in reforming welfare and other federal entitlement programs. He led efforts to balance the budget, offering countless amendments to trim the bloated federal budget." <ref>http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorCoburn.Biography</ref>
== The Interlude ==

"In 2002, President George Bush chose Dr. Coburn to serve as co-chair of the President's Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA)."<ref>http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorCoburn.Biography</ref>

== The Road to the Senate ==

In 2004, however, Coburn decided to return to public life and ran for and won a seat as a United States Senator from Oklahoma. In keeping with the idea of the citizen legislator, Coburn has promised to serve only two terms in the Senate.<ref>http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorCoburn.Biography</ref>

== Coburn's Earmark Fight ==
In an article entitled, "Week of July 18, 2007," columnist Robert D. Novak discussed the continuing anti-earmark fight by several member of the Upper and Lower Houses of Congress, Tom Coburn among them.

"Senators Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) will continue in the Senate the anti-earmark fight that Representatives Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) have been fighting in the House. Two Senate amendments to the Defense bill will target an earmark by one of Flake's favorite targets, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), and a Nebraska defense company. Two other amendments will require a competition to determine the best rifle for U.S. soldiers and require competitive contract processes for winning earmarked Defense money. Coburn leads the charge in stripping individual earmarks, while DeMint pushes for new transparency rules."<ref>http://www.www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21588</ref>

On his website, Coburn also provides an explanation of why he is fighting against earmarks in addition to a scorecard of what he has done during the 109th and 110th Congresses.

"I ran for the Senate, in part, to reduce wasteful Washington, D.C. spending, re-prioritize spending to ensure essential needs are not compromised by parochial political interests and to reform the way our government spends money. Our national debt now surpasses $8.7 trillion, important programs like Social Security and Medicare are in danger of bankruptcy, our nation is fighting a global War on Terror and we still are paying for costs associated with the most expensive natural disaster in our nation’s history.

Every family in America must make decisions that require prioritizing and financial restraint to meet their financial situation and expect the government to do the same. But politicians in Washington have for too long avoided making tough decisions and have prioritized their next election over the next generation. Clearly this in not the time for business as usual in Washington and the borrow and spend mentality must come to an end if we are to ensure that the next generation of Americans inherit the same standard of living and that our seniors can enjoy financial security during their retirement years.

The following is a summary of the amendments I have offered on the Senate floor to reduce wasteful Washington spending and to reform the budget process. While many of these amendments have been unsuccessful — often losing in lopsided votes — I believe it is important not to be discouraged and to continue to press for change and fiscal responsibility in Washington. The future of our country, after all, depends upon it." <ref>http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ConstituentServices.PorkBusters</ref>

== Coburn's Senate Activities ==

"Dr. Coburn's priorities in the Senate include reducing wasteful spending, balancing the budget, improving health care access and affordability, protecting the sanctity of all human life - including the unborn - and representing traditional, Oklahoma values. As a citizen legislator, Dr. Coburn has pledged to serve no more than two terms in the Senate and to continue to care for patients. He is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the Indian Affairs Committee and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions." <ref>http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorCoburn.Biography</ref>

Coburn has recently been criticized by the ''Marine Corps Times'' newspaper for stalling Senate approval of a major veterans' benefits bill. <ref>[http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/11/military_veteransbill_coburnhold_110309w/ Marine Corps Times, 3 November 2009.] </ref>

==External Links==
*[http://coburn.senate.gov/public/ Official Website]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Tom_Coburn.htm Coburn On the Issues]
==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Coburn, Tom}}
[[Category:Former United States Senators]]

[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category: 111th United States Congress]]
[[Category: 112th United States Congress]]
[[Category: 113th United States Congress]]
[[Category:Fiscal Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Oklahoma]]
[[Category:RINOs]]

User:ChrisBaker

2015-04-18T06:00:41Z

ChrisBaker: Created page with "{{Useful links}}"

