Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Malinche

2012-11-08T06:22:41Z

Cmurphynz:

[[Image:Malinche.jpg|thumb|La Malinche]]
'''La Malinche''' lived from 1496 – 1529, though some sources dispute about when her death was and say that she died in 1551. According to her contemporary, the author [[Bernal Díaz del Castillo]], Malinche was the [[daughter]] of a [[noble]] [[Aztecs|Aztec]] family. Her mother remarried after Malinche’s father died. When her mother gave birth to a son, Malinche was considered an inconvenient step-child and was sold to Mayan slave-traders. Malinche's family faked her death by telling their neighbors that the recently dead child of a slave was Malinche. At some point, she was given or sold again, and was taken to [[Potonchan]], where she was eventually given to the [[Spain|Spaniards]]. Some people are skeptical about this theory of Malinche’s past life but there is no evidence to the contrary. What is definite about Malinche’s life is that after living amongst both the [[Maya]]ns and Aztecs she was able to act as their translator and her fellow slaves started to call her “Malintzin.” [[Hernando Cortés]], who was the leader of the Spanish explorers, was also called Hernando Malintzin by the natives. Malinche had a son by Hernando (Don Martín Cortés); he is believed to have been one of the first [[Mestizo|European-American]] children. Eventually she was able to learn enough Spanish and work as their translator and guide. She later married Juan Jaramillo, a Nahuatl gentleman; she had a daughter with him in 1527. Little to nothing is known about her after this.

== See also ==

*[[Mexico]]

[[Category:Mexican History]]

Balad

2012-11-08T06:15:18Z

Cmurphynz:

'''Balad''' is an [[Israel]]i-[[Arab]] political party committed to undermining Israel’s Jewish character and supporting its enemies. It currently has three members in the [[Knesset]].<ref>[http://www.knesset.gov.il/faction/eng/FactionPage_eng.asp?PG=103 Balad on the Knesset’s website]</ref>

== Platform ==

Balad strives to have Israel stop defining itself as a Jewish state. <ref name="Haaretz">[http://www.haaretz.com/news/balad-1.179366 Balad - Haaretz]</ref> Ostensibly they want Israel to be a “state of all its citizens”; their detractors assert however that they wish it to be an Arab Palestinian state. This is best exemplified by Balad’s desire to have all Palestinian refugees return to Israel<ref name="Haaretz" />, which will lead to the formation of an Arab majority within the country and probably its unification with the [[Gaza Strip]] and the [[West Bank]].

Prominent members of Balad have often supported Israel’s enemies. Its first leader, former member of [[Knesset]] Azmi Bishara, expressed support for [[Hezbollah]] and the terroristic regime of Syria, a country which he visited several times. <ref name="Haaretz" /><ref>[http://www.azure.org.il/article.php?id=249 The New Ideology of Israeli Arabs]</ref> On April 2007 he fled Israel in order to avoid being tried for cooperating with Hezbollah during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war.<ref>[http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3394602,00.html Bishara suspected of aiding Hizbullah for money]</ref> Other members of the party expressed support for Iran’s nuclear program<ref>[http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=137734 New Balad MK praises Iran’s nuke quest – Jerusalem Post]</ref> and for [[Hamas]]<ref>[http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=124460 Arab MK faces trial for meeting Mashaal – Jerusalem Post]</ref>.

== References ==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
[http://www.tajamoa.org/ Balad] - Official website

[[category:Israeli Political Parties]]

Little Ice Age

2012-11-08T06:12:12Z

Cmurphynz:

A [[cold period]] that lasted from about A.D. 1550 to about A.D. 1850. This was the coldest period in about 1,500 years. There are many records - both scientific and historic that substantiate this.
This period was marked by rapid expansion of mountain [[glacier]]s, especially in the Alps, Norway, Ireland, and Alaska. There were three maxima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight [[warming trend]]. <ref> [http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/glossary.php3?mode=all NASA Earth Observatory glossary] </ref>
*During the Little Ice Age, the [[River Thames]] froze over, the Dutch improved the [[ice skate]] and the great artists of the day learned to love a new genre: the winter landscape.<ref>[http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/31/the-deniers-our-spotless-sun.aspx The Deniers: Our spotless sun]</ref>
An attempt was made by the UN's global warming study panel to dismiss the existence of the Little Ice Age, using the notorious [[hockey stick graph]] of Dr. [[Michael Mann]].

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html The LIA in Europe]
*[http://www.iberianature.com/material/iceage.html The LIA in Spain]
*[http://www-user.zfn.uni-bremen.de/~gheiss/Personal/Abstracts/SAJS2000_Abstr.html The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa] (abstract)

==See Also==
* [[Medieval Warm Period]]

* A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability (''Annals of Glaciology'', vol. 39, p.127-132, 2004) - P.A Mayewski, K. Maasch, J.W.C White, E.J. Steig, E. Meyerson, I. Goodwin, V.I. Morgan, T. van Ommen, M.A.J. Curran, J. Sourney, K. Kreutz
* Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability (''Science'', vol. 295. no. 5563, pp. 2250 - 2253, 22 March 2002) - Jan Esper, Edward R. Cook, Fritz H. Schweingruber
* Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay (''Global and Planetary Change'', vol. 36, issues 1-2, March 2003, Pages 17-29) - T. M. Cronin, G. S. Dwyer, T. Kamiya, S. Schwede, D. A. Willard
* The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea (''Science'', vol. 274. no. 5292, pp. 1503 - 1508, 29 November 1996) - Lloyd D. Keigwin
* The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa (South African Journal of Science 96: 121-126, 2000) - P. D. Tyson, W. Karlén, K. Holmgren and G. A. Heiss
* Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers (''Climate Dynamics'', January, 2008) - Håkan Grudd
* Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval warm epoch and the little ice age in southern South America (''Climatic Change'', vol. 26, nos. 2-3, March, 1994) - Ricardo Villalba


[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Environment]]

John Rolfe

2012-11-08T06:09:28Z

Cmurphynz:

'''John Rolfe''' (1585-1622) was an early English settler in North America. He was the first to grow a sweeter strain of [[tobacco]] than had been previously grown, by using seeds that he took with him from [[Trinidad]]. He was first to commercially cultivate tobacco plants in North America, and exported his sweeter strain beginning in 1612. The tobacco proved popular in England, and competed well with Spain's version of tobacco. Its success helped turn the Virginia Colony into a profitable venture.
Pocahontas, the daughter of a local chief, and his future wife, came to the attention of John Rolfe after she had been kidnapped and taken to Jamestown to be exchanged for English prisoners and weapons that Powhatan (her father and Chief of the local tribe)had taken in raids. She was taken to Henrico where she learned English, converted to Christianity, was Baptized and christened Rebecca.
Their marriage in 1614 resulted in peace with the Indians. The peace lasted long enough for the settlers to develop and expand their colony and plant themselves permanently in the new land.<ref>{Association for the Presentation of Virginia Antiquities}</ref> The couple had one son,Thomas, in 1615. In 1616 the Virginia company sponsored a trip to England for the couple and their son. Pocahontas (Rebecca) became ill, most likely with tuberculosis, and died in March 1617 as they were preparing to return to Virginia. Their son was raised by an uncle and did not return to America until 1640.<ref>Rolfe,John. "Encyclopedia Britannica 2007</ref>
When he returned to Virginia he served as secretary and recorder of the colony from 1614-1619 and in 1621 he was appointed to the Council of State. He married Jane Pierce, daughter of William Pierce and they had a daughter, Elizabeth, born in 1618. He died in 1622 after his plantation was destroyed in an Indian attack. It is not clear if he died as a result of the attack or from an illness.<ref>Brown, Alezander. The Genesis of the United States. Bosten: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1890</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Rolfe, John}}

[[category:agriculture]]
[[category:United States History]]

John Rolfe

2012-11-08T06:04:11Z

Cmurphynz:

'''John Rolfe''' (1585-1622) was an early English settler who was first to grow tobacco that was a sweeter strain than had been growing from seeds he took with him from [[Trinidad]]. He was first to commercially cultivate tobacco plants in North America and exported his sweeter strain beginning in 1612. The tobacco was a hit in England and competed with Spain's version of tobacco. Its success helped turn the Virginia Colony into a profitable venture.
Pocahontas, a the daughter of a local chief, and his future wife, came to the attention of John Rolfe after she had been kidnapped and taken to Jamestown to be exchanged for English prisoners and weapons that Powhatan (her father and Chief of the local tribe)had taken in raids. She was taken to Henrico where she learned English, converted to Christianity, was Baptized and christened Rebecca.
Their marriage in 1614 resulted in peace with the Indians long enough for settlers to develop and expand their colony and plant themselves permanently in the new land.<ref>{Association for the Presentation of Virginia Antiquities}</ref> The couple had one son,Thomas, in 1615. In 1616 the Virginia company sponsored a trip to England for the couple and their son. Pocahontas (Rebecca) became ill, most likely with tuberculosis, and died in March 1617 as they were preparing to return to Virginia. Their son was raised by an uncle and did not return to America until 1640.<ref>Rolfe,John. "Encyclopedia Britannica 2007</ref>
When he returned to Virginia he served as secretary and recorder of the colony from 1614-1619 and in 1621 he was appointed to the Council of State. He married Jane Pierce, daughter of William Pierce and they had a daughter, Elizabeth, born in 1618. He died in 1622 after his plantation was destroyed in an Indian attack. It is not clear if he died as a result of the attack or from an illness.<ref>Brown, Alezander. The Genesis of the United States. Bosten: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1890</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Rolfe, John}}

[[category:agriculture]]
[[category:United States History]]

Crystal Dixon

2012-11-08T05:51:43Z

Cmurphynz:

'''Crystal Dixon''' is a university administrator who was fired after writing about homosexuals who
had regrets about "their choice of [[Homosexuality|same-sex practices]]" and "choosing the homosexual lifestyle" as well as making the decision to turn from it. [http://www.crystaldixon.com/page04.html]

==See also==
*"[[Homosexuality and choice]]"
{{DEFAULTSORT:Dixon, Crystal}}
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Conservative Party, New York

2012-11-08T05:47:20Z

Cmurphynz:

The '''Conservative Party of New York State''' is a political party active in the state of [[New York]]. It was founded in 1962 by a group including J. Daniel Mahoney, Charles E. Rice, and Charles Edison, as they felt that the Republican Party in New York was too liberal.
[[Category:Political Parties]]

Talk:Beatrix

2012-11-08T02:18:14Z

Cmurphynz: Category:people who were educated at home

== Category:people who were educated at home ==

Are you sure? I read somewhere else that she just basically went to standard schools. I would like to see a citation for that. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 21:18, 7 November 2012 (EST)

Hitler Youth

2012-11-08T02:13:12Z

Cmurphynz: extra 'e's removed

[[image:Hitler_Youth.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Nazi-era propaganda poster.]]

The '''Hitler Youth''' (''Hitler-Jugend'' in German) organization was founded by [[Adolf Hitler]], the leader of the [[NSDAP]] in 1926 and future dictator of [[Germany]]. It was a recreation of an earlier Nazi youth movement known as the ''Jungenbund der NSDAP'' . It was designed to integrate teenage boys and young men so that they might become [[Nazis]]. There was also another organization called the [[League of German Girls]] which trained young women in domestic duties and motherhood.

The Hitler Youth was modeled on similar organizations created by other Socialist parties in Germany from the 1920s onwards. The German [[Communist]] party had founded a similar movement in the 1920s, attempting to foster opposing, albeit it still [[leftist]], political views.<ref>[http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf ''Road to Serfdom'',] Friedrich A. Hayek, Reader's Digest Condensed Version, April 1945, pg. 35 - 36.</ref> However, from its conception the Hitler Youth was entirely a [[fascist]] organization.

The leader of the Hitler Youth throughout the Nazi dictatorship was Baldur von Schirach, who was a principal defendant of the [[Nuremberg Trials]].

== Beliefs Instilled ==
Members of the Hitler Youth were taught the official Nazi far left, racist and anti-Semitic doctrines. The future most encouraged was service in the [[Wehrmacht]], the German army. Thus most Hitler Youth activities were based on fitness and strength, instead of intelligence. Younger boys in the Hitler Youth were occasionally physically abused by older boys; this was unofficially tolerated by the adult leaders. {{who says}}

By the end of the war Hitler Youth members were being used as soldiers, and by 1945 compelled to act as front line troops and stretcher bearers.

==Well-Known Members==
Most Germans of a certain age were members, some of the better known being [[Pope Benedict XVI]], head of the Catholic Church, and Prince Claus van Amsberg (born Klaus von Amsberg) of the Netherlands, husband of [[Beatrix|Queen Beatrix]].

==References==
<references/>

== Also See ==
*[[Adolf Hitler]]
*[[World War II]]
*[[Nazi Party]]
*[[Eugenics]]

[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category: Racism]]
[[Category: Nazis]]

Hitler Youth

2012-11-08T02:12:18Z

Cmurphynz:

[[image:Hitler_Youth.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Nazi-era propaganda poster.]]

The '''Hitler Youth''' (''Hitler-Jugend'' in German) organization was founded by [[Adolf Hitler]], the leader of the [[NSDAP]] in 1926 and future dictator of [[Germany]]. It was a recreation of an earlier Nazi youth movement known as the ''Jungenbund der NSDAP'' . It was designed to integrate teenage boys and young men so that they might become [[Nazis]]. There was also another organization called the [[League of German Girls]] which trained young women in domestic duties and motherhood.

The Hitler Youth was modeled on similar organizations created by other Socialist parties in Germany from the 1920s onwards. The German [[Communist]] party had founded a similar movement in the 1920s, attempting to foster opposing, albeit it still [[leftist]], political views.<ref>[http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf ''Road to Serfdom'',] Friedrich A. Hayek, Reader's Digest Condensed Version, April 1945, pg. 35 - 36.</ref> However, from its conception the Hitler Youth was entirely a [[fascist]] organization.

The leader of the Hitler Youth throughout the Nazi dictatorship was Baldur von Schirach, who was a principal defendant of the [[Nuremberg Trials]].

== Beliefs Instilled ==
Members of the Hitler Youth were taught the official Nazi far left, racist and anti-Semitic doctrines. The future most encouraged was service in the [[Wehrmacht]], the German army. Thus most Hitler Youth activities were based on fitness and strength, instead of intelligence. Younger boys in the Hitler Youth were occasionally physically abused by older boys; this was unofficially tolerated by the adult leaders. {{who says}}

By the end of the war Hitler Youth members were being used as soldiers, and by 1945 compelled to act as front line troops and stretcher bearers.

==Well-Known Members==
Most Germans of a certain age were members, some of the better known being [[Pope Benedict XVI]], head of the Catholic Church, and Prince Clause van Amsberg (born Klause von Amsberg) of the Netherlands, husband of [[Beatrix|Queen Beatrix]].

==References==
<references/>

== Also See ==
*[[Adolf Hitler]]
*[[World War II]]
*[[Nazi Party]]
*[[Eugenics]]

[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category: Racism]]
[[Category: Nazis]]

Princess Europa

2012-11-08T01:36:50Z

Cmurphynz:

'''Europa''' (meaning “broad browed”), according to [[Greek]] [[myth]], was the daughter of [[Agenor]], the [[king]] of [[Tyre]]. She was desired by [[Zeus]] who assumed the form of a bull (or, in another form of the myth, he sent a bull) which came from the sea as she played on the shore and so impressed Europa with its beauty and gentleness that she climbed upon its back.

It immediately returned to the water and carried her away to [[Crete]]. In due course she bore [[Minos]], who was to become king of Crete, Rhadymanthus ,who was to become king of [[Elysium]] and, in some accounts, Sarpedon, who would be involved in the [[Trojan War]].
The bull became the constellation, [[Taurus]].

As mother of Minos, Europa was considered by the ancients as the founder of the most ancient branch of civilisation in what became known as Europe. Her journey from the [[Levant]] to Crete to found what the Greeks considered to be the forerunner of their culture, is allegorical reference to the transfer of culture that enabled the rise of the [[Minoan civilisation]] in the early third millennium B.C.

A historicised version of her story was recounted by Herodotus, in which Europa was kidnapped by human Cretans in revenge for the kidnapping of [[Io]].<ref>http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D2%3Asection%3D1</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category: Greek Mythology]]

User talk:OscarO

2012-11-08T01:22:45Z

Cmurphynz: /* Libyan war, chronology. */

{{warning}}

Please use talk pages before making major changes to articles, especially controversial ones. Don't remove info. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:01, 29 September 2012 (EDT)

== Libyan war, chronology. ==

Hey, I see you just added a citation to the [[Libyan War]] article from the 'new york times' about an ansar al-sharia leader talking to the paper from benghazi. I just looked through teh article and it looked to me as though they were talking about a day after the attack, which would not invalidate the other reports that say that they are no longer in the city, as the events those reports are referring to took place 10 days later. I might have missed something there though, but check it out anyway. thanks, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 23:50, 21 October 2012 (EDT)
:The ''New York Times'' reported, as recently as only 10 days ago (Oct. 15, 2012), "...Ahmed Abu Khattala and Mohammed Ali Zahawi, fought alongside other commanders against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Their group [Ansar al-Sharia] provides [present tense] social services and guards [again, present tense] a hospital. And they openly proselytize for their brand of puritanical Islam and political vision. " [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=all] [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 14:02, 28 October 2012 (EDT)
::Ok, I see it now.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 20:22, 7 November 2012 (EST)

User talk:FourMoreYears

2012-11-08T00:36:03Z

Cmurphynz: Blanked the page

User talk:FourMoreYears

2012-11-07T05:01:32Z

Cmurphynz: Created page with "True. ~~~~"

True. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 00:01, 7 November 2012 (EST)

Barack Hussein Obama

2012-11-07T04:59:23Z

Cmurphynz:

{{Officeholder
|name=Barack Hussein Obama
|image=President Barack Obama.jpg
|party=[[Democratic Party]]
|spouse=[[Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama]]; may have had a prior marriage.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/was-barack-obama-married-in-college/</ref>
|religion=see [[Obama's religion]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=44th
|terms=January 20, 2009-Present
|vp=[[Joe Biden]]
|preceded=[[George W. Bush]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=January 3, 2005 – November 16, 2008
|preceded=Peter Fitzgerald
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Roland Burris]]
}}
}}

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (b. August 4, 1961, either in [[Kenya]]{{fact}} or [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]) was elected the 44th President in 2008, and reelected in 2012. Promoted heavily by [[liberals]], as demonstrated by his unjustified receipt of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]], Obama won the presidency despite a short and unremarkable political career by outspending his opponent, [[John McCain]], by hundreds of millions of dollars in 2008.

The [[liberal claptrap]] that helped elect Obama as president seems silly today. It was claimed, for example, that Obama has millions of followers on Twitter, when allegedly some 70% of them are fake.<ref>http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/obama-has-millions-of-fake-twitter-followers/1#.UDfQVqA2et_</ref> And although the [[lamestream media]] promoted Obama as a great orator, in fact he relies almost entirely on teleprompters for his speeches and press conferences, and at one point even had teleprompters set up for him in a middle school classroom in order to speak to the media.

Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. During the 2008 election campaign Obama said that he intended to "[[Redistribution of wealth|spread the wealth around]]" - which conservatives have condemned for being [[Socialism|socialist]]. Barack Obama has been widely criticized by the American [[business]] community and others for his anti-business policies that are destroying American jobs during a period of high unemployment.<ref>Zuckerman, M.B. (2010, July 16). [http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]. ''U.S. News''. Barnes, F. (2009, July 22). [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]. ''The Weekly Standard''. Vol. 14, No. 38 Shedlock, M. (2010, August 20). [http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?] Globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com. Wright, C.E. (2012, February 12). [http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]. ''American Thinker''.</ref> On July 26, 2012, the [[Gallup Poll|Gallup organization]] reported that merely 35% of business owners approved of Barack Obama's job performance.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/156206/Business-Owners-Among-Least-Approving-Obama.aspx U.S. Business Owners Now Among Least Approving of Obama]</ref> Former [[Democrat]] Presidential candidate [[Joe Lieberman]] endorsed Obama's opponent in 2008 and has declined to endorse [[Obama]] for the [[Presidential Election 2012]].<ref>Lillis, M. (2012, April 22). [http://thehill.com/video/campaign/222929-lieberman-declines-to-endorse-in-presidential-race Sen. Lieberman declines to endorse in presidential race]. ''The Hill''.</ref>

Under President Obama's mismanagement of the economy, the United States Government's credit rating was, for the first time in its history, downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''U.S. Census Bureau''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly. By and large his programs, said to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, and deficits, have failed<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf Industry Survey], ''National Association for Business Economics'', April 2010, p. 2.</ref> leaving the the country saddled with a $16 trillion [[national debt]].<ref>Under Obama the U.S. National Debt has tripled. Source: [https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=86836 U.S. Treasury]; Federal Reserve Board.</ref> One of his most well known tactics is blaming someone else, such as George W. Bush, for all his failures instead of taking responsibility. Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2009 with no [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting. Recently, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] wrote an open letter to [[John Boehner]], the Speaker of the House, outlining the effects of repealing [[Obamacare]] and explaining why net loss of over 100 billion dollars would occur from the repeal.<ref>[http://cbo.gov/publication/43471]</ref>

Fatalities in [[Afghanistan]] have more than doubled under Obama's leadership then in the preceding eight years combined, according to the Congressional Research Service <ref>Chesser, S.G. (2012, July 12). [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf Afghanistan Casualties: Military Forces and Civilians - CRS Report for Congress]. Pg. 3. ''Congressional Research Service''.</ref>. Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he announced the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind and terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of the increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans around the world.<ref>''KABC-TV/DT'' (2011, July 27). [http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909 Risk of anti-US violence up after Osama bin Laden's death]. On ''ABC7 News''.</ref> Bin Laden's death had negligible long-term impact on Obama's approval ratings, as seen in Gallup's daily poll.<ref>''Gallup''. [http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval].</ref>

Obama's bizarre gaffes are frequent and embarrassing, but typically unreported by the [[liberal media]]. Many hardworking American businessmen took offense to a 2012 campaign speech about the economy where he says "You didn't build that." Obama offended [[Poland]] by referring to the [[Nazi]] death camps there as "Polish death camps." Later Obama apologized.<ref>Sink, J. (2012, June 1). [http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/230419-obama-letter-says-he-regrets-polish-death-camp-gaffe Obama apologizes in writing for 'Polish death camp' verbal gaffe]. ''The Hill''.</ref>

==Biography==
===Birth===
{{TOC right}}
:''Main article : [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Obama]]''
:''See also : [[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]''
Obama claims to have been born in Hawaii to Stanley Ann Dunham and [[Barack Obama Sr.]] - who had married just six months prior - on August 4, 1961 in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]].<ref name=msnbc>''MSNBC'' (2008, February 20). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23257295/ns/msnbc_tv-documentaries/t/obama-becomes-rising-star-among-democrats/ Obama Becomes Rising Star Among Democrats]."</ref> Some contend that this story is a complete fabrication. After many leading conservatives -- including the leadership of this site and [[Donald Trump]] -- called for Obama to release his birth certificate he produced a document that he claimed was his birth certificate on April 27 2011. Sheriff [[Joe Arpaio]] of Maricopa County in Arizona conducted an investigation of the Obama's eligibility and alleged that the alleged "birth certificate" was a fake; however, no charges have been filed. [[Obama]] was reportedly assigned a social security number whose area code was assigned to applications coming from zip codes in Connecticut.<ref>Beginning in 1972, all Social Security numbers were issued from a central office in Baltimore, Maryland.[http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html]</ref>

Barack Obama Sr. was not a [[Natural born citizen|citizen of the United States]]. At the time of Obama's birth, Kenya was a British colony, meaning that not only was Obama Sr. a British subject, but he passed that status on to his son. When Kenya gained independence, Obama and his father both ceased to be British subjects and became Kenyan citizens. Barack Obama was a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya until his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired in 1984, as he had failed to renounce US nationality and swear loyalty to Kenya. Even if he had been born with US citizenship through his mother, it has been argued that as he was born with dual nationality, he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thus constitutionally ineligible to become President. Despite this, no court that has considered such arguments has accepted the proposition that Obama is not a natural-born citizen.<ref>See [http://www.scribd.com/doc/88910250/Purpura-Moran-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin Initial Decision by Jeff S. Masin] in ''Purpura and Moran v. Obama'' at 7 ("Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father."), Tisdale v. Obama (E.D.Va 2012) Order at 2 ("It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens." (citing ''United States v. Wong Kim Ark'', 169 U.S. 649)), ''aff'd per curiam'' by 4th Cir., ''Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana'', 916 N.E.2d 678, 685 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ("With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President....we hold that the Plaintiffs' arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted")</ref>

===Early Life===
Obama's birth parents divorced in 1963 due to strain caused by Barack Obama Sr. leaving Hawaii to study economics at Harvard, when Obama was 2 years old, following which his mother married Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesian]] geologist. When Barack Obama was age 6 his mother and adoptive father took him to Jakarta, Indonesia for 4 years while his mother pursued a Ph.D. in Anthropology requiring fieldwork there.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> His mother then left him in Hawaii with his grandparents (Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who had moved to Hawaii in 1959) so he could pursue American education.<ref name=revealed>Malveaux, Suzanne (2008, August 20). "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html Barack Obama Revealed]." ''CNN''.</ref> Other siblings of Obama's include his half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng and 7 other children born to his father by 4 different women.<ref name=raisingobama>Purdum, Todd (2008, March). "[http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/03/obama200803 Raising Obama]." ''Vanity Fair''.</ref> For much of his early life, prior to his transfer to Columbia University, he went by his nickname, "Barry." In the summer of 1988, before attending Harvard Law School (he'd just been accepted), he visited Kogelo, Kenya, to learn more about his father's family. When his mother died in 1995, he and his sister Maya scattered her ashes over Hawaii's south shore.<ref name=revealed /> All in all, Obama's early life, being surrounded by those extolling Communism, helped foment his hatred of America and established his Marxist views emphasizing socialism and the redistribution of wealth.

===Personal Life===
[[Image:Michelle Obama.jpg|frame|right|Michelle (Robinson) Obama, wife of Barack Obama.]]
Barack Obama met and began dating his future wife, an attorney named Michelle Robinson, herself a recent Harvard Law School graduate, while he was working at Sidley Austin LLP, a prestigious corporate law firm.<ref name=msnbc /> The two continued dating long-distance while he finished law school, and on October 18, 1982, were married by Reverend [[Jeremiah Wright]] at Trinity United Church.<ref name=revealed /> In 1999, their first child was born, Malia, and in 2001, another daughter, Natasha (often called Sasha).<ref name=msnbc />

Obama attended Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church from 1984-1988 during his time as a community organizer (''See [[Barack_Obama#1984-1988.2C_Community_Organizer|1985-1988, Community Organizer]] section''). Obama credits Wright with his alleged conversion to Christianity, and had both his daughters, Sasha and Malia, baptized there.<ref name=revealed />

===Education===
At age 6, Obama attended schools in Indonesia, the first a Catholic School while he was in Kindergarten, and later a public school. While the public school had mostly Muslim students (since most Indonesians were Muslim), claims that it was a Muslim school or Madrassa are false. In 1971, at age 10, Barack Obama moved to Hawaii, and his grandparents helped him gain entrance to the prestigious Punahou Academy in Honolulu through a scholarship, while he was in 5th grade.<ref name=revealed /> At his elite high school with 1,200 students he was just 1 of 3 black students, and was on the second string of the state champion basketball team his senior year. During this time he also experimented briefly with marijuana and cocaine. He wrote a poem for the school's literary magazine, ''Ka Wai Ola''.<ref name=raisingobama />

In 1979, he began a 2-year stint at Occidental College college in Los Angeles<ref name=msnbc />, and then transferred to Columbia University in New York, which he graduated from in 1983.<ref name=pragmatic>Scott, Janny (2007, July 30). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd]." ''New York Times''.</ref> During this time he allegedly spoke at an Anti-Apartheid rally on campus,<ref name=revealed /> although several prominent student leaders said they did not remember him there. Professor Michael L. Baron was impressed by Obama and wrote him a recommendation for Harvard Law School.<ref name=differs>Scott, J. (2007, October 30). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all Obama's Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say]." ''New York Times''.</ref> In the winter of 1988 Barack Obama decided to attend Harvard Law School, and left Chicago for Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his 2nd year he became the first black president of the ''Harvard Law Review'', following a "marathon voting session" in which he was elected on the 19th ballot.<ref name=raisingobama /> This led to national attention and numerous job offers, which Obama passed up, at age 30, to pursue a political career in Chicago.<ref name=msnbc /><ref name=revealed />
===Non-Political Employment===
====1983-1984, Financial Analyst and Writer====
In 1984 Obama worked as a writer and financial analyst for Business International Corporation to pay off his student loans. Business International Corporation was a small newsletter-publishing and research firm which aided multinational companies understand overseas markets. Obama served as a writer/researcher for a company reference service, Financing Foreign Operations, and wrote for their newsletter, ''Business International Money Report''. His supervisor was Cathy Lazere. <ref name=differs /><ref>Henig, J. (2008, June 21). "[http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obama-polishes-his-resume-2/ Obama Polishes His Resume]." ''FactCheck.org''.</ref>

====1984-1988, Community Organizer====
In 1984, Obama was hired by the New York Public Interest Research Group, a non-profit organization promoting environmental, consumer, and government reforms. He also was paid just under $10,000 annually as a full-time organizer for Harlem's City College to mobilize student volunteers.<ref name=differs /> From 1985-88, Obama worked as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, for which he was paid $1,000 a year, with $2,000 extra for a car. He helped Loretta Herron gain city approval for a local community job center. <ref name=revealed /><ref name=streetwise>Scott, Janny (2007, September 9). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=all In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama]." ''New York Times''.</ref> During this time Obama joined Reverend Wright's Trinity United Church because in the words of Suzanne Malveaux of ''CNN'', "It was the church to join if you wanted to be one of Chicago's black movers and shakers." At the time, community organizing involved close affiliation with churches, which was how Obama met Wright. The slow progress in fighting asbestos contamination in the Altgeld Gardens housing project led to Obama's departure from Chicago, and enrollment at Harvard Law School in the winter of 1988.<ref name=revealed />
====1988-1996, Law Practice====
In 1988 Obama gained work as a Summer Associate at one of the most prestigious corporate law firms in the world, Sidley Austin LLP<ref name=austin>Lattman, P. (2007, May 11). "[http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/11/sidley-austin-when-barack-met-michelle/ When Barack Met Michelle]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref><ref name=revealed />, owned by Newton Minow, thanks to the recommendation of Minow's daughter Martha, a professor at Harvard Law School. It was at Minow's law firm that Obama would meet Michelle Robinson, his future wife.<ref name=raisingobama /> From 1993-96 he practiced civil rights law, after graduating from Harvard, at Miner, Barnhill, & Galland, a small politically-connected law firm.<ref name=austin /> It was at Miner, Barnhill, & Galland that he would meet influential real estate developer Tony Rezko.<ref name=revealed />
====1992-2004, Law Professor at University of Chicago====
Obama taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School<ref name=raisingobama /> from 1992-2004. He was a Lecturer from 1992-96, teaching 3 courses per year, and a Senior Lecturer from 1996-2004. Senior Lecturers are considered Law School faculty and regarded as professors but not full-time or tenured. Obama was invited to become a Senior Lecturer several times during this period but declined each time.<ref>"[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media Media Inquiries: Statement Regarding Barack Obama]." ''University of Chicago Law School''.</ref>
====1995, Author====
In 1995 Obama published ''Dreams From My Father'' about his life and family background.<ref name=msnbc />

===Personal Awards===
====2009 Nobel Peace Prize====
On October 9, 2009 Barack H. Obama became the third sitting U.S. President<ref name=wilsons>Wilson, Scott (2009, October 10). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100900914.html President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize]. ''Washington Post''.</ref> to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "''for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples''".<ref>NobelPrize.org (2009, October 9). "[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html The Nobel Prize for 2009: Press Release]." Oslo, Norway. Accessed May 13, 2012.</ref> Obama stated that he was "surprised and deeply humbled" to receive the unexpected award,<ref>(2009, October 9). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-09/world/nobel.peace.prize_1_norwegian-nobel-committee-international-diplomacy-and-cooperation-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:WORLD Obama: Nobel Peace Prize is 'Call to Action']." ''CNN''.</ref> and also said, "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who have inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace".<ref name=wilsons /> The award was widely criticized given Obama's then lack of accomplishments.<ref>Chazan, G. & MacDonald, A. (2009, October 11). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html Nobel Committee's Decision Courts Controversy]." ''Wall Street Journal''. (2009, October 9). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/obamas-peace-prize-draws-criticism-liberals/ Obama's Peace Prize Draws Criticism, Even From Some Liberals]." ''Associated Press''.</ref>
==1991-1992, Project Vote==
In 1991 Obama was recruited by Sandy Newman to head the Chicago chapter of Project Vote!<ref name=revealed />, and in 1992 was the Executive Director, overseeing a voter registration drive which registered 125,000 black voters and was credited with helping elect U.S. Senator Carol Mosely Braun.<ref name=raisingobama /><ref name=pragmatic />
==1996-2003, Illinois State Senate==
===1996 Election===
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 rally in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. </ref> ''"[H]e is a brutal man who butchers his own people,"'' nevertheless Obama opposed ''"dumb wars".'']]
====Knocking Candidates Off the Ballot====
Barack Obama ran for the Illinois state senate in 1996. He was initially supported by incumbent Alice Palmer, who declared she would run for the U.S. Congress. However, when her bid for Congress failed on November 28, 1995, she tried to run for her old seat in the March 1996 election. Her supporters asked Obama to step aside, although whether this was with her permission remains uncertain.<ref name=pragmatic /> Not only did Obama not step down, he gathered a team of high-priced lawyers, including fellow Harvard Law School graduate Thomas Johnson, to challenge his opponent's petition signatures on technicalities after the filing deadline had passed. Such tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago; in 2006 they eliminated 67 of the 245 aldermanic candidates;<ref name=bareknuckle>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (2007, April 4). "[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-0704030881apr04-archive,0,1523598,full.story Barack Obama: Showing His Bare Knuckles]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> yet nevertheless led to the term "hardball" by the ''New York Times''<ref name=pragmatic /> and "cutthroat" by David Mendel as reported by both ''CNN''<ref name=revealed /> and ''MSNBC''.<ref name=msnbc /> The ''Chicago Tribune'' declared Obama had mastered "the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics", noting "The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."<ref name=bareknuckle /> As one of Obama's four opponents, eliminated through his ballot challenges, would put it: {{cquote|"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"
-Gha-is Askia, 1996 Illinois Senate candidate<ref>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (2007, April 3). "[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref>}} Mark Ewell, another candidate, filed 1,286 signatures, and Obama's challenges left him 86 short of the minimum requirement (757<ref name=spivak>Spivak, Todd (2008, February 28). "[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/ Barack Obama and Me]." ''Houston Press''.</ref>). Ewell filed a federal lawsuit contesting the election board's decision but Tom Johnson intervened, and Ewell's case was dismissed just a few days later. Ewell and other Obama opponents were using early 1995 polling sheets to verify signatures of registered voters, but city authorities had just purged 15,871 unqualified people from the 13th district list, and Obama's challenges used the more recent, updated list. Askia was left 69 signatures short of the requirement. If names were printed instead of signed in cursive, they were declared invalid. If they were good but the person registering the signatures wasn't a registered voter (e.g. underage) they were invalid.<ref name=hardball>Griffin, Drew & Johnston, Kathleen (2008, May 29). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2008-05-29/politics/obamas.first.campaign_1_obama-campaign-barack-obama-chicago-politics?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Played Hardball in First Chicago Campaign]." ''CNN''.</ref> Palmer had according to Obama campaign consult Ronald Davis, used two children to help gather her petition signatures. To this day Palmer denies the challenges were valid, and maintains she could have overcome the objections with more time and resources.<ref name=bareknuckle /> Thanks to his lawyers, Obama would win the election without a single other candidate on the ballot.
===2000 Election===
: ''Main Article: [[Illinois 1st congressional district election, 2000]]''
In 2000, Obama lost his only political election when he chose to run against experienced incumbent and former Black Panther Bobby L. Rush for the U.S. Congress in a 65% black district. Rush's name recognition began at 90%, Obama's at 11%. As media consultant and former Rush campaign staffer Eric Adelstein noted, "Nobody said he’s ‘not black enough.’ They said he’s a professor, a Harvard elite who lives in Hyde Park." Todd Spivak would give voice to this impression of Obama, noting that{{cquote|"My view of Obama then wasn't all that different from the image he projects now. He was smart, confident, charismatic and liberal. One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it."<ref name=spivak />}}Rush would go on to win the Primary with 61.02% of the vote; Obama received 30.36%.<ref name=streetwise /> The loss led to Obama considering dropping out of politics altogether, particularly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, since his name sounds similar to "Osama bin Laden".<ref name=msnbc />
===Voting Record===
Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

The statehouse was majority Republican, so the Senator was sometimes forced to compromise. He formed allegiances across party lines to pass [[campaign finance]] reform that banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators’ personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.<ref name="nyt illinois"/> Obama also helped pass a so-called “driving-while-black bill”, which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor [[racial profiling]].<ref name="nyt illinois"/>

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].
===Radical foundation and connection to William Ayers===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered in the home of [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]]s [[Bernardine Dohrn]] and [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Dohrn,<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> along with Carl Davidson, are veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

Ayers and Dohrn used their celebrity status among [[leftist]]s to launch Obama's career. Ayers, Dohrn and [[Jeff Jones]]<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106653 ''Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder] Van Jones served on board of activist group where ex-Weatherman serves as top director'', By Aaron Klein, [[WorldNetDaily]], August 13, 2009.</ref> are authors of ''[[Bill_Ayers#Prairie_Fire_Organizing_Committee_and_Maoist_thought|Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-imperialism]],'' the title taken from ''The Sayings of Mao Zedong.''<ref>[http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/]</ref> The book declares "we are [[communist]] men and women."<ref>Harvey Klehr, ''Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today'' (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), 109.</ref> Ayers later jokingly, publicly admitted to ghostwriting Obama's book, ''Dreams From My Father''<ref>Cashill, J. (2011, March 28). [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html Ayers Affirms He Wrote Dreams From My Father]. ''American Thinker''.</ref> and Obama was to appoint several openly avowed Maoists to prominent White House and Executive Branch positions.<ref>Fund, J. (2009, October 21). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704597704574487431322664964.html From Mao to Obama]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref>