James Inhofe

2015-04-17T17:01:28Z

ChrisBaker: Added information about Sen. Inhofe's time as Mayor of Tulsa

{{Officeholder
|name=James Inhofe
|image=Inhofe.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Kay Inhofe
|religion=[[Presbyterian]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Oklahoma
|terms=November 17, 1994 – Present
|preceded=David Boren
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Oklahoma
|district=1st
|terms=January 6, 1987 – November 17, 1994
|preceded= James Robert Jones
|former=n
|succeeded=Steve Largent
}}
}}

'''James Inhofe''', born November 17, 1934 (age {{age|1934|11|17}}), is a [[Republican]] [[United States]] Senator from the state of [[Oklahoma]]. Inhofe first served in a major public office as Mayor of Tulsa from 1978 to 1984, modernizing the city's infrastructure withoout raising taxes and leading the charge to develop the Arkansas River through a series of low-water dams that boosted economic growth for the city.<ref>https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/elected-officials/office-of-the-mayor/gallery-of-mayors.aspx</ref> After former Senator [[David Boren]] resigned to take the presidency of the [[University of Oklahoma]] in 1994, Inhofe ran and won the senatorial election and served out the two remaining years. He was re-elected in 1996 and again in 2002. He served as the chairman of the Senate's Committee on the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Armed Services Committee until 2007.<ref name="uscc">http://www.uscc.gov/bios/2005bios/05_07_21_22/inhofe_james.htm</ref>

After taking the role as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee in 2003, Inhofe worked to increase security enhancement in drinking water and wastewater facilities, passing a bill which authorized a total of $245 million in Environmental Protection Agency grants,<ref>http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/</ref>. Through this work in the committee, Inhofe endeavors to restore sound science to the regulatory decisions on such issues as [[global warming]], wetlands, clean air mandates, and endangered species. Inhofe has been a leader in debunking the global warming hoax, criticizing Secretary of Defense [[Leon Panetta]] after he proclaimed [[global warming]] was a national security threat: “Panetta wasting his time promoting [[Obama]]’s Global Warming fantasies.” <ref>http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/senator-panetta-wasting-his-time-promoting-obamas-global-warming-fantasies-he</ref>

Inhofe's voting record in opposition to [[abortion]] and [[Stem cell research|embryonic stem cell]] research, and increase taxes have proven him to be a strong conservative. The American Conservative Union rates Inhofe as one of the most consistently conservative Senators currently serving, with a lifetime rating of 97.62. <ref>http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm#HI</ref>

Inhofe had previously served four terms in the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] representing Oklahoma's First Congressional District from 1987 to 1994. He had also served in the Oklahoma State House of Representatives in 1966, serving one two-year term. From 1968 to 1976 Inhofe was a member of the Oklahoma State Senate, honored by his colleagues being selected to be the majority leader.<ref>http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=27027</ref>
He is actively involved in aviation, being the only member of Congress to fly a plane around the world<ref name="uscc" />.

==External Links==
*[http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home Official Website]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/James_Inhofe.htm Voting Record]
==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Inhofe, James}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category: 110th United States Congress]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]
[[Category:112th United States Congress]]
[[Category:113th United States Congress]]
[[Category:114th United States Congress]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Oklahoma]]

Pope Francis

2015-04-16T00:25:08Z

ChrisBaker: Removed the "I" from "Pope Francis I" above the photo since he's not "Pope Francis I" until there's a "Pope Francis II"

{|class="infobox" style="font-size:100%; float:right; margin-left:3px; border:1.5px solid black;" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="3" width="150" border=0
|-
!colspan="2" style="background:#306EFF;text-align:center"|'''<big>Pope Francis</big>'''
|-
|[[File:Card. Jorge Bergoglio SJ, 2008.jpg|right|200px|thumb|His Holiness, Pope Francis.]]
|-
|Papacy Began: 13 March 2013
|-
|Papacy Ended: Currently in office
Predecessor: [[Pope Benedict XVI]]
Successor: None
|-
| <hr>
|-
|Born: 17 December 1936, as Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Nationality: [[Argentina|Argentine]]

Motto: ''Miserando atque eligendo''
|-
|Reference style: His Holiness
In person: Your Holiness

In religion: Holy Father
|}
His Holiness '''Pope Francis''' (formerly '''Jorge Mario Bergoglio''', born December 17, 1936, in [[Buenos Aires]], [[Argentina]]) became the [[Pope]] of the [[Roman Catholic Church]] on March 13, 2013. Pope Francis, elected as 266th Roman Catholic pontiff, is the first Jesuit and the first Latin American pope; First non-European pope in 1300 years. He succeeded Pope [[Benedict XVI]], to whom he was reportedly the runner-up in the papal election of 2005. <ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-pope-succession-bergoglio-idUSBRE92C15X20130313</ref> Archbishop Bergoglio was created a cardinal by the late [[Pope John Paul II]].

Pope Francis understands the harm posed by the [[homosexual agenda]], and has even spoken of the need to expel the "[[gay lobby]]" from the [[Vatican]].

==Policies==
Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, has been an outspoken critic of [[homosexual]] adoption of children, explaining that it is discriminatory against the children.<ref>http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/16363162/who-is-jorge-bergoglio/</ref> Pope Francis is also strongly [[pro-life]], and has referred [[abortion]] as the "culture of death."

<blockquote>
Among his teachings and stands, he strongly affirms church teaching on the intrinsic immorality of homosexual practices, though he teaches the importance of respecting homosexual persons. He strongly opposed legislation introduced in 2010 by the Argentine Government to give legal equivalency between true marriage and homosexual partners. <ref>[http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=50111 By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM).]</ref>
</blockquote>

Pope Francis entered the Society of Jesus in 1958. As a [[Jesuit]], Cardinal Bergoglio rejected and opposed [[liberation theology]] in [[South America]].

The son of an Italian workman who emigrated to [[Argentina]], Cardinal Bergoglio chose to carry the name of an Italian saint, "Francis", while serving as Pope. And like his papal namesake, [[St. Francis of Assisi|St. Francis]], Cardinal Bergoglio has an ascetic and humble lifestyle.

Pope Francis has overcome a disability: as a young man, one of his lungs was removed due to illness.

His holiness remains an adamant supporter of [[Social Justice]]. His 2009 speech, titled Las deudas sociales de nuestro tiempo, or The Social Debts of our Time, lays out his views on the world's inequality, between rich and poor, especially in Argentina. He further rebuked the wealthy, claming that "You ''[the wealthy]'' avoid taking into account the poor. We have no right to duck down, to lower the arms carried by those in despair. We must reclaim the memory of our country who has a mother, recover the memory of our Mother"

The Pope is the spiritual leader of 1.2 billion people - almost 17% of the Earth's population and 55% of all Christians.

==Naming conventions==
Vatican tradition holds that when a new Pope is elected and takes a name that has not been used by a prior pope, they will be referred to simply as "Pope ______", rather than "Pope ______ I" until another pope has taken the same name. In this case "Pope Francis". <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-vatican-pope-francis-name-20130313,0,1309501.story</ref>

<center>
[[File:Pope Francis march 2013 First mass.jpg]]

Pope Francis' First Mass.
</center>

==Scientific Views==

Pope Francis recently declared [[evolution]] and [[Big Bang theory]] are right and God isn't 'a magician with a magic wand'.

Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories” of [[creationism]] and [[intelligent design]] that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI.[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand-9822514.html]

==See also==
*[[Holy Week]]
*[[Jesus Christ]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=50111 NEW POPE: Who is this man named Bergoglio?]
*[http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/13/world/pope-name/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Pope Francis' name choice 'precedent shattering'.]
*[http://frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/will-pope-francis-challenge-muslim-persecution-of-christians/ Will Pope Francis Challenge Muslim Persecution of Christians?]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Current Heads of State]]
[[Category:Catholic Church]]