===2003 Emil Jones Deal===
: ''Main Article: [[2003 Barack Obama deal with Emil Jones]]''
When Illinois' U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald announced he would be retiring in April 2003, Obama jumped at the opportunity, declaring that he would be a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2004.<ref name=msnbc /> To boost his chances at reaching the U.S. Congress in the 2004 elections, in 2003 Barack Obama approached the newly crowned head of the Illinois Senate, Emil Jones Jr., with a proposal. According to Jones, who Obama has since called his "godfather"<ref name=godfather>''Associated Press'' (2009, June 18). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-3983147.html Obama's Political 'Godfather' In Illinois]."</ref> the conversation went as follows:
[
{{cquote|"After I was elected president, in 2003, he came to see me, a couple months later. And he said to me, he said, ‘You’re the senate president now, and with that, you have a lot of pow-er.’ And I told Barack, ‘You think I got a lot of pow-er now?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah, you got a lot of pow-er.’ And I said, ‘What kind of pow-er do I have?’ He said, ‘You have the pow-er to make a United States sen-a-tor!’ I said to Barack, I said, ‘That sounds good!’ I said, ‘I haven’t even thought of that.’ I said, ‘Do you have someone in mind you think I could make?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah. Me.’ "<ref name=raisingobama /><ref name=pragmatic />}}

Because of the deal, Obama's entire Illinois Senate legislative record was, as longtime Obama reporter Todd Spivak put it, built in a single year. During his 7th and final year in the Illinois Senate, Obama sponsored an incredible 26 bills into law, including many he now points to when criticized as inexperienced<ref name=spivak /> - as ''CNN's'' Suzanne Malveaux observed, "With help from on high, Obama got his name on hundreds of bills that he pushed through."<ref name=revealed /> Jones not only had Obama craft legislation addressing daily tragedies to raise his political profile<ref name=godfather />, he also appointed Obama head of almost all high-profile legislation in the Illinois Senate, angering other state legislators with more seniority who'd spent years supporting the bills.<ref name=spivak /> Illinois State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of the famous racial profiling bill requiring videotaped confessions in police interrogations, complained bitterly about Jones' decision.<ref name=revealed /><ref name=intheblack>Spivak, Todd (2004, March 25). "[http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-922-in-the-black.html In the Black]." ''Illinois Times''.</ref> Jones' influence had a major impact on Obama's chances in the 2004 elections, preventing major political players from backing Obama's opponents. To quote Emil Jones,{{cquote|"He knew if he had me in the run for the Senate, it would put a block on the current mayor. The current mayor and the father of the controller, which was Dan Hynes, they were roommates in Springfield when the mayor was a state senator, so they had a relationship. Another big financial backer for the governor was Blair Hull. Barack knew if he had me it would checkmate the governor, ’cause the governor couldn’t come out and go with Blair Hull, ’cause the governor needs me. Same with the mayor. So he had analyzed and figured all of that out. He knew I could help him with labor support. And I could put a checkmate on some of the local politicians that didn’t know him, but they couldn’t really go against me."
-Emil Jones<ref name=raisingobama />}}

==2004-2008, U.S. Senate==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]], [[United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]
===2004 Primary Election===
Despite initially trailing in the polls to frontrunner [[Blair Hull]]<ref name=intheblack />, Obama greatly benefited from what the ''Chicago Tribune'' called "the most inglorious campaign implosion in Illinois political history"<ref name=mendell>Mendell, David (2004, March 17). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-03-17/news/0403170332_1_blair-hull-gery-chico-blacks-and-liberal-whites Obama Routs Democratic Foes]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> when pressure from journalists and opposing candidates, just weeks before the election, forced the unsealing of Hull's messy divorce files.<ref name=blairhull>Voegeli, William (2004, March 19). "[http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.339/pub_detail.asp The Rise and Fall of Blair Hull]." ''The Claremont Institute''.</ref> The files revealed Hull's ex-wife's accusations of verbal and physical abuse.<ref name=spivak /> Hull would afterwards criticize the media, stating, "As for the press, I will never read the newspaper the same way again."<ref name=mendell /> Obama would go on to win the Primary with 53% of the vote.<ref name=blairhull /> Obama's unexpected victory led to him being termed a "rising star" by the media.<ref>Howlett, Debbie (2004, March 18). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-03-18-obama-usat_x.htm Dems See a Rising Star in Illinois Senate Candidate]." ''USA Today''.</ref>
===2004 General Election, Jack Ryan===
Once again Obama found himself trailing to popular frontrunner [[Jack Ryan]], and once again a candidate's campaign imploded thanks to media intervention. In an unprecedented move, the ''Chicago Tribune'' and local TV station WLS sued to force the unsealing of Ryan's divorce files, despite opposition from both Ryan and his wife, Jeri Ryan, who in the files accused Jack Ryan of trying to coerce her to perform sex acts in public. Though Ryan advisors told him he could still win if using a negative attack on Obama, Ryan refused to engage in what he considered dirty politics.<ref name=abandon>''Associated Press'' (2004, June 26). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/2004-06-25-ryan_x.htm Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid]."</ref> Ryan then dropped out of the race (per request by the Illinois GOP<ref name=idealist>Sangwan, Rahul (2004, October 1). "[http://www.dartmouthindependent.com/archives/2004/10/jack_ryan_81_th.html Jack Ryan '81: The Conservative Idealist]." ''Dartmouth Independent''.</ref>), following which the Illinois GOP scrambled to find a replacement, leaving Obama uncontested for weeks to campaign and build up public support. On top of all this, Obama was selected to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (July 27<ref>''Washington Post'' (2004, June 26). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html Illinois Senate Candidate Barack Obama]."</ref>), catapulting him into the national spotlight, and leading to further media publicity terming him a "rising star".<ref>Page, Susan & Despoignes, Peronet (2004, July 28). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-28-obama-speech_x.htm Rising Star Brings Democrats to Their Feet]." ''USA Today''.</ref>
===2004 General Election, Alan Keyes===
: ''Main Article: [[Obama born alive controversy]]''

After a number of candidates including former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka declined to run<ref>''CNN'' (2004, August 9). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2004-08-09/politics/il.keyes_1_senate-candidate-senate-race-illinois-senate?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS Keyes Challenges Obama for Illinois Senate Seat]."</ref>, the Illinois GOP finally settled on fiery [[Alan Keyes]], a former Ambassador to the Economic and Social Counsel of the United Nations<ref name=spivak />, with less than 3 months left before the November 2004 election.<ref name=msnbc /> His sudden entrance into the state for the election was initially attacked in the press as "carpetbagging".<ref>''Chicago Tribune''. "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-08-06/news/0408060313_1_mr-keyes-judy-baar-topinka-alan-keyes The GOP's Rent-A-Senator]." ''Washington Post'' (2004, August 9). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50885-2004Aug8.html Mr. Keyes the Carpetbagger].</ref><ref name=pearson>Pearson, Rick (2004, September 5). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-09-05/news/0409050304_1_selfish-hedonist-alan-keyes-illinois-republican-party Keyes, State GOP Gearing Up Blame Campaign]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> Keyes repeatedly claimed his primary motivation for entering a race he had seemingly no chance of winning was his disgust at Obama's votes on the popular [[Born Alive]] bills.<ref>Keyes, Alan (2004, August 18). "[http://www.mail-archive.com/newsandviews@chuckmuth.com/msg00699.html How You Can Help Alan Keyes for Senate!]." ''Keyes2004 Inc.''</ref> Keyes, from his first day of arriving in Illinois (August 9, 2004)<ref name=assails>''Associated Press'' (2004, August 9). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ Keyes Assails Obama's Abortion Views]."</ref>, accused Obama of having voted against bills mandating medical care for newborn children, and supporting "infanticide" (the term twice used in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act<ref>''United States Congress'' (2003, March 13). "[http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/2003s3.html S.3: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003]."</ref>) where hospitals left newborn infants to die like garbage.<ref>Smiley, Tavis (2004, August 31). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=341 Alan Keyes on the Tavis Smiley Show]." ''NPR''. ''CBS2 Chicago'' (2004, August 30). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=337 Alan Keyes on CBS2 Chicago This Morning]." This Morning.</ref> Obama in a debate on October 13, 2004, defended himself against Keyes' accusations of infanticide by claiming that Illinois law was already sufficient.<ref>''Chicago Tribune'' (2004, October 13). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-10-13/news/0410140004_1_alan-keyes-senate-race-first-of-three-debates Debate or Discussion?]"</ref>

However, Keyes' rhetoric, calling Obama's votes "the slaveholder's position"<ref name=assails /> and saying "Jesus Christ would not vote for Obama"<ref>Thomas, Scott (2004, September 7). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=348 Alan Keyes on the Scott Thomas Show (AM1160 - WYLL)]." ''Scott Thomas Show''. Chicago, Illinois.</ref> was widely ridiculed by the press. Keyes' unabashed criticism of homosexuality as "selfish hedonism" was also targeted.<ref name=pearson /><ref>''Associated Press''. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897569/ Keyes: Cheney's Gay Daughter Practicing Selfish Hedonism]." Pallasch, Abdom M. (2004, September 2). "[http://web.archive.org/web/20071017122135/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20040902/ai_n12560727 Topinka Says He Should Apologize for 'Idiotic' Comment]." ''Chicago Sun-Times''.</ref> Obama would ultimately win the election, 70% to 27%.<ref>''CNN.com''. "[http://cnn.hu/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IL/S/01/index.html Election Results: U.S. Senate/Illinois]." Election 2004.</ref>

===Voting Record===
Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>O'Keefe, E. (2010, February 4). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html Obama criticizes Senate Republicans for delaying confirmation votes]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> voted against the [[minimum wage]]<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007. [http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> and debt ceiling increases,<ref>Kaplan, R. (2011, April 11). [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/ Obama Once Opposed Debt Ceiling Hike]. ''The Atlantic''.</ref> and recieved more than $126,000 in campaign contributions from [[Fannie Mae]]. The ''[[National Journal]]'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

==2008 Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Democrats began calling for an Obama candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
====Primary Election====
In 2007-08, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton competed for the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton cleverly resurrected the "Born Alive" controversy surrounding Obama that had lain largely dormant since 2004 (notwithstanding the continuing mentions by Jill Stanek), by accusing Obama of not being pro-choice for voting "Present" on a number of abortion-related bills<ref>Bettelheim, Adriel (2008, February 13). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/feb/13/obamas-present-tension/ Obama's 'Present' Tension]." ''PolitiFact''.</ref> - including the Born Alive ones,<ref name=clinton>Berman, Russell (2008, January 17). "[http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-obama-should-vote-no-on-abortion-issue/69700/ Clinton: Obama Should Vote 'No' On Abortion Issue She Backed]." ''New York Sun''. Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=all It's Not Just 'Ayes' and 'Nays': Obama's Votes in Illinois Echo]." ''New York Times''.</ref> and cowardly ducking the votes.<ref>''Politi-Fact''. "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/13/hillary-clinton/yes-but-its-complicated/ Response to Hillary Clinton Comment for January 21st, 2008]." Truth-o-Meter. Dorning, Mike (2007, December 20). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/criticism_of_obama_present_vot.html Clinton Camp Criticizes Obama 'Present' Votes]." The Swamp. ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> This led to criticism of Obama by two pro-choice organizations, Emily's List, and the National Organization for Women.<ref>Dorning, Mike (2008, January 14). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/obama_campaign_mounts_defense.html The Swamp: Obama Campaign Defends His Abortion-Rights Record]." ''Chicago Tribune''. Dorn, Michael (2008, February 6). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html Obama's Voting Record on Abortion]." ''Washington Post''. Newton-Small, Jay (2008, January 14). "[http://swampland.time.com/2008/01/14/obama_campaign_defends_present/ Obama Campaign Defends 'Present' Abortion Votes]." ''Time Magazine''.</ref> However, Pam Sutherland, the long-time head of Illinois Planned Parenthood, came to Obama's aid, criticizing Clinton for making the attack, and stating repeatedly that Obama's present votes were part of a broader strategy used by Planned Parenthood to keep Illinois voters from knowing their state senators were voting against the controversial and popular bills.<ref>Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20cnd-obama.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin Obama's Vote in Illinois Was Often Just 'Present']." ''New York Times''. Follmer, Max (2008, March 28). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/obama-emphasizes-prochoic_n_81460.html Obama Emphasizes Pro-Choice Voting Record as Clinton Questions 'Present' Votes]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref>
{{cquote|"He came to me and said: ‘My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women. A ‘present’ vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted. What it did was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. A ‘present’ vote would protect them. Your senator voted ‘present.’ Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."
-Pam Sutherland, President/CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, 1980-2012<ref>Davis, Teddy (2007, July 17). "[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/07/obama-abortion/ Obama Abortion Dodges Blessed by Planned Parenthood], ''ABC News''.</ref>}}Clinton also made the claim repeatedly that while Obama was leading in Delegates she was winning the Popular Vote<ref>Koffler, Daniel (2008, May 28). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-koffler/hillary-clinton-and-the-p_b_103913.html Hillary Clinton and the Popular Vote: Not Wrong, but Meaningless]." ''Huffington Post''. Barone, Michael (2008, March 28). "[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2008/03/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Vote]." ''U.S. News''.</ref>, though this was in part because Obama hadn't been registered in Michigan.<ref>Romano, Andrew (2008, August 2). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/stumper/2008/06/02/clinton-s-popular-vote-claim-close-but-not-quite.html Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*]." ''Newsweek''. ''RealClearPolitics''. "[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html 2008 Democratic Popular Vote]."</ref> Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> On June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton withdrew from the Primaries, conceding the race and endorsing her opponent<ref>''Associated Press''. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24993082/ns/politics-decision_08/t/clinton-ends-historic-bid-endorses-obama/ Clinton Ends Historic Bid, Endorses Obama]."</ref>, when Obama passed the 2,118 Delegates required; winning 2,201 delegates to Clinton's 1,896.<ref>''CNN''. "[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D Election Center 2008].</ref>
====Born Alive Record Resurfaces====
On June 30, 2008, Obama's voting record on the "Born Alive" bills came once more to the forefront when CNN gave voice to the growing controversy and revealed the defense Obama had been using since 2004-2008, that the Illinois bills he'd voted against were different from the federal bill, was false, since he'd brought up for a vote a bill word for word identical to the federal bill in the Health and Human Services Committee he chaired, and voted against it, defeating it.<ref>''CNN''. "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY How He Really Voted on Abortion: Obama's Record Under Attack]." ''The Situation Room''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by Jill Stanek. ''CNN''. "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/30/sitroom.02.html Transcripts: June 30, 2008]." The Situation Room.</ref> This led in August to a confrontation between Obama and the [[NRLC]].<ref>''National Right to Life Committee''. "[http://www.nrlc.org/news/2008/NRL08/ObamaCoverup.html Obama Cover-up Revealed on Born-Alive Abortion Survivor's Bill]." NRL News, Vol. 35, Issue 7-8, pg. 5.</ref> After Obama accused critics of 'lying'<ref>Brody, David (2008, August 16). "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skq5M1Ksp_c McCain/Obama Forum]." ''CNN''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by Jill Stanek. David Brody (August 16, 2008). "[http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/08/16/obama-gets-heated-on-born-alive-infant-protection-act.aspx Obama Gets Heated on Born Alive Infant Protection Act]." ''CBN News''. The Brody File.</ref> the NRLC challenged the assertion, and the Obama campaign conceded he "misspoke" and had voted against an identical bill to the "federal bill that everybody supported" but focused on Obama's new claim, that Illinois law was already sufficient to protect newborn children.<ref>Berman, Russell (2008, August 18). "[http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/ Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record]." ''New York Sun''.</ref> The NRLC promptly declared "Senator Barack Obama's four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel."<ref>Johnson, Douglas (2008, August 18). "[http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is 'Lying']." ''National Right to Life Committee''.</ref>
====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a church that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

In April 2008, after 20 years in the church, candidate Obama made public statements poised to set him at odds with the man who conducted his wedding and baptized his children. With the negative publicity persisting, a month later Obama ended the friendship, left Wright's church, and blamed the media.<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref> Obama claimed “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace...", and distanced himself from Wright's sermons as "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth."<ref>USA TODAY, ''Obama breaks with former pastor, Candidate cites rants on U.S. role in terror, AIDS'', by Kathy Kiely and David Jackson [http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20080430/1a_offlede30_dom.art.htm]</ref><ref>''Obama Says He Is Outraged By Wright's "Rants"''[http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080430.htm]</ref>

====Result====
Obama made an effort to portray John McCain as similar to George W. Bush, drawing attention to McCain's refusal to criticize the unpopular president. McCain was particularly criticized for saying of how many years we should be willing to stay in Iraq, "Make it a hundred."<ref>Dobbs, Michael (2008, April 2). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/mccains_100year_war.html FactChecker: McCain's '100-Year War']." ''Washington Post''.</ref>{{cquote|"John McCain went on television and said that there has been great progress economically over the last seven-and-a-half years. John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush? How could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, Pennsylvania, say we’ve made great progress?"
-Barack Obama<ref>Zeleny, Jeff (2008, April 18). "[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/obama-criticizes-mccain-on-economic-stance/ Obama Criticizes McCain on Economic Stance]." ''New York Times''.</ref>}} On August 22nd, Obama selected [[Joe Biden]] as his running mate for the vice presidency<ref>''CNN'' (2008, August 23). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-23/politics/biden.democrat.vp.candidate_1_biden-john-mccain-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Introduces Biden as Running Mate]."</ref>, which would be contrasted one week later with John McCain's selection of [[Sarah Palin]].<ref>Cooper, Michael & Bumiller, Elisabeth (2008, August 29). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html?pagewanted=all Alaskan is McCain's Choice; First Woman on G.O.P. Ticket]. ''New York Times''.</ref>

On November 2, 2008, Barack Obama won the presidential election with 365 electoral votes to John McCain's 173.<ref>(2008, November 14). "[http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/explorer.html Electoral Explorer]." Election Results 2008. ''New York Times''.</ref> Obama received 53% of the popular vote to John McCain's 46%.<ref>(2008, November 17). "[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/ President]." Election Center 2008. ''CNN''.</ref>

==2009-2012, U.S. Presidency==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Under Obama's stewardship the United States has suffered the largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>Edwards, B. et. al. (2009, November 6). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2009]. ''Congressional Budget Office''. Delisle, E.C. et. al. (2010, November 5). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2010]. ''Congressional Budget Office''.</ref> in history and a credit downgrade from the rating agency Standard & Poor. However, during the Obama Administration the national deficit has increased at a much lower rate than during the Bush Administration. Most observers attribute the deficits to increasing benefits and welfare paid out on account of the Recession he inherited and has failed to end along with decreasing tax receipts. Standard & Poor decided to downgrade U.S. government deby after the debt ceiling debate debacle, where Congressional leaders refused to pass a bill authorizing borrowing to pay for the budget they had passed with much debate and controversy earlier in the year. Cynics have argued that rhetoric directed at the rating agencies about the issuance of AAA ratings to junk real estate bonds spurred the downgrade as a form of retribution. Ironically, the investor scare led to the flocking of investors to the safe haven of the Treasury bonds which had been downgraded, resulting in lower interest rates. As there are very few AAA bond markets, investors will likely continue to buy U.S. government debt for the foreseeable future. <ref>Greenwald, A. (2011, April 18). [http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/18/the-sp-outlook-and-obama/ The S&P Outlook and Obama]. ''Commentary Magazine''.</ref> When his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted unemployment rose and stagnated in the 10% range, <ref>Di Leo, L & Lynch, S.N. (2010, August 20). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html Jobless Claims Jump in New Sign Recovery is Sputtering]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref> leaving tens of millions without [[hope]] of finding a job.<ref>Bureau of Labor Statistics. [http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject: Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey]. ''United States Department of Labor''. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref>

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>Berry, M.F. (2010, July 20). [http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html Energy Arena, Driving the Conversation: Contracting Out U.S. Security? And will Branding Tea Party Racist Work?] ''Politico''.</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>Caddell, P.H. & Schoen, D.E. (2010, July 28). [http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html Our Divisive President]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref>
===Domestic policy===
====Popular bills====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was paid less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

On January 2, 2011, Obama signed the James Zadroga [[9/11]] Healthcare and Compensation Act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jan/02/obama-signs-zadroga-act-law/|publisher=New York Public Radio|title=Obama Signs Zadroga Act into Law|author=Fred Mogul|date=January 02, 2011|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> The act, which afforded 9/11 first responders who were sickened by the dust from the collapse of the [[World Trade Center]] health care and compensation, passed [[Congress]] after its sponsored agreed to scale down the pricing from 7.4 to 4.2 billion dollars.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/dec/22/zadroga-911-bill-passes-senate/|publisher=New York Public Radio|work=wNYC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Congress Approves 9/11 Health Bill|date=December 22, 2010}}</ref>

====Economic policy====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of discredited [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]]<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>Naked Emperor News (2011, October 12). [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/ Exclusive Dictatorship: Obama Instructs Advisors to Push Through Stimulus Projects Without Pesky 'Congressional Authorization']. ''The Blaze''.</ref>

Nevertheless, budgets passed under President Obama have included the smallest average annualized growth of federal spending (1.4%) since before President Reagan. Federal spending grew an average of 8.7% per year during Reagan's first term and an average of 8.1% per year during George W. Bush's second term.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/|title=Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?|publisher=Forbes|author=Rick Ungar|date=May 24th, 2012}}</ref>

[[Wall Street]] firms and banks that were bailed out were among Obama's biggest campaign supporters.<ref>''OpenSecrets.org''. [http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638 Barack Obama: Top Contributors]. The Center for Responsive Politics.</ref> Therefore, the Obama administration bailouts of corrupt, unproductive, and reckless Wall Street firms was hardly surprising, and many argue that it was not helpful in making the United States economy more productive and prosperous by encouraging more risk taking through letting banks off with a slap on the wrist. Others argue that bailing out the banks kept credit flowing and prevented a much deeper recession and a total collapse of the financial system. The government will recoup some though not all of its capital infusions over time. A 2005 study found that government corporate bailouts are often done for mere political considerations and the economic resources allocated exhibit significantly worse economic performance than resources allocated using purely business considerations.<ref>Faccio, M. et. al. (2005, March 1). [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=676905 Political Connections and Corporate Bailouts]. ''Social Science Research Network''.</ref> Proponents of [[free market]] capitalism said Bernanke should not have bailed out failing firms and instead should have allowed free market capitalism to quickly recover as it did in the depression of 1920 without government intervention (free market capitalists assert that government intervention drags out economic recessions and depressions).<ref>Woods, T.E. (2009, April 10). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI Why You've Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920]. ''Ludwig Von Mises Institute''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref>

Top trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] predicts that the corrupt economic policies of the Obama administration will lead to a second [[Great Depression|great depression]] (Celente predicted the 1987 US stock market crash, the dot.com crash, the US 2008/2009 recession, and the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s) and may lead to a "second [[American Revolution]]" (Celente predicted the [[Tea Party Movement|tax protests]] that are now occurring in America).<ref name="celente1">Celente, G. (2009, August 1). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MMX3SKzrfU&feature=channel_page pt 2/2 Gerald Celente on Financial Sense Newshour Aug 1st 2009]. ''Financial Sense Newshour''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref><ref name="celente2">Celente, G. (2009, August 2). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy9bfw1ebgw&feature=response_watch ]. ''Financial Sense Newshour''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref> Celente also asserts that the costly and inefficient temporary short term methods that the Obama administration is using to alleviate economic problems in the short term (which is causing massive increases in [[Obama administration deficit spending]]) is only making matters worse and will not prevent the worse economic depression in United States history from occurring.<ref>Celente, G. (2009, August 11). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C8K7rWkGGw pt 1/2 Gerald Celente on Howestreet.com 11 Aug 2009]. ''HoweStreet.com''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref><ref>Celente, G. (2009, August 11). [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LBffdIW0XA&feature=response_watch pt 2/2 Gerald Celente on Howestreet.com 11 Aug 2009]. ''HoweStreet.com''. Hosted on ''YouTube''.</ref>

The Obama administration has been sharply criticized for [[Obama administration deficit spending|its massive deficit spending]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|its reckless monetary policy]] via vast increases in the [[money supply]], although inflation under Bernanke has been below the historic mean.<ref name="gerard"/><ref name="bam"/><ref>Carroll, C. (2009, March 24). [http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/ Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures]. ''The Foundry''. The Heritage Network.</ref> Celente predicts that if a "second American Revolution" occurs in a peaceful and productive manner, it may include a [[Third Party System|third party movement]] of governance that will advocate a more [[free market]] [[capitalism]] approach to the American economy and a more strict interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|United States constitution]] as far as the authors' [[original intent]].<ref name="celente1"/><ref name="celente2"/>

During what the [[White House]] billed as [[Recovery Summer]], one half million workers per week continued losing their jobs. His signature legislative achievement, [[ObamaCare]],has been found to be [[unconstitutional]]<ref>Schoenberg, T. & Fisk, M.T. (2010, December 13). [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/u-s-health-care-law-requirement-thrown-out-by-judge.html Obama's Health-Care Law Ruled Unconstitutional Over Insurance Requirement]. ''Bloomberg''.</ref> by several judges and constitutional by others, and is credited as a major cause of uncertainty, high [[unemployment]],<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33220</ref> lagging job creation,<ref>Foster, J.D. (2010, August 5). [http://blog.heritage.org/2010/08/05/it%E2%80%99s-official-medicare%E2%80%99s-finances-shadowed-by-uncertainty/ It’s Official: Medicare’s Finances Shadowed by Uncertainty]. ''The Foundry''. The Heritage Network.</ref> and risk of a credit default crisis.<ref>Samuelson, R.J. (2010, March 29). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032802353.html With health bill, Obama has sown the seeds of a budget crisis]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref><ref>Cramer, J. (2010, March 16). [http://www.thestreet.com/story/10703361/cramer-obamacare-will-topple-the-market.html Cramer: Obamacare Will Topple the Market]. ''The Street''.</ref>

His 2012 Budget plan has been roundly criticized in the mainstream and liberal press as not a serious effort to deal with the nation's economic crisis.<ref>[http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=blogs.view&blog_id=1551d6f5-2ac9-4b8d-97ab-74def354024e Newspapers Call Out White House: ‘What Would That Path Be, Mr. President?’]</ref>

[[Jeffrey Tucker]] wrote, "President Obama's economic policy has been catastrophic for liberty, enterprise, and the American dream—the very archetype of what not to do to end recession." [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1118186176/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=anncoulter-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1118186176]

====2009 Stimulus====
In early 2009, Obama lobbied Congress and the public to pass sweeping Stimulus legislation for the ailing economy<ref>(2009, January 3). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Obama Urges Congress to Pass Stimulus Plan]." ''Associated Press''. Parsons, C. & Nicholas, P. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Barack Obama Sternly Urges Congress to Pass Economic Stimulus]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> known as ''The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'' (H.R. 1)<ref>"[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1: Bill Text Versions: H.R. 1]." 111th Congress (2009-2010). ''Library of Congress''. "[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204335,00.html The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Information Center]." ''IRS''.</ref>, ignoring a report by the Congressional Budget Office that the legislation would ultimately harm the economy.<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, February 4). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/ CBO: Obama Stimulus Harmful Over Long Haul]." ''U.S. News''.</ref> Contrary to his earlier promises of bipartisanship<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, March 28). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/28/mccain-obama-breaks-campaign-promises-shuns-bipart/?page=all McCain: Obama Breaks Promise of Bipartisanship]." ''Washington Times''.</ref>, the bill passed the House 244-188 without a single Republican vote on January 28, 2009,<ref>Calmes, J. (2009, January 28). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html House Passes Stimulus Plan With No G.O.P. Votes]." ''New York Times''.</ref> and received just 3 Republican votes when passing the Senate 61-37.<ref>Herszenhorn, D.M. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/washington/11web-stim.html Senate Approves Stimulus Plan]." ''New York Times''.</ref> One third of the massive $838 billion bill consisted of tax cuts<ref>(2009, February 11). "Senate Passes $838 Billion Stimulus Bill]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> and the rest spending on "just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years."<ref>(2009, January 28). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html A 40-Year Wish List]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> In responding to criticism of the broken bipartisanship promise at the time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously quipped, "We won the election. We wrote the bill."<ref>Kane, P. (2009, January 23). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203961.html Stimulus Plan Meets More GOP Resistance]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> On February 18, 2009, the Stimulus was signed into law by Obama.<ref>(2009, February 17). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29231790/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-stimulus-lets-americans-claim-destiny/ Obama: Stimulus Lets Americans Claim Destiny]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> In August 2009, Republicans and Democratic Senator David Obey drew attention to mistakes on the Recovery.gov site claiming Stimulus jobs created that didn't exist. Obama responded by saying the errors just indicate the accounting is an "inexact science".<ref>(2009, November 18). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/obama-calls-stimulus-data-errors-issue-says-focus-job-growth/ Obama Calls Stimulus Data Errors 'Side Issue,' Says Focus Is on Job Growth]." ''FOX News''.</ref>
====Healthcare====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act had originated in the House of Representatives and passed September 17, 2009. The act was amended and passed the Senate prior to [[Democrat]] [[Ted Kennedy]]'s passing along party lines - just a filibuster-proof majority at 60-39. In what can be construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> but another Senate vote would not occur. Scott Brown was also an excellent campaigner and judged to be a better candidate than his rival, Martha Coakley. He has since achieved one of the most moderate senate voting records, likely to avoid the anger of his mostly liberal constituency. After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandates that the population purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and on this basis has been constitutionally challenged in the federal courts, with mixed results (three courts have upheld the act, two have declared it unconstitutional); thus, the Act is likely destined for [[Supreme Court]] reviewal. Plans originally proposed involved instituting a universal public insurance program, that is, extending Medicare to everyone. The universal mandate included in the act was originally a conservative idea that was enacted in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney. Its supporters note that having health insurance results in reduced costs in paying for treatment of uninsured and forcing people to take responsibility for their healthcare. Due to ethical constraints, doctors cannot deny care to poor patients, resulting in the hospital and the healthcare system at large bearing the cost.

====Gulf oil spill====
{{main article|Gulf of Mexico oil spill disaster}}
President Obama authorized offshore oil drilling in the [[Gulf of Mexico]]<ref>[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0430/Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-spill-imperils-Obama-s-offshore-drilling-plan Gulf of Mexico oil spill imperils Obama's offshore drilling plan,] By Mark Clayton, ''Christian Science Monitor'', April 30, 2010.</ref> stating, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills"<ref>White House Press Release, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-discussion-jobs-and-economy-charlotte-north-carolina Remarks by the President in a Discussion on Jobs and the Economy in Charlotte, North Carolina,] Office of the Press Secretary, April 02, 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 3 May 2010.</ref> and was widely criticized for his mishandling of the "[[Gulf oil spill disaster|worst environmental disaster]] in US history."<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/x-33986-Political-Spin-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Worst-environmental-disaster-in-US-history-Oil-slick-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-is-set-on-fire Worst environmental disaster in US history,] Maryann Tobin, ''Examiner'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-oil-spill-is-obamas-fault/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman Conscience of a Liberal: The Oil Spill Is Obama’s Fault,] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'', April 30, 2010.</ref>
====Don't Ask Don't Tell====
{{main article|Don't Ask Don't Tell}}
Candidate Obama promised to repeal a policy that originated in the Clinton era that prohibited inquiries into military personnel's [[sexual orientation]] while also barring "out" [[homosexuals]] from serving in the military. [[Liberals]] expressed anger when time passed and no effort to repeal the law was seen;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/|work=The Washington Times|format=HTML|title=Obama to delay ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal|language=English|author=Rowan Scarborough|date=November 21, 2008}}</ref> in fact, Obama's [[justice department]], as part of their duty to defend all laws passed by any administration, filed a brief arguing against the [[Supreme Court]] granting a [[writ of certiorari]] to a gay soldier challenging the law (the writ was not granted). In response, the soldier, James Pietrangelo II, a former Army infantryman and lawyer, said, “[Obama's] a coward, a bigot and a pathological liar. This is a guy who spent more time picking out his dog, Bo, and playing with him on the White House lawn than he has working for equality for gay people."<ref>{{cite web|work=Time Magazine|publisher=Time Inc.|format=HTML|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y|title=Dismay Over Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Turnabout|author=Mark Thompson|date=Jun. 09, 2009}}</ref>

On December 15th, 2010, a bill was introduced in the [[House of Representatives]] to repeal the law - it passed a day later by a vote of 250-175;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll638.xml|title=FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 638|format=HTML|work=Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives}}</ref> it passed the Senate three days later 65-31.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00281|work=The U.S. Senate|title=U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 22nd.<ref name="g dadt">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/obama-repeals-dont-ask-dont-tell|work=The Guardian|format=HTML|language=English|title='Don't ask, don't tell' repealed as Obama signs landmark law|date=22 December 2010}}</ref>

The [[Pentagon]] itself could not immediately implement the repeal and questioned whether it would hurt combat readiness.<ref name="g dadt"/> Senator [[John McCain]], the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, opposed the bill, saying "It may be premature to make such a change at this time and in this manner, without further consideration of this report and further study of the issue by Congress – for of all the people we serve, one of our highest responsibilities is to the men and women of our armed services, especially those risking their lives in combat.”<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/mccain-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-dont-rush/|title=McCain on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’: Don’t Rush|date=December 2nd, 2010|format=HTML|author=David M. Herszenhorn|language=English|work=The New York Times}}</ref>
===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>Krauthammer, C. (April 19). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html The News in Obama's Speech]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref>

From the Boston Globe:
<blockquote>
'The New America Foundation, which tracks the strikes, has listed 23 raids since the beginning of April, 2011, all but one in Pakistan’s tribal regions of North and South Waziristan. A June 20 attack was reported in Kurram, an area north of North Waziristan along the Afghanistan border.'
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
'The drone program has become increasingly controversial as the Obama administration has expanded its use beyond the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Lethal missiles have been launched from unmanned aircraft in at least five countries in addition to Pakistan: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and, most recently, Somalia. The military’s Joint Special Operations Command used a drone last June to attack what officials said were two senior members of the Al Shabab militant group on the Somali coast.' <ref>DeYoung, K. (2011, July 4). [http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/07/04/cia_halts_drone_launches_from_pakistan_base/ CIA Halts Drone Launches From Pakistan Base]. ''The Boston Globe''. </ref>
</blockquote>

A commentator says:
<blockquote>
'Obama is commendable when he says he wants to avoid war. His policies, however, favor war by destabilizing the Middle East making it extremely hostile and favoring radical Islam over America’s ally, Israel, and American interests in the region... The president has chosen a very dangerous path for every American and one that promises great difficulty for Israel.' <ref> [http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2012/03/14/obamas-words-disguise-his-israel-foreign-policy-actions.html Obama's words disguise his Israel foreign policy actions.] </ref>
</blockquote>
====Commander-in-chief====
By Obama's third year as Commander-in-Chief, over 1200 American troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan - significantly more than the number who died during President [[George W. Bush]]'s term of office. And growing numbers of civilian contractors also have fallen. In the first half of 2010, 250 contractors reportedly died in Iraq and Afghanistan - more than the 235 military personnel who fell during the same period.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/24/114662/what-price-war.html#ixzz1Nz07pg5O</ref>
=====National Defense=====
President Obama signed into U.S. law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), only after his administration successfully lobbied to remove language from the bill that would have protected American citizens from being detained indefinitely without trial.<ref>Aaron Dykes. [http://www.infowars.com/president-obamas-ndaa-signing-statement-i-have-the-power-to-detain-americans-but-i-wont/ Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t], Infowars.com, January 1, 2012. </ref> After the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that if President Obama signed the bill it "will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law," while executive director of the ''Human Rights Watch'' blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that "Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law."<ref>President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act. [http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights], ''Human Rights Watch'', December 14, 2011. [http://www.aclu.org/national-security/white-house-backs-away-defense-bill-veto-threat White House Backs Away from Defense Bill Veto Threat], ''[[ACLU]]'', December 14, 2011.</ref>

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011. S.1867 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1122VN0Iv:e548990: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)], ''The Library of Congress'' THOMAS, 112th Congress (2011-2011), Accessed January 25, 2012. Text of S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/text?version=es&nid=t0:es:281 Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.], [[U.S. Congress]], ''OpenCongress.org'', (Accessed January 25, 2012).</ref>

=====2009-2011 Iraq Troop Withdrawal=====
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
On February 10, 2007, Barack Obama announced his campaign for the U.S. presidency while stating he had a "''plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008.''"<ref name=announcement>(2007, February 10). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/10/AR2007021000879.html Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's Announcement Speech]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> Later, Obama campaigned on having troops entirely out of Iraq within 16 months, but in February 2009 revised this promise to withdrawing all but 35-50 thousand troops by December 2011.<ref>Barry, J. (2009, February 25). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/02/25/reality-on-the-ground.html Reality on the Ground]." ''Newsweek''.</ref> However, some of the newly withdrawn troops were simply redirected from Iraq to Afghanistan - Obama in Summer 2009 ordered 21,000 troops to Afghanistan.<ref name=amanpour>Amanpour, C. (2009, April 29). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-29/politics/amanpour.obama.foreign.policy_1_president-obama-obama-administration-iraq?_s=PM:POLITICS Amanpour: Obama's 100 Days of Foreign Affairs]." ''CNN Politics''.</ref>{{cquote|"But all of this cannot come to pass until we bring an end to this war in Iraq. Most of you know I opposed this war from the start. I thought it was a tragic mistake. Today we grieve for the families who have lost loved ones, the hearts that have been broken, and the young lives that could have been. America, it's time to start bringing our troops home. It's time to admit that no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone else's civil war. That's why I have a plan that will bring our combat troops home by March of 2008. Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace."
-Barack Obama, February 10, 2007 Presidential Campaign Announcement Speech<ref name=announcement />}}Ultimately, it was the Status of Forces Agreement signed by George W. Bush on November 17, 2008 which forced U.S. combat troops to withdraw from Iraq's cities, villages, and localities by June 30, 2009, and from Iraq entirely by December 31st 2011.<ref>(2008, November 17). "[http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20081119_SOFA_FINAL_AGREED_TEXT.pdf Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq]." Article 24. Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq. Hosted by ''The New York Times''. Office of the Press Secretary (2008, November 27). "[http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081127-1.html Statement by the President on Agreements with Iraq]." ''The White House''.</ref> Obama privately contacted the Iraq government in an attempt to persuade them to let 10,000 troops stay, but was rejected.<ref>Froomkin, D. (2011, October 26). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/obama-iraq_n_1032507.html Ending the War in Iraq: How Obama's Own Rhetoric - And George Bush's Pact - Boxed in the President]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref> Newsweek's Michael Ware accused Obama of a "War Crime" for "''falsely taking credit for finally bringing Iraq to a close—a war actually ended by the Bush administration back in 2008''" and stated, "''The U.S. troops who fought and died in that war, the Iraqis who perished, and the American people deserve far better.''"<ref>Ware, M. (2011, October 24). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/24/obamas-war-crime-taking-credit-from-bush-adminsitration-for-ending-the-iraq-war.html Obama's War Crime]." ''Newsweek''. U.S. Politics.</ref> The last of Iraq's combat troops have now been withdrawn because of Bush's Status of Forces Agreement which Obama took credit for.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-17/middleeast/world_meast_iraq-troops-leave_1_1st-cavalry-division-camp-adder-troop-movements?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST|work=CNN|title=Obama: Last U.S. troops leave Iraq|date=December 17, 2011|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>
=====Afghanistan=====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> This became evident when, under the orders of Obama, a military SEALs team killed September 11th mastermind [[Osama bin Laden]] in Abottabad, Pakistan.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/05/commander-in-chief.html|title=Commander in Chief|author=Daniel Romano and Daniel Klaidman|date=May 05, 2011|work=Newsweek|publisher=The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref>
=====Guantanamo Bay=====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>
=====Mexico=====
In May 2012, President Obama promised Mexican President [[Felipe Calderon]] that his administration would assist Mexico in curbing drug cartel violence, which has led to 30,000 deaths in Mexico. "President Calderon and I . . . stand together against the drug cartels that have unleashed horrific violence in so many communities," Obama said on May 19. "Mexico can count on the United States as a full partner in this effort."

The ''[[Washington Post]]'' has reported however that White House officials stopped a requirement for gun dealers to report bulk sales of high-powered semiautomatic rifles commonly used by illegal drug cartels. [[Justice Department]] officials had asked for White House approval to require thousands of gun dealers along the border to report the purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. ATF investigators expected to get leads on suspected arms traffickers. Senior law enforcement sources said the proposal from the ATF was held up by then White House chief of staff [[Rahm Emanuel]].<ref>Horwitz, S. & Grimaldi, J.V. (2010, December 17). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html White House Delayed Rule Meant to Stop Gun Flow to Mexico]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> Gun dealers have been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.

=====Libya=====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that had spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi - leader of Libya for 41 years - responded to the violent activism<ref>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28376.htm</ref> with legible steps.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted unanimously to impose [[sanctions]], and later authorized all members to take action to protect civilians. Obama, acting without approval from Congress and at the beckoning of the [[United Nations]], directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Obama later said, "[I]f we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]] - writing an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "[I]ntervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by The New York Times, which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Khadafy even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>

However Gaddafi wrote to Obama:

<blockquote>
Gaddafi said he bore no ill will toward Obama. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign." The letter, dated 5 April 2011 in Tripoli, is signed "Mu'aumer Qaddaffi, Leader of the Revolution".<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
</blockquote>

Critics point out the only thing worse than starting a "stupid, unnecessary war" against a madman is losing it.<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271847/war-libya-dumb-and-dumber-victor-davis-hanson</ref>

==2012 Presidential Campaign==
===2011, Birth Certificate Released===
: ''Main Article: [[Barack_Obama_Controversies#Birth_Certificate]]''
On April 27, 2011<ref>CNN Political Unit (2011, April 27). "[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/27/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate/ White House Releases Obama Birth Certificate]." ''CNN''</ref>, a long-running controversy surrounding Obama's birth was largely put to rest<ref>Winter, J. (2011, April 29). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/ Expert: No Doubt Obama's Birth Certificate is Legit]." ''FOX News''. Tuchman, G. (2011, April 25). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-25/politics/birthers.obama.hawaii_1_birther-controversy-obama-opinion-research-corporation?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Birther Claims Have No Merit]." ''CNN''. (2011, April 27). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42779923/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-releases-detailed-us-birth-certificate/ Obama Releases Detailed U.S. Birth Certificate]." ''MSNBC''.</ref> when Obama had his long-form birth certificate posted at WhiteHouse.gov.<ref>"[http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf Certificate of Live Birth]." State of Hawaii. Retrieved from ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref> Donald Trump, who had attacked Obama on the Birth Certificate issue and was then leading Republicans in polls for the upcoming GOP primary<ref>James, F. (2011, April 15). "[http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/04/15/135446314/poll-donald-trump-birther-darling-leads-gop-field-at-26 Donald Trump, Birther In Chief? Poll Has Him Leading GOP Field with 26 Percent]." ''NPR''.</ref>, was effectively knocked out of the race because of this.<ref>Kapur, S. (2011, May 10). "[http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/10/trumps-popularity-tanks-after-obama-releases-long-form-birth-certificate/ Trump's Popularity Tanks After Obama Releases Long-Form Birth Certificate]." ''RawStory.com''.</ref>

The following is a timeline of previous events leading up to the release:

* In June 2008 the Obama campaign allowed FactCheck.org to look at his “Certificate of Live Birth” and take photos.<ref>Henig, J. (2008, August 21). Born in the U.S.A. FactCheck.org. Retrieved from http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html</ref>
* In July 2008 a blogger discovered a birth announcement from the Honolulu Advertiser from August 13, 1961 for Barack Obama. It has since been discovered another newspaper, the Star Bulletin, also documented the birth.<ref>Snopes.com. Barack Obama Birth Certificate. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp</ref>
* PolitiFact went to extreme lengths to verify Obama’s citizenship, attaining scanned copies of his 1992 marriage certificate from Cook County, IL, his driver’s license record, and his registration and disciplinary record. PolitiFact also addressed a number of concerns about the documentation.<ref>Hollyfield, A. (2008, June 27). Obama’s birth certificate: Final chapter. PolitiFact. Retrieved from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/</ref>
* In October 2008 Hawaii’s Department of Health released a statement by Dr. Chiyome Fu.kino verifying that Obama’s birth certificate was on record.<ref>Hawaii Department of Health. News Release: Statement by Dr. Chiyome Fu.kino. Retrieved from http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf</ref>
* In August 2009 it was revealed that an alleged Kenyan birth certificate for Obama was a hoax.<ref>Snopes.com. Kenyan Mistake. Retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kenyacert.asp</ref> Another website allows you to create your own imitation Kenyan birth certificates online.<ref>KenyanBirthCertificateGenerator.com. Blue Collar Industries. Retrieved from http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/</ref>

===2011, Osama Bin Laden Confirmed Dead===
On May 1, 2011, Obama announced in a press conference<ref>Obama, B. (2011, May 2). "[http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead Osama Bin Laden Dead]." ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref> that Osama Bin Laden was dead after a U.S. assault force infiltrated his military compound in Abottobad, Pakistan.<ref>Baker, P., Cooper, H., & Mazzetti, M. (2011, May 1). "[Bin Laden is Dead, Obama Says]." ''New York Times''. "[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Osama_Bin_Laden/ Target Bin Laden: The Death of Public Enemy #1]." ''ABC News''. ''NPR''. "[http://www.npr.org/series/135908383/osama-bin-laden-dead Special Series: Osama Bin Laden Killed]." </ref> Bin Laden was reportedly shot in the head after a helicopter raid ferried Navy SEAL Team Six and CIA paramilitary operatives into Pakistan on April 29.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 1). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20058777.html Osama bin Laden is Dead]." Retrieved from ''CBSNews.com''.</ref> Reuters obtained photos of unidentified dead bodies from the raid, none of which look like bin Laden. However, the White House had the body of Osama bin Laden disposed of at sea because it claimed this was "in accordance with Islamic tradition" and didn't want to give Bin Laden followers a gravesite shrine.<ref>The Daily Beast (2011, May 2). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-killed-and-buried-at-sea-breaking-details.html Osama Bin Laden Killed and Buried at Sea]." ''Newsweek''.</ref> The White House also refused to publicly reveal photos or evidence of the body, because Obama claimed that "given the graphic nature of these photos, it would create some national security risk."<ref>Allbritton, C. (2011, May 4). "[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/04/us-binladen-pakistan-photos-idUSTRE7437KK20110504 Photos Show Three Dead Men at Bin Laden Raid House]." ''Reuters''. ''Reuters''. "[http://www.reuters.com/subjects/bin-laden-compound Photos From the Bin Laden Compound]."</ref> The burial at sea was criticized by Islamic scholars<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 2). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-20058892.html Islamic Scholars Criticize Bin Laden Sea Burial]." Retrieved from ''CBSNews.com''. Also at [http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/02/islamic-scholars-question-bin-ladens-sea-burial/ Fox News].</ref> and 9/11 families.<ref>Zirulnick, A. (2011, May 3). "[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0503/Osama-bin-Laden-s-burial-at-sea-critics-range-from-9-11-families-to-militants Osama Bin Laden's Burial At Sea: Critics Range from 9/11 Families to Militants]." ''Christian Science Monitor''.</ref> The lack of photos resulted in skepticism about the death from a variety of sources, including the Taliban<ref>Faiez, R. & Vogt, H. (2011, May 4). "[http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-04/news/29509464_1_bin-taliban-spokesman-zabiullah-mujahid-samiullah-khan Taliban Holding Out for Clear Evidence]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.<ref>Rosen, J. & Thomma, S. (2011, May 5). "[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/05/113709/sc-sen-graham-wants-bin-laden.html S.C. Sen. Graham Wants Bin Laden Photos Released]." ''McClatchy Newspapers''.</ref>

The death of bin Laden, coupled with the revealing of Obama's long-form Birth Certificate, resulted in a boost of Obama's job approval from 46% to 57% within one month.<ref>Dao, J. & Sussman, D. (2011, May 4). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/politics/05poll.html For Obama, Big Rise in Poll Numbers After Bin Laden Raid]." ''New York Times''. ''Pew Research Center'' (2011, May 2). "[http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/03/public-relieved-by-bin-ladens-death-obamas-job-approval-rises/ Public 'Relieved' by Bin Laden's Death, Obama's Job Approval Rises]." Jones, J.M. (2011, May 5). "[http://www.gallup.com/poll/147437/obama-approval-rallies-six-points-bin-laden-death.aspx Obama Job Approval Rallies Six Points to 52% After Bin Laden Death]." ''Gallup''.</ref> In 2012, relations between the U.S. and Pakistan remain sour because the U.S. did not involve Pakistan fully in the raid to ensure success.<ref>''CBS/Associated Press'' (2012, May 1). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57424622/1-year-after-osama-bin-laden-killed-still-no-answers-from-pakistan/ 1 Year After Osama bin Laden Killed, Still No Answers from Pakistan]."</ref> Pakistan has denied White House claims that there was a deal with it allowing the raid.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 10). "[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/10/pakistani-president-claims-bin-laden-deal/ Former Pakistani President Claims There Was Never Bin Laden Deal With U.S.]." Retrieved from ''FOX News''.</ref>
=== 2012: Ties to ACORN? ===
According to Stanley Kurtz - author of ''Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism'' (2010) Obama in 1995 sought and obtained the endorsement of a left-wing third party, the [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>Kurtz, S. (2012, June 7). [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz Obama's Third-Party History]. ''National Review Online''.</ref> Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign has denied this, as has Politico's Ben Smith.<ref name=pollack>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Obama-Caught-Lying-Again-He-WAS-Member-of-New-Party-Says-Kurtz Obama Caught Lying Again: He WAS Member of 'New Party', Says Kurtz]. ''Breitbart''. Smith, B. (2008, October 25). [http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/The_dread_New_Party.html The Dread New Party]. ''Politico''.</ref> Others who claim he was affiliated with the New Party/ACORN include The Blaze's Billy Hallowell<ref>Hallowell, B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-new-documents-show-obama-was-a-member-of-the-far-left-new-party/ News Docs Reportedly Show Obama Was a Member of the Far-Left 'New Party']. ''The Blaze''.</ref>, Breitbart's Joel Pollack, Human Events' Erick Erickson<ref>Erickson, E. (2008, June 10). [http://www.humanevents.com/2008/06/10/obama-and-the-new-party/ Obama and the New Party]. ''Human Events''.</ref>, Newsbusters' P.J. Gladnick<ref>Gladnick, P.J. (2008, October 12). [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party#ixzz21JfE3z1z Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?] ''Newsbusters''.</ref>, Rick Moran at AmericanThinker.com<ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref>, and various writers at Discover the Networks (which include Kurtz and Erickson).<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], ''DiscoverTheNetworks.org''.</ref>

Kurtz in 2012 has claimed to find minutes of the New Party Chicago chapter that say, "''Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party 'Candidate Contract' and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.''"<ref name=pollack /> Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod responded to Kurtz with silence and when asked if that meant "yes or no", Axelrod stated, "You can take that as I have no idea what you are talking about."<ref>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Exclusive-Axelrod-Plays-Dumb-on-Obama-and-Socialist-New-Party Exclusive: Axelrod Plays Dumb on Obama and Socialist New Party]. ''Breitbart''.</ref>

==="You didn't build that" Controversy===
On July 13, 2012, at a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Obama gave a speech that immediately stirred up controversy. Speaking about the government's role in the success of private business, he said:<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia</ref>
{{cquote|If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.}} The [[Romney]] campaign has used "If you’ve got a business - you didn’t build that" in ads to show America that Obama believes it is government that creates business rather than hard-working individuals. The Obama campaign has alternatively stated that the sentenced was poorly worded since he was not giving a scripted speech and that when Obama said "that" he was referring to roads and bridges. Obama points to a later portion of his speech in which he said, "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together," to support his claim.

==Accusations about birth certificate and cultural and name identity==
Some conservative opponents have accused Obama of not being an American but born outside of the United States, this accusation was bolstered by Obama's reluctance to show his birth certificate to the public, until prompted by [[Donald Trump]]. Obama presented a birth certificate to the public. Some conservative opponents believe that the birth certificate he presented was a forgery. They are known as "birthers" both by their conservative and liberal opponents. However conservatives like [[Ann Coulter]] reject the birthers' accusations, and view birthers as a fringe group that left-wing media like MSNBC have exaggerated in order to discredit the conservative movement.

There are other right-wing and anti-Islamic opponents of Obama who claim that he is a Muslim '''Barry Soetoro''' during his time in [[Indonesia]]<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQPXVJuT2vY Barry Soetoro the muslim - YouTube]</ref>

Other right-wing opponents claim that Obama is an [[Atheism|atheist]].

==See also==

*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[Jobsgate]]
*[[Recovery Summer]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[New Party]]
*[[ObamaCare]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Obama inauguration]]
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]
*[[Young Communist League]]

==External links==
*[http://www.antiobama.net/ Anti Obama.net]
*[http://www.dontvoteobama.net/ Don’t Vote For Obama.net]
*[http://nobamanetwork.com/ Nobama Network]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]
*[http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/ The Real Barack Obama]
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]
*[http://www.survivingobamunism.com/index.html Surviving Obamunism T-shirts]
*[http://www.barackobamaantichrist.blogspot.com/ Barack Obama the Anti-Christ ?]
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/ Obama Laundry List of Lies]
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/americas-first-muslim-president/ GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president?] Washington Times
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/barack-obama-and-islam_b_212519.html Barack Obama and Islam.] by [[John L. Esposito]].
*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth.]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm Barack Obama on the issues.]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etWLwrvT2vo Obama = Kosher Puppet.] video on You Tube.

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
[[Category:Socialism]]
[[Category:Muslims]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barack Hussein}}

Liberty

2012-11-06T04:30:34Z

Cmurphynz: Undo revision 1017024 by Testtaker (talk)ha ha. not bad. too subjective though.

'''Liberty''' is the political [[freedom]] of an individual. It is one of the "[[unalienable rights]]" listed in the [[Declaration of Independence]]. America's core political values, called [[republicanism]], are based on the extension of liberty to all.

== See also ==
* [[Republicanism]]
*[[First Amendment]]
*[[Statue of Liberty]]
*[[Liberty Bell]]

[[Category:Republicanism]]

Talk:Maurice Sendak

2012-11-06T04:27:35Z

Cmurphynz: /* 'Flowing milk'? */ new section

Not challanged for showing a naked boy prancing around, but for not figleafing his private parts. Even ''The Little Mermaid'' doesn't show a vulva or female nipples. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:I've made several improvements to this article. (1) Sendak's best known book (by far!) is Where the Wild Things Are. An absolute classic of children's literature. (2) It's well documented that he hid his homosexuality to avoid upsetting his parents. (3) Yes, he was Jewish, but I've moved that fact to the end; the important thing about Sendak is that he was a wonderful writer of children's books. [[User:StaceyT|StaceyT]] 19:52, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

::Sounds like you want to change the slant of the article from ''OMG it's a gay pedophile corrupting our kids'' to ''he wrote a classic of children's literature, and by the way he's gay and Jewish.'' No objection from me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:19, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

== 'Flowing milk'? ==

Wow, you guys have dirty minds. It's a children's book for goodness sake. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 23:27, 5 November 2012 (EST)

My Little Pony

2012-11-06T03:57:20Z

Cmurphynz: spelling, grammer

'''My Little Pony''' is a popular franchise of little girl's toys. It is most famous for the recent show entitled ''My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic'' which has obtained a sizable online following of people outside of the shows intended demographic.

==My Little Pony and Homosexuality==

It has been alleged by some that the popular series supports the [[homosexual agenda]] with the highly effeminate dragon the fandom has dubbed Steven Magnet, who appeared in the shows pilot. Allegations of [[homosexuality]] have also been leveled at one of the Mane Six, a Pegasus called Rainbow Dash, due to her tomboyish attitude. The creator of the show, Lauren Faust, has however come out to say that the show has no homosexual characters

==My Little Pony and Theism==

''My Little Pony'' appears to encourage theism in several episodes. The most noticeable example is in season 1, episode 15: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeTrZCOSmog Feeling Pinkie Keen]. This episode is about faith, and in the conclusion, the protagonists agree that one should have faith in things that one may not understand, although some [[Atheism|Atheists]] have said that due the fact that there is Evidence for 'Pinkie-sense' and there is little to no evidence for Theism, that this is just "wishful thinking on the part of theists". [[Lauren Faust]] has denied that this was intentional. Among the Shows fan base opinion is heavily divided on the issue

==My Little Pony and Capitalism==

It has been said by some that in the ninth episode of the second season: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1lNlJT1yaM Sweet and Elite], is strongly Anti-[[Capitalist]] as it portrays the city of Canterlot as the "embodiment of a Capitalist Society, where the ponies there are caught up on empty frivolous trivialities, where as Ponyville is the Socialist Society where ponies base life and relations on each other."

[[Category:Toys]]
[[Category:Horses]]

Destiny Church

2012-11-05T01:33:39Z

Cmurphynz: I believe something along these lines is required

'''Destiny Church''' is a New Zealand Evangelical church; the church has over 20,000 members in congregations across the country. It believes in the unchanging Word of God as in the Bible, and although [[New Zealand]] has become an increasingly [[liberal]] and [[atheism|atheistic]] society, Destiny Church has attempted to protect New Zealand's standing as a Christian country.

The Church is led by (self appointed) Bishop Brian Tamaki, who is the spiritual father of the church. Brian Tamaki takes a stand on all matters of immorality, particularly in leading the "Enough is Enough campaign", protesting against a government pursuing a [[homosexual agenda]]. He believes that the increasingly secular attitude to education and society has had disasterous effect on values and standards. Tamaki has patriarchal views and believes in prosperity theology.<ref>http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol3_1/grimshawpf.htm</ref>

The Destiny Church has received criticism for actions deemed to go beyond the realm of [[Christianity]] and into [[Occultism]]. A notable case is a 2009 event in which 700 male church members allegedly swore an oath of loyalty, requiring them to submit to Brian Tamaki as [[God|God's]] chosen one on earth. <ref>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10605956&pnum=0</ref> Further to this, concern has been raised about the structure of the Destiny Church, placing more emphasis on Bishop Tamaki than [[Jesus Christ]]. <ref>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3012558/Destinys-Brian-Tamaki-answers-cult-accusations</ref>

DestinyNZ, ostensibly an independent entity from the church, had a chance of becoming a political force however, but after polling below the 5% threshold required to gain a seat in [[New Zealand]] [[parliament]], DestinyNZ is no longer on the electoral roll.<ref>http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0709/S00240.htm</ref>. The Kiwi Party and the Family party have arisen out of the ashes of DestinyNZ and another failed party, the Christian Heritage Party. Destiny Church finds it disturbing that all leaders of the major political parties in New Zealand are agnostics and atheists. The only exception is that of the left wing party Progressive, whose leader is a faithful Catholic.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:New Zealand]]

User talk:MieshaienuyfxiauMou

2012-11-05T01:02:56Z

Cmurphynz: Created page with "{{welcome}} Hey. In general this site prefers names formed from your real first name and last initial, or some variation on that. This is partly to prevent spambots, and, perhap..."

{{welcome}}
Hey. In general this site prefers names formed from your real first name and last initial, or some variation on that. This is partly to prevent spambots, and, perhaps coincidentally, your name is precisely the kind of name that is usually chosen by a spambot. In the unlikely case that you are a human I commend you on your amazing ability to remember long strings of random letters. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 20:02, 4 November 2012 (EST)

Manicheanism

2012-11-05T00:52:33Z

Cmurphynz:

'''Manicheanism''' (Manichaeism), was a belief system that teaches that there exists two separate, opposite and equally ultimate Principles: the Light and the Darkness. This concept is known as [[dualism]], and it is the [[heart]] and soul of Manicheanism.

Several origins of Manicheanism have been noted:

* One is that this dualistic [[religion]] was founded by [[Mani]], a Persian sage, in the third century after [[Christ]]. Mani synthesised [[Christian]], [[Buddhist]] and [[Zoroastrian]] elements into his religion. He taught that there were two gods, one good, one evil.

* The second is that the founder of Manicheanism was [[Manicheus]], who lived in [[Mesopotamia]]. Manicheanism assimilated much of the Christian message, re-interpreting it to fit the [[Gnostic]] belief system.

Manicheanism was once a major world religion, but has since completely vanished. Although it faded out in Europe before the [[medieval era]], the movement gave rise to the [[Cathars]] (also known as the [[Albigensians]]). Manichaeans were divided into two orders, the elect and the auditors.

[[St. Augustine]] of Hippo was a Manichee before he converted to Christianity. He became disillusioned with Manicheanism for several reasons.

A revival has been attempted under the name of Neo-Manicheanism.

==See Also==
[[Syncretism]]

==Sources==

Reference: Charles E. Curran, “Natural Law and Contemporary Moral Theology,” in Contraception: Authority and Dissent, ed. Charles E. Curran (New York: Herder & Herder, 1969), pp. 151-175.

[[Category:Heresies]]
[[category:religion]]

Talk:Mystery:Why do people choose homosexuality?

2012-11-02T11:02:26Z

Cmurphynz: /* An Idea. */

I'm not sure how name-changing is done, but this should probably be called Mystery:Why do...., unless it's converted to an article, eg. "Why people choose homosexuality." Good info in any case. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 17:06, 22 November 2008 (EST)

Actually, I was just adding, this bit:

Can someone put the "Mystery:" tag in front of this? Also, if anyone has any ideas or can add to what I wrote, please do. I feel my guesses do not give sufficient reason for anyone to be ignorant enough to actually make this choice.

I realized that I didn't have a mystery tag out front. Good eye. [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 17:07, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:Ug, quote box, fixed [[User:JANorton|JANorton]] 17:08, 22 November 2008 (EST)

There's a whole series of things that I would like to say, and I'll be the first to admit that they're not all so kind, but with justification. You guys surely are narrow-minded when it comes to homosexuals. There are SO many things I could say about it. First of all, theatre is not a GAY people thing; it's a people thing. I'm the only gay kid in my theatre group *gasp*. Excuse me? People choose to be gay because of PEER PRESSURE? That is the... That's the most ridiculous argument from Conservatives I've heard EVER! The true peer pressure is kids choosing to pretend to be straight so they can be 'cool' and 'normal' and a 'good Christian.' Oh yes, and let's mention that.

Homosexuality is called an abomination, that's true. But think about the context of that specific scripture. What else was said? "Thou shalt stone your children when they are disobedient." "Thou shalt stone adulterers." "Thou shalt not eat shellfish." If Jesus disagreed with these laws, what makes homosexuality any different? Just because you FEAR it? Just because you're so cruel and selfish to act so arrogantly, as if your view of the Bible is flawless? The word of the Bible is perfect, but your interpretations of it are not. http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian Read this for more information.

I'm a gay Christian, a ''Christian''. I believe Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior with my entire spirit. I praise and worship Him, and repent for my sins. I follow Him so dearly, in ways you would be skeptical believe, because I'm just some "Homosexual recruiter looking to make all boys gay and use them just for sex. I'm just some faggot boy who chose to be gay for attention." If you think homosexuality is a choice, try it! Sure, you could go to a gay bar, maybe kiss a guy/girl, but --- unless you are a self-internalized homophobic or bisexual --- you'll never feel anything, just as I would never feel satisfaction if I chose to be with a woman. God said for me to find a suitable partner (singular, I may add; I'm not going to be some shameless prostitute who has random sex with no meaning. Being gay is not just about sex; being straight is not just about sex.), so I shall.

I've gone through stages in my life where I tried to get rid of my sexuality. I fasted, beat myself, cut myself, bit myself, had therapy, prayed constantly, humbled myself, held a cross to my head expecting to become straight, stared at women to try to find some sexual amusement, avoided Athletics so I wouldn't be forced to see my classmates in their underwear, etc. I was a mess. I was going to kill myself, because I couldn't be myself.

Now I'm a happy, enthusiastic person, with a loving, humbling relationship with my Lord and Father. You should be ashamed of your views... which linger on idiocy, as any reasonable, open-minded person would realize. --[[User:Bocaj910|Bocaj910]] 22:16, 17 November 2011 (EST)
::Bocaj910, if you are an homosexual, I doubt you are truly a Christian... Maybe you should try to read the bible.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:11, 17 November 2011 (EST)
::I am certainly Christian. Did you not read my entire comment? I was saved by the blood of Jesus Christ and baptized by my Church. I pray, read the Bible when possible, repent, and am weary of obvious sins. Homosexuality is --- in my standpoint --- not a sin. Oh yes, there are certainly scriptures that I'm sure you would just love to throw into my face for the thousandth time, but was the Bible not also used to justify murderous crusades, sexism, slavery, discrimination of left-handed persons, etc? You cannot question whether a person is Christian or not simply based on sexual preference. --[[User:Bocaj910|Bocaj910]] 23:19, 17 November 2011 (EST)
:::Let's face the facts. Homosexuality is not normal. If everyone were homosexual, the human race would cease to exist. Can we agree that the rectum has but one purpose? You could be gay and Christian but it doesn't make it right. Just like you could be Christian and support abortion, not right. Jesus does love you even though you are gay. If you are a gay Christian, you are called to put away your selfish desires and to embrace celibacy. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:26, 17 November 2011 (EST)
::::If my gay desires are selfish, your straight desires are also selfish. Imagine having to live a life with no wife to love. It's a lot harder than it sounds, huh? Unnatural and sinful are too totally separate things. It is unnatural for a couple to marry but to decide to not have children, but there is nothing wrong with that, is there? *cough* Yes, my rectum does have but one purpose that I am fully aware of. Anal sex was never attractive to me. If I was gay and supported abortion, I would support the murder of millions of innocent fetuses. That's a lot worse than homosexuality could ever be. If you're using the argument that a homosexual world would go extinct, than senior citizens being married should also be banned. --[[User:Bocaj910|Bocaj910]] 23:33, 17 November 2011 (EST)
:::::Your counter statements are not convincing. Your gay relationships are not love, they are lust. You can love another man as a companion. When the relationship becomes sexual than you embrace lust and sin. Christians who do not conform to your views should be ashamed is laughable. Lucky for you, you aren't living in Iran. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:09, 18 November 2011 (EST)
:::::"Imagine having to live a life with no wife to love. It's a lot harder than it sounds, huh?" A pedophile (which is not something I'm comparing you to) could use the same argument and it would be equally valid. Just because it gives you pleasure does not mean its good, or else we would legalise just about every narcotic there is.

:::::"It is unnatural for a couple to marry but to decide to not have children, but there is nothing wrong with that, is there?" I would argue that if the two hypothetical lovers here were capable of producing children but decided not to then yes, it would be wrong. I think Rick Santorum got it right [http://www.drudge.com/news/149654/santorum-contraception-not-ok in regards to contraception].

:::::On a side note, I must inform you that this website encourages actuall contributions to articles rather than spending excessive amount of time on talk pages, ie if 90% or more of your edits are to talk page than you might be liable for a block. If you want to stay here I suggest that you start making more edits to articles than talk pages, I'm sure that as long that you're adding factual content supported by citations your contributions will be welcomed regardless of your views. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 00:23, 18 November 2011 (EST)

::::::Gay relationships are ''not'' exclusively about lust. Obviously there is sexual desire, yes, but the main thing I care about is romantic love, and I cannot have that with a woman; believe me, I've tried. Living in Iran would cause my death surely, but I would die a martyr to my beliefs and rights. Markman, just because two groups of people (gays and pedophiles) could uphold the same argument does not mean that both are incorrect. If such relationships are sinful, than many of my very conservative relatives deserve some worthy punishment. And some of them also deserve to be stoned for adultery, it seems. A relationship between to consenting gay lovers seems a lot more humane and normal than a pedophile raping an unwilling child, or an individual partaking in bizarre sexual acts with a poor animal, so I don't see how some of these conservatives can compare me to such acts as pedophilia and bestiality. (Homosexuality and pedophilia do not go hand-and-hand, may I add) --[[User:Bocaj910|Bocaj910]] 15:13, 18 November 2011 (EST)

::::::I'm only contributing my own personal opinion on this matter because whomever wrote this is considerably deluded. It's a fact that being a homosexual is generally not a choice. I could ''choose'' to not act on my natural feelings and ignore my sexuality, but... in the past, where I have attempted such, I was on the verge of suicide. That is certainly not God's plan for me. Likewise, my relationship with the Lord has improved ''since'' I ceased my "ex-gay" practices. To me, it seems like living this way is wholly beneficial to my mental, spiritual, and potentially physical health. --[[User:Bocaj910|Bocaj910]] 15:18, 18 November 2011 (EST)

::::::Oh, and referring to your link, I see no evil or wickedness in the use of a condom for married couples. Sex is God's gift. No sexual act is wicked between a married couple. Try to argue with that, but the Bible clearly says it. --[[User:Bocaj910|Bocaj910]] 15:21, 18 November 2011 (EST)

::::::Bocaj910, you are entitled to your own views, but I will tell you right now that the Bible does NOT condone homosexuality, or any other form of sexual deviancy. Please see:

*“If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” (Leviticus 20:13)
*“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, '''nor homosexuals''', nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

Also, excessive talk is a time-waster. Write some substantive content, or you may be banned. See [[90/10 rule]]. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 15:45, 18 November 2011 (EST)

**I won't pester you guys much longer. I just wanted to share my opinion. As for the inevitable mentioning of those scriptures, please read this: http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian --[[User:Bocaj910|Bocaj910]] 16:23, 18 November 2011 (EST)

::Even though it doesn't seem like you're going to come back here, I still feel that I should reply to you just to set the record straight.

::"If such relationships are sinful, than many of my very conservative relatives deserve some worthy punishment." That entirely irelevant - just because many people engage in a certain act does not mean it's not wrong.

::"A relationship between to consenting gay lovers seems a lot more humane and normal than a pedophile raping an unwilling child." While homosexual relationships do not have to be non-consensual (in contrast to child molestation, which is by definition coercive), they still undermine the moral fabric of society. Alcoholics and drug users might not necessarily engage in acts of coercion, but they're still living an immoral lifestyle.

::"I could ''choose'' to not act on my natural feelings and ignore my sexuality, but... in the past, where I have attempted such, I was on the verge of suicide. That is certainly not God's plan for me. Likewise, my relationship with the Lord has improved ''since'' I ceased my "ex-gay" practices. To me, it seems like living this way is wholly beneficial to my mental, spiritual, and potentially physical health." So your argument basically goes like this: 1) Not acting on my urges is uncomfortable to me. 2) God does not wish to me to feel discomfort. 3) Ergo, God wants me to have sex with members of my own gender.

::I ask you, was the misfortune Job had to endure not a part of God's plan for him? Because that is the conclusion one is led to following your logic. God works in mysterious ways, and often we do not feel at ease with the paths he puts us in.

::"and referring to your link, I see no evil or wickedness in the use of a condom for married couples. Sex is God's gift. No sexual act is wicked between a married couple. Try to argue with that, but the Bible clearly says it." Countless of theologians and clergy men will tell you otherwise.

::Look at the facts. Every major religions condemns homosexuality (even Islam) and so do most cultures, it's been condemned for generations and even secular psychiatry (known for advocating sexual hedonism due to the views of Sigmund Freud) saw it as a mental ilness until they [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-homosexuality-an-illness- caved in to activist pressures in the 70's]. I don't know how exactly how you tried to fight your urges but you shouldn't have stopped doing it just because it's difficult. A disease may be relentless but that's no reason to stop trying to find a cure. I suggest you go look for a therapist to help you out, and no matter the outcome of the therapy do not act on your urges. Even if Depo-Provera is needed for it I suggest you do everything to fight those urges within you.

::And again I'll remind you the 90/10 rule. If you want to continue editing here you better add substance. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:58, 19 November 2011 (EST)

:::In all honesty, I have already tried with exponential effort to get rid of my once unwanted feelings. These "ex-gays" famous for "being cleansed of their sexuality" as they say are deceitful and full of a heap of self-denial, regardless of what you say. Please, I urge you to read with impartiality through this ex-"ex-gay" man's website. He claimed that he was cured after countless sessions of dozens of strategies to remove his homosexual desires, to no avail. http://www.billprickett.com/ex-gay-movement.html And sure, you could just say that this is something we just have to live with for the rest of our lives, always praying for forgiveness of it, but that life is dangerous to my well-being, and everyone else who tries it. It causes suicide and bitterness toward our God, which He does not deserve. He deserves love and worship, and reconciling my faith with my sexuality allows me to do such. Some of these ex-gays appear happy, and I know some of them may sincerely be in a great state of mind, but either their homosexuality truly was a phase, they were bisexual, or they just lied about being gay in the first place. Being gay is a healthy way of living; pretending to be straight is NOT. I applaud all people who choose to remain abstinent, though, whether gay or straight. Cheers for their strength.

::: "1) Not acting on my urges is uncomfortable to me. 2) God does not wish to me to feel discomfort. 3) Ergo, God wants me to have sex with members of my own gender."

:: 1) It's not only uncomfortable for me. It's dangerous to my livelihood.
:: 2) This is primarily true. Although at times God puts us through trials to make us stronger and more humble as human beings. Trying to not be gay is NOT one of these struggles.
:: 3) Er, I plan to only have sex with only one member of my own gender, thank you. A single husband is all I need. God said likewise before, yes, but look at the facts: the laws of Leviticus were temporary, and only required of the Jews. There was more powerful message behind that. It's funny how being gay is an abomination to you, but you and a lot of other Christians feel no guilt when you eat a slice of bacon. That scripture in Corinthians being used to condemn homosexuals is laughable. Read this:

"The Jewish law was created by God to help regulate human behavior. To remind the churches in Corinth and Ephesus how God wants us to treat one another, Paul recites examples from the Jewish law first. Don't kill one another. Don't sleep with a person who is married to someone else. Don't lie or cheat or steal. The list goes on to include admonitions against fornication, idolatry, whoremongering, perjury, drunkenness, revelry, and extortion. He also includes "malokois" and "arsenokoitai."

Here's where the confusion begins. What's a malokois? What's an arsenokoitai? Actually, those two Greek words have confused scholars to this very day. We'll say more about them later, when we ask what the texts say about sex. But first let's see what the texts say about God.

After quoting from the Jewish law, Paul reminds the Christians in Corinth that they are under a new law: the law of Jesus, a law of love that requires us to do more than just avoid murder, adultery, lying, cheating, and stealing. Paul tells them what God wants is not strict adherence to a list of laws, but a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith that isn't phony.

That's the lesson we all need to learn from these texts. God doesn't want us squabbling over who is "in" and who is "out." God wants us to love one another. It's God's task to judge us. It is NOT our task to judge one another.

So what do these two texts say about homosexuality? Are gays and lesbians on that list of sinners in the Jewish law that Paul quotes to make an entirely different point?

Greek scholars say that in first century the Greek word malaokois probably meant "effeminate call boys." The New Revised Standard Version says "male prostitutes."

As for arsenokoitai, Greek scholars don't know exactly what it means -- and the fact that we don't know is a big part of this tragic debate. Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to the customers of "the effeminate call boys." We might call them "dirty old men." Others translate the word as "sodomites," but never explain what that means.

In 1958, for the first time in history, a person translating that mysterious Greek word into English decided it meant homosexuals, even though there is, in fact, no such word in Greek or Hebrew. But that translator made the decision for all of us that placed the word homosexual in the English-language Bible for the very first time.

In the past, people used Paul's writings to support slavery, segregation, and apartheid. People still use Paul's writings to oppress women and limit their role in the home, in church, and in society.

Now we have to ask ourselves, "Is it happening again?" Is a word in Greek that has no clear definition being used to reflect society's prejudice and condemn God's gay children?

We all need to look more closely at that mysterious Greek word arsenokoitai in its original context. I find most convincing the argument from history that Paul is condemning the married men who hired hairless young boys (malakois) for sexual pleasure just as they hired smooth-skinned young girls for that purpose.

Responsible homosexuals would join Paul in condemning anyone who uses children for sex, just as we would join anyone else in condemning the threatened gang rape in Sodom or the behavior of the sex-crazed priests and priestesses in Rome. So, once again, I am convinced that this passage says a lot about God, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today."

::The scripture in Romans uses the word "unnatural". Unnatural isn't necessarily sinful. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't compare to homosexuals, but more to male prostitutes and prideful men raping other men as a sign of ultimate dominance.

::I said it once, and I'll say it again. The Bible has been used to condemn so many things, like: Sexism, slavery, murder of alternate religions, and racism. It also condones behaviors that are condemned today like polygamy. I doubt it's possible to ever change your typical opinion, sadly. Just try to open your mind up to these things I am showing you. If you dare say anything like, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," I will no longer respect your opinion. God also calls us to find a suitable partner. Eve was a suitable partner to Adam. Steve may be a suitable to a different Adam, and Anna a suitable partner to a different Eve, etc. --[[User:Bocaj910|Bocaj910]] 18:30, 20 November 2011 (EST)

:::Me and James warned you about violating the 90/10 rule three times already, and since you ignored those warnings I have no choice but to block you for a year. If you decide to defy this ban and return here once more using a sockpuppet, I will block you again and this time it will be infinite.

:::With that, I’ll still answer the points you made just in case you’ll read my reply and reconsider your views and ways. First of, you completely ignored what I had to say regarding the story of Job; God put him in a much greater hardship than yours, so don’t claim that not having sex with other men is against God’s plan for you just because it puts you in inconvenience.

:::”It's funny how being gay is an abomination to you, but you and a lot of other Christians feel no guilt when you eat a slice of bacon.” For the record I’m not a Christian but a Jew. While I do not want to speak for other people’s religion, everything I know and have read leads me to the conclusion that Christianity condemns homosexual relations. When you try to argue otherwise you’re not only arguing against the majority of the members of this site, you’re also arguing against just about every Christian clergyman and theologian there is, both past and present, and also against the very scriptures you profess to follow.

:::Despite the tremendous efforts liberals put in promoting homosexuality, it's still widely condemned around the world by members of all faiths and creeds. It is not only condemned by Judaism and Christianity, but also by Islam, Hindusim, Buddhism, Shinto, and just about every religion there is. If homosexual activists had not used some serious bullying in the 70’s, it would still be condemned by secular Psychiatry as well. Think about that the next time you decide to act on your urges.

:::And finally, regarding your lack of success in fighting your sexual desires. First of, were you aided by a therapist while fighting those urges or had you tried to conquer them by yourself? If it’s the latter than I strongly suggest that you go seek professional help so you might gain a better outcome this second time.

:::With that, I am willing to accept that reparative therapy might not work for everyone. But even if it fails you it does not mean that you should surrender to your lust. Diseases are often relentless in the face of medicine but we still try to defeat them. In case you find yourself unchanged despite of all efforts, celibacy might be the answer for you. I know that cyproterone and Depo-Provera are useful in suppressing the sexual urge and if I were in your situation I would have seriously thought of using them. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 03:14, 21 November 2011 (EST)

== An Idea. ==

They don't.

Many times people turn out gay when their background etc. means that most people that they know would be against it, and that it would cause problems. The only conclusion to draw from this is that for many, if not all homosexual individuals there is little or no conscious decision making involved. Also, I'm pretty sure that peer pressure doesn't work that way around in most places today, if you think about it 'gay' is synonymous with 'lame' and 'fag' is the internet insult de jour. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 03:32, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:Though to be honest I did just find this article [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/02/gay-marry-man] where a guy was bisexual or something, but then decided to be Gay (with a capital apparently) so some form of choice does occur sometimes. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 07:02, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2012-11-02T10:41:40Z

Cmurphynz: another catagory

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs. Here is our growing list (click the box next to "Billboard Rank" to list the most popular first):

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Songs "Classic"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|''Living In America''
|[[James Brown]]
|Song that espouses the virtues of, and pride in, living in the United States. Appears in the movie "Rocky IV" and on the film's soundtrack.
|NA
|Classic/R&B/Funk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sEqzEgDZ0g "Ain't I Right"]
|[[Marty Robbins]]
|Song against communism and socialism.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM ''Amazing Grace'']
|[[John Newton]]
|A Christian hymn published in 1779.
|NA
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|Amen
|Kid Rock
|Talks about "Stop living off handouts and favors". Written and performed by a republican.
|N/A
|Country/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3S7mlRYL-8 America]
|Neil Diamond
|Freedom, Liberty, Patriotism
|8
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''America USA''
|Joey Sudyka
|Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k ''Angry Young Man'']
|[[Billy Joel]]
|The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related ''Back in the U.S.A.'']
|[[Chuck Berry]]
|A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
|Sixteen
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE ''Ballad of the Green Berets'']
|Sergeant Barry Sadler
|Pro-American and pro-military.
|1
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|[http://youtu.be/r5Q8Xa0bPy8''Battle Hymn of the Republic'']
|[[Lee Greenwood]]
|"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Bus Stop''
|The Hollies
|Pro-[[chivalry]], pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
|5
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/cMfrLFirGWc ''Chapel of Love'']
|Dixie Cups
|Marriage in a church
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIF4U_QFSxQ ''Chores'']
|Animal Collective
|"Now I've got these chores / and I'm not gonna hurt no-one" -- Hard work is praised and violence is discouraged. A scary song for [[liberals]]!
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Country Trash''
|Johnny Cash
|In a comedic way, the song praises the small town conservative virtues of the people looked down upon by big city liberals as "Country trash"
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Crying-in-the-Chapel-lyrics-Elvis-Presley/E547D833F0BBFADF48256874002B3358 ''Crying In The Chapel'']
|[[Elvis Presley]]
|Pro-marriage
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruNrdmjcNTc&ob=av2n''Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)'']
|[[Toby Keith]]
|A patriotic response to the Sept. 11 attacks
|1 (Hot Country Songs)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''D-I-V-O-R-C-E''
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|This sad song was a huge hit in 1968.
|1
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA ''Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun'']
|Grand Funk Railroad
|A father gives his son some sage advice.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/v9BtLRWbkmA ''Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)'']
|Fleetwood Mac
|Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.
|3
|Classic/Rock
|-
|''Do You Hear the People Sing''
|Claude-Michel Schönberg
|Standing up to government in the name of freedom, from the musical ''Les Miserables''
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/5Jxnt-QY-j4 ''Game of Love'']
|Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders
|"The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man... It started long ago in the Garden of Eden when Adam said to Eve 'Baby, you're for me.'"
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''Get a Job''
|The Silhouettes
|Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/4ZEE8utquP8 ''Get it Right the First Time'']
|Louisiana's LeRoux
|Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg ''Gimme Back My Bullets'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|The name says it all.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z5hD38Bs8Y''God Bless America'']
|Irving Berlin
|American patriotic, classic song.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''God and Guns''
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html ''God Bless the USA'']
|Lee Greenwood
|
|7 (Hot Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related ''Go Down Moses'']
|[[Louis Armstrong]]
|
|NA
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o ''God's Gonna Cut You Down'']
|
|"Go tell that long tongue liar, go and tell that midnight rider, tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter, tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down"
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|[http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/jones-george/gods-gonna-get-cha-for-that-6638.html ''God's Gonna Get 'Cha For That'']
|Tammy Wynette & George Jones
|You cannot escape God's gaze, no matter who you are
|Twenty-five
|Classic
|-
|''God Save the Queen''
|unknown
|Despite being frighteningly atheistic, the British have enough sense to keep this God-inclusive song as their national anthem. The anthem rightly attributes the success and good fortune of the nation and its monarch to God.
|NA
|national anthem
|-
|[http://youtu.be/EgkBx8csEws ''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'']
|[[Elton John]]
|The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
|2
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html ''Gotta Serve Somebody'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|"It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."
|Twenty-four
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.ixlyrics.com/CLIVE-DUNN/GRANDAD.html ''Grandad'']
|Clive Dunn
|UK Number 1 hit, in praise of senior citizens and their values
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM ''Government Cheese'']
|The Rainmakers
|Humorous spoof of welfare.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU&ob=av2nHave You Forgotten?]
|Darryl Worley
|Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]]<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
|1 (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1KtScrqtbc "He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother"]
|Hollies
|Repeats the slogan of the Boys Town, a Christian charity for youngsters founded by Father Edward J. Flanagan in Omaha<ref>http://www.boystown.org/about/father-edward-|j-|flanagan</ref>
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw ''I Am America'']
|Krista Branch
|American [[Tea Party Movement]] Song
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 ''I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)'']
|The Crickets
|Its title says it all. The version by ''The Clash'' has a particularly good tempo.
|9 (Bobby Fuller Four version)
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/OtZ5YsvREi4 ''In America'']
|The [[Charlie Daniels]] Band
|Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
|Eleven
|Classic/Country
|-
|''I Saw The Light''
|Hank Williams
|Redemption of sin through faith.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|''It's America''
|Rodney Atkins
|Celebrates the American spirit and all the good things about the United States.
|1 (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics ''Keep an Open Mind or Else'']
|McCarthy
|About the conservative value of keeping an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].
|NA
|Classic/Pop
|-
|''Last Kiss''
|Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders
|"Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when."
|2 (J. Frank Wilson version)
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/BvPugOWeZiA ''Let It Be'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|Very popular in Russia under the Soviets
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I ''My Love'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|A Christian love in secular form.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/kD5M_i6JceU ''Neighborhood Bully'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU ''No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed'']
|Richie Havens (Covered by Yes)
|"...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdZTKvNXxPA "Nothing Like You"]
|[[Miles Davis]] and Bob Dorough
|Celebrates the sight of ones beloved - Isaiah 43:4
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE ''Okie From Muskogee'']
|[[Merle Haggard]]
|Anti-drug and anti-hippie; a song about praising the traditional American values in Mid-America. Was written in response to the Vietnam War protests and counter-culture movement.
|1 (Billboard Hot Country)
|Classic
|-
|''People Get Ready''
|Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
|An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
|3
|Classic/Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU ''Red White & Blue (Love It or Leave)'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|"It was all based around this somewhat Utopian view of the world. The idea was that music would lift man up to a higher plane, and that world leaders, if they were able |to sit down on some big grassy knoll where the sun was shining and hear music..." Tom Johnston of LS
|Twenty-seven
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2lRcxlYx40''Renegade'']
|[[Steppenwolf]]
|[[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FOUqQt3Kg0''Respect'']
|Aretha Franklin
|This song is about respecting woman and their choices to be equal members in society.
|1
|Classic/Soul
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk ''Simple Man'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
|Twelve
|Classic/Country/Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RCqxq6xqoXI ''Sin City'']
|The Flying Burrito Brothers
|Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ ''Spirit In The Sky'']
|Norman Greenbaum
|A religious rock song written in 1969.
|3
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew ''Stand By Your Man'']
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''Star Spangled Banner''
|Francis Scott Key
|The American national anthem.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Starting All Over Again''
|[[Petula Clark]]
|Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
|NA
|Classic/Traditional
|-
|''Stayin' Alive''
|[[The Bee Gees]]
|Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
|1
|Classic/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgrQST6VlnQ "Stay With Me"]
|[[Frank Sinatra]]
|Beautiful song of Christian faith.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKdAVYKYZfo''Storm the Embassy'']
|The Stray Cats
|Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis. "Fifteen man taken captive in a hostile foreign land/Scorchin' sun beaming down onto miles and miles of sand..."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g ''Supper's Ready'']
|[[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]
|''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his |children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|''Sympathy for the Devil''
|The Rolling Stones
|Reminds humanity that evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukUL_I14GPw''Take Me Home, Country Roads'']
|John Denver
|Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
|2
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM ''Taxman'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes."
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/p6q9nBusrq8 ''That Smell'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
|NA
|Classic/Country/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 ''The Ascent of Stan'']
|[[Ben Folds]]
|Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
|NA
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 ''The Devil Went Down To Georgia'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
|3
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM&feature=related ''The Fightin' Side of Me'']
|Merle Haggard
|A song about patriotism and standing up for [[America]].
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://youtu.be/fHvf20Y6eoM ''Turn, Turn, Turn'']
|The Byrds
|An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the refrain "Turn, Turn, Turn".
|1
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://youtu.be/C68J1tJM6vU ''Unborn Child'']
|Seals and Crofts
|This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
|sixty-six
|Classic/Folk
|-
|''Union Sundown''
|Bob Dylan
|The title says it all.
|NA
|Classic/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvkUXKyl5wY "Waiting List"]
|[[Dr. Octagon]]
|A powerful song about socialized medicine and rationing
|NA
|Hip-hop
|-
|''Way Out Here''
|Josh Thompson
|"Our house is all protected by the good Lord and a Gun", and "We wont take a dime if we aint earned it, when it comes to weight, brother we pull our own". It is pro gun |ownership, the Lord, and hard work. Also preaches the morals and ethics that are known from small towns.
|Fifteen (US Country)
|Classic/Country
|-
|''We Must Take America Back''
|Steve Vaus
|Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
|NA
|Classic/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mjWhMn-VnU ''The Well Below the Valley'']
|Traditional. Covered by Christy Moore
|Song loosely based on the story of [[Jesus]] and the woman at the well. Lyrics about old-fashioned family relationships and traditional attitudes to women. Promotes all children's right to life.
|NA
|Traditional/Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nElc2vMU-b0 ''When You Love A Woman'']
|Journey
|True love from the heart
|Twelve
|Classic/Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w ''You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)'']
|The Supremes
|Abstinence for rock fans. Also performed by Phil Collins.
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://youtu.be/lnk8SKD9zcA''You Light Up My Life'']
|Debby Boone
|One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
|1
|Classic
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o ''Yours Is No Disgrace'']
|[[Yes]]
|Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
|NA
|Classic/Rock
|-
!Songs "Rock"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 ''All In'']
|Lifehouse
|Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bHpw6CzprNY ''Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)'']
|Steve Taylor
|Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=sex+pistols''Bodies'']
|The Sex Pistols
|Profane but graphically anti-abortion.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Critical Acclaim''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|Pro-America and pro-Military.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOEoo1oXBs ''Declaration Day'']
|Iced Earth
|A song about the Revolutionary War.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRNrzgDHmQE ''Devil is a Loser'']
|Lordi
|About how actions have consequences, mixed with contempt for the devil and satanists.
|NA
|Rock/Metal
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjJ9v__NyR0 ''Disparity by Design'']
|Rise Against
|Refers to the 'over-reaching arm' of the government, and considers whether welfare is a 'handout undeserved'. Also refers to the American ideal of 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html ''Dissident'']
|Pearl Jam
|About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.
|3
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/K5N2WJ1szHE ''Father of Mine'']
|Everclear
|A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of |the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
|4
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/zapGC2PrWiU ''Fair Exchange"]
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYRZt7xcwpY&feature=youtu.be "Freedom is Colorblind"]
|JoeDanMedia
|A song about how the left uses race to polarize the country. It is a conservative song that tries to unite the country.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Iraq No Phobia''
|Pro-Pain
|It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b71clnfgyts ''No Son of Mine'']
|Genesis
|
|Twelve
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzEhnBdOTAM "ONE TEA PARTY"]
|[[Toot Sweet]]
|This song is a metaphoric call to energize, motivate and unite the movement that we are all passionate about... the time is now to stand together, united, "AS ONE".
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/wDrRVlm5HOw "Prayer for America"]
|JoeDanMedia
|A short history lesson put to music regarding our schools and how the Bible was taught there in previous years.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Welcome to the Family''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
|8
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/wq160PIYjHo "No Rules for Radicals"]
|JoeDanMedia
|This song highlights "rules" Saul Alinsky wrote about in his progressive-liberal book, 'Rules for Radicals'.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Real American''
|Rick Derringer
|Patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/FAvQSkK8Z8U ''Red Barchetta'']
|[[Rush]]
|Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk ''Something For Nothing'']
|Rush
|"You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/cnijc9wNpV4 ''Sparks of the Tempest'']
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes''
|Kevin Ayers
|Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes."
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''The Big Money''
|Rush
|Pro-[[capitalism]]
|forty-five
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY_6b4-N9Uo ''Ticket to Ride'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|Lyrics describe anti-feminist attitude
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQYpF2pCkLI ''My Body'']
|Young the Giant
|''"My body tells me no / But I won't quit / Cause I want more"'' — Powerful chorus describes how the singer defies his body's physical desire to stop working and continue working hard because he wants to reap the rewards he has earned from his hard work. It describes conservative traits (persevering with hard work) and capitalistic ideals (wanting the rewards you worked for; working past your limit because you have proper incentive).
|65
|Alternative
|-
!Songs "Spiritual"
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
!Category
|-
|[http://youtu.be/iq10bz3PxyY ''Christmas Shoes'']
|NewSong
|A Christmas song by a Christian band.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI ''Your Love Is Extravagant'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 ''What If His People Prayed'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'']
|The Infidel (Gregory Van Leer Jr.) with an opening from [[Michael Savage]]
|Clearly attacks [[liberal values]].
|NA
|Rap
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw ''Sunny Afternoon'']
|The Kinks
|About a rich man trying to enjoy the simple things in life because the Nanny-state has nearly bankrupted him.
|Fourteen
|Rock
|-
|''2+2=5 (The Lukewarm)''
|Radiohead
|A song chastising people for accepting the mainstream medias version of events and not paying attention.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''No Children''
|The Mountain Goats
|A song about a marriage falling apart because the couple has no children to hold the family together.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUmLIPSasI ''God Loves My Country'']
|Balthrop, Alabama
|A song that declares that God loves America most of all.
|NA
|Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZE0SrkyNE&ob=av2n ''Where'd You Go'']
|Fort Minor
|Shows the hardship of divorce, liberal values, and the possible future of the families of our service men who could be forced to serve in Libya.
|NA
|Rap
|-
|''Patriotism''
|Company Flow
|While containing bad language it endorses the US as a super-power.
|NA
|Rap
|-
|''Tribute''
|Tenacious D
|Comedy single, but it's also a very popular song about overcoming Satan and alludes to many other Christian themes such as heaven and hell.
|4
|Rock/folk
|-
|''For Martha''
|The Smashing Pumpkins
|Being torn between the anguish of losing a lost one and the joy of knowing you will one day reunite them with in heaven
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIGzzeQjaE ''Dethharmonic'']
|Dethklok
|Anti-tax
|NA
|Rock
|-
|''Get Over It''
|The Eagles
|Written by Don Henley (who is a liberal) about his frustration of people blaming others for their own problems and believing the world owes them a favor ''"the big bad |world doesn't owe you a thing,"''
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR6oYX1D-0w "I Need A Dollar"]
|Aloe Blacc
|"Please Mr.Bossman I need this job more than you can know" - an excellent paean to the plights of unemployment
|NA
|Pop/Soul
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RlOQBGjkm78 "Extra Extra"]
|[[Toots Sweet]]
|Toots does a great job at making the clips entertaining as well as informative.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yq8zn15EPE "Somebody Must Be Prayin' For Me]
|[[Tim McGraw]]
|Song about prayer and how it is a necessary part of everyday life.
|NA
|Spiritual/Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNTUADEhC8Q"The List"]
|The Right Brothers
|A song that melodically lists liberal activists.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/8uxAT6dzKSM "We the People"]
|[[Toots Sweet]]
|A song about the Constitution and how the current administration has been abusing the beloved document we are trying to live by.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/AA1aHrfxgEg "Shut up and Teach"]
|The Right Brothers
|Liberal indoctrination runs rampant in our schools. Song expresses the desire to stick to a non-partisan curriculum.
| NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/ROdsgYyheM4 "On Fire"]
|Switchfoot
|This song is about keeping the faith, in people and in our religion.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY ''Under God'']
|[[Pat Boone]]
|
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 ''King Without a Crown'']
|Matisyahu
|A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask |Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
|7 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI ''Fast Car'']
|Tracy Chapman
|Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol. "I know things will get better/You'll find work and I'll get promoted/We'll move out of the |shelter/Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs"
|6
|Folk
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDK9QqIzhwk ''Livin' on a Prayer'']
|Bon Jovi
|Organized labor is harmful to the welfare of workers, who turn to prayer.
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/o-z2D9lo9-8 ''Bush Was Right'']
|The Right Brothers
|Celebrating the Bush Administration's success and policies.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDSK98Y2FNg "Stop Global Whining"]
|The Right Brothers
|Anti-Global Warming hoax song.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI ''Capitalism'']
|Oingo Boingo
|There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
|NA
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dHthaNNnds Keep On Loving You]
|REO Speedwagon
|Love overcomes infidelity "When I said that I love you I meant That I love you forever."
|1
|Pop
|-
|[http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0 ''Sweet Home Alabama'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young. "Well, I hope Neil Young will remember/A Southern |man don't need him around anyhow."
|8
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 ''Still the One'']
|Orleans
|A tribute to fidelity in relationships.
|5
|Pop
|-
|[http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/3530822107858733660/ ''What's The Use Of Wond'rin?'']
|Amanda Palmer
|Celebrates the command: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." -Ephesians 5:22
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Ke-r2K0ymWc ''Lightning Crashes'']
|Live
|The joy and significance of childbirth.
|1
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJprEyXMrIk''Takin' Care of Business'']
|Bachman-Turner Overdrive
|The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
|Twelve
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s5r2sp''Cat's In The Cradle'']
|Harry Chapin
|The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
|1
|Folk
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bCFWyLwcR6E ''Thank You My Lord'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|The title says it all.
|NA
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://youtu.be/7NJMTmz7pkg ''Brick'']
|Ben Folds Five
|Shows the regret involved in abortion.
|6 (Modern Rock Tracks)
|Rock
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Dw6qmYX1ny4 ''Alive'']
|P.O.D.
|About being thankful for the gift of life.
|2 (US Alternative)
|Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_iNdbPvrYk ''Jesus Christ'']
|Brand New
|The singer turns to God for advice and assurance.
|thirty (Hot Modern Rock Tracks
|Spiritual
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU ''Jesus, Take The Wheel'']
|[[Carrie Underwood]]
|A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
|1 (US Country)
|Country
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE ''Mine'']
|[[Taylor Swift]]
|Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
|1 (US Adult Contemporary)
|Pop/Country
|-
| I Won't Back down
| Tom Petty
| Talks about not backing down from a fight. Can be compared to not losing the Iraq War.
|N/A
| Rock
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v7xNSgBkum7o "Pray"]
|[[MC Hammer]]
|Working hard and giving thanks.
|2
|Rap/Pop
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4OI0GUCI_A ''Obama Nation''] and its sequel [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFfoZaOJ5xo ''Obama Nation Part 3'']
|Lowkey
|A song sharply critical of [[Liberal]] president Barack Obama and his policies. Also criticises those that blindly follow him due to his race: 'It's the substance within, not the colour of your skin'
|N/A
|Rap
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wrsZog8qXg ''Such Great Heights'']
|The Postal Service
|Creationist/Biblical lyrics: ''"And I have to speculate that God himself did make us into corresponding shapes like puzzle pieces from the clay."''
|?
|Indie
|}
|
Please add your best conservative picks.

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

The top five in a poll of the greatest songs in the 20th century, according to the Recording Industry Association of America and the [[NEA]]:

*''Over the Rainbow'' (Judy Garland)
*''White Christmas'' (Bing Crosby)
*''Respect'' (Aretha Franklin)
*''American Pie'' (Don McLean)

Also questionable:

*''Rocky Raccoon'' (Beatles) - has multiple references to Gideon's Bible
*''Been to Hell'' (Hollywood Undead)-Despite the large amount of swearing, it talks about the destructive nature of Hollywood, including how Hollywood and the quest for fame can cause someone to lose their faith. It also criticizes Hollywood values.
*''Only the Good Die Young'' (Billy Joel)-a boy tries to convince a Catholic girl to have sex with him rather than practice [[abstinence]]. Although it contains a lot of anti-religious dialogue (from the boy's perspective), in the end the girl holds true to her values, and nothing happens between them.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/group/support-conservative-entertainment Smart Girl Politics]

*[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lmnorton/2011/06/07/bigdawg-spotlight-on-the-in-word-the-antidote-to-liberal-arts-political-correctness Breitbart antidote to political correctness]

*[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lmnorton/2011/05/23/bigdawg-spotlight-on-urban-funk-rocker-toots-sweet-a-conservative-sound-in-a-liberal-town/ Urban funk rocker and a conservative sound]

[[Category:Essays]]
[[category:Music]]
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]

Talk:World History Study Guide from 1648

2012-11-02T10:33:30Z

Cmurphynz: /* Siege of Vienna. */ new section

Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, but the important parts were largely copied from the Virginia Declaration of Rights. So I wouldn't say that Jefferson wrote, or primarily wrote, the Declaration of Independence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
:Oh. Thanks for correcting!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 19:29, 4 November 2011 (EDT)

== About Cortes & Pizzaro ==
I am a bit disappointed by the definitions given to Hernando Cortes & Francisco Pizzaro. It appears to mean that they succeeded only by their skills while most historians agree that diseases were probably the most formidable opponent of the Aztecs & the Incas.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:26, 6 December 2011 (EST)

== Siege of Vienna. ==

The siege of Vienna is described in entirely religious terms. Is this really accurate? There were a number of Christians fighting for the Ottomans (Hungarians and Serbs mostly). Also, it says that the Swastika was used for 'mind control'. Somewhat badly phrased? [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 06:33, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Hero

2012-11-02T10:12:17Z

Cmurphynz: clarification.

[[File:Japanese elderly woman Rikuzentakata Iwate Prefecture.jpg|thumb|Braving in snow, an elderly woman carries water bottles on her bicycle in Rikuzentakata, Iwate Prefecture, five days after an [[earthquake]] and a [[tsunami]] devastated northeastern coastal towns in [[Japan]] (2011).]]
A '''hero''' is a literary figure who is a person of [[virtue]], and usually the protagonist of a story. They usually believe in honour and have strong morals. A well-known example of a hero would be [[Luke Skywalker]] from the [[Star Wars]] films.

It also means:

* A person noted for special achievement in a particular field.
* A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life. <ref> [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hero Hero] TheFreeDictionary. </ref>
* The name of a character in ''Much Ado About Nothing'' by [[William Shakespeare]].

== See also ==
*A darker protagonist, the [[anti-hero]]
*[[Gallery of American Heroes]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category: Literary Devices]]
[[Category:Dictionary]]

Hero

2012-11-02T10:11:46Z

Cmurphynz: hyperbole, or possibly a joke.

[[File:Japanese elderly woman Rikuzentakata Iwate Prefecture.jpg|thumb|Braving in snow, an elderly woman carries water bottles on her bicycle in Rikuzentakata, Iwate Prefecture, five days after an [[earthquake]] and a [[tsunami]] devastated northeastern coastal towns in [[Japan]] (2011).]]
A '''hero''' is a literary figure who is a person of [[virtue]], and usually the protagonist of a story. They usually believe in honour and have strong morals. A well-known example of a hero would be [[Luke Skywalker]] from the [[Star Wars]] films.

It also means:

* A person noted for special achievement in a particular field.
* A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life. <ref> [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hero Hero] TheFreeDictionary. </ref>
* A character in ''Much Ado About Nothing'' by [[William Shakespeare]].

== See also ==
*A darker protagonist, the [[anti-hero]]
*[[Gallery of American Heroes]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category: Literary Devices]]
[[Category:Dictionary]]

Talk:Gallery of British Heroes

2012-11-02T10:08:46Z

Cmurphynz:

Currently a mixture of political figures, scientists & writers. Also heavily limited by how few of these we have pictures of (& me without upload rights). If anybody (with upload rights) wants to help add to this, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/2208671.stm these] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/2208671.stm two] lists make a good starting point. The most important ones we're currently missing pictures of are [[Henry V]], [[Queen Victoria]], [[Florence Nightingale]], and [[John Lennon]] &/or [[Paul McCartney]]. - [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 19:37, 18 December 2008 (EST)

: Good work, congratulations. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:13, 18 December 2008 (EST)

::Thank you. Any chance you upload a picture of any of those people I mentioned above? I know you're one of the main guys for illustrations. It would be greatly appreciated. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 22:17, 18 December 2008 (EST)
:::Now added. Thanks. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 23:29, 18 December 2008 (EST)

:What about people like Montgomery? Baden Powell? Conan Doyle? Lewis Carroll? Also, if John and Paul are there, should George and Ringo not be there too? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 16:59, 21 December 2008 (EST)

It is pretty interesting that King Arthur is on the list, there are no direct evidences to suggest he was really exist. He probably is just a myth. For Diana, I don't know if she has made any achievements that can be called a hero. She is just popular, but you can't call someone a hero just because she is popular. Her style of personal life also will not make Conservatives feel very comfortable.

For Steven Hawking, since this website is described as a Christian website. These heroes also will be called heroes for Conservatives .But Steven Hawking is atheist, he openly said there is no God. Although he can be called a hero on his personal life.

Also, I think you should add Alfred the great as a British hero; He successfully defended England from Vikings and protected the churches there. He is the only British monarchy being called “the great”. Richard the Lionheart also should be here since he greatly fought for Christians and thousands of pilgrims can travel to Jerusalem safely since he forced Saladin to accept his agreement. Although as a king, he didn’t stay at England too much.
Edmund Burke also should here since he is a Conservative hero. --[[User:Conservativedreams|Conservativedreams]] 23:43, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

:Alfred's already there (no.2) In 30 seconds I came up with: St. Dunstan, Bede, Stephen Langton, Chaucer, Donne, William Byrd, Hennry Purcell, RVW, Ben Britten, Isaac Watt, John Watt, W.G.Grace, James Cook, the Wesley brothers, and (because I'm silly and of an age,) Judi Dench. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:04, 26 October 2012 (EDT)

James Watt and James Cook are good choices.--[[User:Conservativedreams|Conservativedreams]] 09:15, 26 October 2012 (EDT)
::I would agree that Steven Hawkings should be removed. Oliver Cromwell, should be added. --[[User:JohnJustice|JohnJustice]] 11:32, 26 October 2012 (EDT)

:::I also agree with removing Hawkings and adding Cromwell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:46, 26 October 2012 (EDT)

::::William Wilberforce. And there should be mention of "''The Few''" who were heroes in every sense of the word.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:56, 26 October 2012 (EDT)

:::::Massacring Irish people does not automatically make you a hero ;P [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 06:06, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

On a somewhat more serious note, is Tolkien a hero? He was certainly a great writer, but is that enough to qualify? [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 06:08, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Gallery of British Heroes

2012-11-02T10:06:11Z

Cmurphynz:

Talk:Mystery:Why do people choose homosexuality?

2012-11-02T07:32:45Z

Cmurphynz: /* An Idea. */ new section

Talk:Rape

2012-11-02T07:14:50Z

Cmurphynz: /* Military? */

Why on earth was this page deleted? Is ignoring this scorge a good way to cope with it? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I thought rape was just unwanted penetration. Like someone giving you a "wet willy". o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 11:36, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Rape and the Bible==
Since the Bible is the source of our morality, our articles on crimes and other offensive activities tend to cite the Bible. Shouldn't we do the same thing here, especially since the Bible has so much to say on rape? [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 18:09, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:I agree. The subject isn't complete without a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, with Lot willing to give his virgin daughters to appease an insane mob. The Bible speaks volumes on rape, but sadly it is restricted by PC liberals. [[User:JKaplanek|JKaplanek]] 12:59, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== minor ==
by the way this isent in the sin Category {{unsigned|Bloodsliver}}
:'tis now (sort of). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Underdevelopment ==
How come this article (if it could even be called that in the loosest of terms) is so underdeveloped? Why aren't there links to other abuse pages (which upon further investigation I found only existed in the same state this article is in, or else did not exist) when it's obvious they are completely connected? If there is no way to build on these pages (sexual abuse, molestation, dubious consent, etc), then why haven't they simply been grouped together on one page? [[User:Hypomixolydian|Hypomixolydian]] 13:46, 24 October 2008 {MDT)
: This is a family-friendly encyclopaedia, and topics such as this are difficult to treat in a family-friendly way. However, that does not mean that it can't be expanded. You can propose changes here, or if you'd prefer to make the changes yourself, I'd be happy to unlock the page after you've become more established and shown yourself to be a good editor. Your edits to [[Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder]] were a good start (apart from unnecessary capitalisation and changing British to American spelling). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Military?==
Should there be any discussion of the allegations of sexual violence in the military? Or should that be on another page?
:allegations?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 03:14, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

== Occupy Wall Street ==

There should be information on the rampant incidence of rape at the Occupy encampments. Rape is the only way for these deadbeat dudes to have any intercourse. [[User:HP|HP]] 11:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Template talk:Gaydar experiment

2012-11-02T06:56:49Z

Cmurphynz:

Why is this a template ? It's clearly not a template and it's also a poor article (no pun intended)! The things you find doing random page editing. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 06:33, 31 October 2012 (EDT)
:Should be deleted. --[[User:JohnJustice|JohnJustice]] 13:53, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

Random fact, apparently women's gaydar tends to get really good at the most fertile point in the menstrual cycle. to be honest though I'm not sure that this page should be improved[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 02:56, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Allah

2012-10-31T11:37:17Z

Cmurphynz:

[[Image:Allah.png|thumb|right|200px|"Allah" in simple [[Arabic language|Arabic]] calligraphy. In Islam any image depicting God is strictly forbidden.]]
The name '''''Allah''''' (الله) is the [[Arabic]] term for the [[God]] of [[Islam]]. This [[theonym]] is likely a contraction of Arabic ''Al-'ilāh'' (ال إِله), which means "the god"<ref>http://www.chishti.ru/sufi_doct.htm</ref>. It is thus related to the Hebrew term [[Elohim|Eloh(-im)]].

In Islam, Allah is the personal name of God and comprises all of the [[99 Names of God]] in Islam. When a Muslim refers to Allah, he thinks of God as being One, Creator, Owner, Sustainer, and Almighty. In Arabic, the name is composed of four letters, ا ل ل ه (or Alif, Lam, Lam, Ha) which when brought together make الله. [[Arab]] [[Christians]] often use this name simply to mean "God". (The generic word for "god" is simply'' 'ilāh'', though due to the strong association of Arabic with Islam this word is rarely used in modern speech.) These Christians do maintain a belief in the traditional Christian [[Trinity]], however, and believe that Allah consists of the Father, Son and Spirit.

== Christianity and Judaism ==
As noted, the name Allah is used by Arab Christians throughout the Middle East. It is also used by Arabic Jews, especially those residing in Yemen.

According to the [[Qur'an]] the authority of the [[Torah]] and the [[Gospels]] is subordinated to the content of Muslim revelation. It was regarded by the prophet [[Muhammad]] that both, the Jewish and Christian scriptures, were "corrupted" (from the Arabic term: ''Tahrif''). ''Accordingly, since the Qur'an has remained unaltered to the present day, (compared to the other Scriptures) Muslims assert that only the Qur'an contains the Words of God -- the truth in toto (i.e., the whole truth and nothing but the truth). Whereas the earlier Scriptures/Books such as The New Testament, The Old Testament, etc. contain only partial truths.'' <ref> [http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html Islam and Christianity.] </ref>
Christians believe in the mystery of the [[Trinity]] (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), but Muslims don't. <ref> [http://answering-islam.org/Why-not/13trinity.html My Questions to Muslims.] </ref>
<ref> [http://www.islamfrominside.com/Pages/Tafsir/Tafsir(5-116%20t
o%20120).html Islam from inside.] </ref> In the Qur'an's Surah 13 it is said: ''"Allah is the Creator of all things: He is the One, the Supreme and Irresistible." ''

The Kalimah, the first of the 5 pillars of Islam, states:

<blockquote>
To believe that Allah Ta’ala is One. That He has no partner, no father, mother, wife and so has no son or daughter; and that there is nothing else that is worthy of praise, or worship except Him ‑Alone and to equally testify that Muhammed (S.A.W.) is His servant and messenger.

</blockquote>
<blockquote>
This Kalimah is simple and can be uttered in a few sentences which can easily be pronounced by anybody without much difficulty.

''"La ilaha Illa Allah Muhammad Rasulu llah" (SAW)''.

Meaning: ''There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad (S.A.W.) is the messenger of Allah.''
<ref> [http://www.nmnonline.net/articles/kalimah.htm KALIMAH: THE DECLARATION OF FAITH.] </ref>
</blockquote>

Consequently ''Allah'' is unique, is the God in Islam, and according to Marshall G. S. Hodgson, (The Venture of Islam) Muslims are worshiping ''Allah'' rather than God, the creator.

From the 112th sura of the Qur'an: ''"In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O Mohammad) He is God the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone." '' <ref> [http://www.answers.com/topic/allah Islamic Dictionary: Allah] </ref>

== Possible Early Use ==
It is a matter of contention as to whether the name Allah came into use only with the foundation of Islam, or whether it is a reuse of a title of the main pagan god of pre-Islamic [[Mecca]]; Hubal, god of the Moon. Muslim scholars have offered reasonable refutations of this allegation<ref>http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/hubal.html</ref>, but some Christian groups have offered counter-refutations that are seemingly logical as well<ref>http://www.studytoanswer.net/islam/hubalallah.html</ref>. Whether the allegation is true is unknown.

== ''Takbeer or Takbir'' (Glorification of God) ==
''Takbeer'' (تَكْبِير) (Glorification of God), is the common way Muslims give glory to God. The wording used is ''Allahu-Akbar'' "الله أكبر", which is translated as "God is great". It is a very common practice in Islam and is essential to the Islamic call of prayer ([[Athan]]).
It has also been used by Islamic terrorists as a final cry before their homicide attacks.

== See also ==

*[[The Bible versus the Qur'an]]

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

[[Category:Islam]]
[[Category:Divine Beings]]
[[Category:God]]

Talk:Big Bang theory

2012-10-30T01:48:37Z

Cmurphynz: /* Introductory sentence */

It looks like this page may have to be protected, since evolutionists are getting on here and posting nonsense such as YEC being "non-scientific". [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The only nonsense involves the religious thinking there is "proof" of YEC. Really? An article on the big bang contains one scientific paragraph and a longer one about creationist views? How does one explain cosmic background radiation? Or Hubble's Law? Or Deuterium Observation? Or the fact that if you use the big imaging telescopes to look beyond 14 billion light years in any direction all you see is, well, big bang? Inasmuch proof as science allows (remember, science can't "prove" anything, it can only disprove the false in order to make a better hypothesis) the Big Bang is accepted fact. In what peer-reviewed journal did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John publish? [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:46 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonsense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method should have nothing to with ideology; it should have everything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::There, finally finished typing it in Word. This works so much better, although feel free to add to its information. Quite frankly, its absurd to believe in YEC--and I'm a committed social, political and economic conservative!! Please don't associate lunatics with conservatives, because it hurts our credibility. In the 1800s, the Comte de Buffon took composite lumps of molten rock of varying sizes and estimated (based on how long it took his samples to cool to room temperature) that a molten ball the size of Earth would've taken at least 35,000 years just to cool. YEC is idiotic, and those who believe it are blinded by their own ignorance of basic physics. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:42 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm confused, Scorpionman. Are you saying that YEC is scientific?
:Personally, I don't see why a discussion of Biblical literalism has any place in an article about the Big Bang. If you want to dispute the current prevailing theory behind the origin of the cosmos, then you should do it scientific evidence or at the very least an attempt at refuting evidence presented for the theory and not with the contents of one religious text. As it is, the article abruptly changes the subject and goes totally off-topic. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 13:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Please update the article to include peer-reviewed scientific criticisms of Big Bang-like theories. Right now the article looks ridiculous: a half of a dozen scientific references followed by a bunch of references dominated by the Apologetic Press. Clearly somebody misunderstands the modern scientific process.

==Evolution and the Big Bang Theory==
You guys state: "Some creationists argue that the Big Bang theory is part of an effort to deny God's creation of all of existence. Christian physicists, such as Dr. John Hartnett,[12] have claimed that the Big Bang theory was constructed to account for serious pitfalls to the theory of evolution, particularly the needed timescale of billions of years, amply contradicted by terrestrial and astronomical evidence. Thus, the big bang is trotted out by atheist evolutionists to silence creationist opponents."

Sigh...I could be wrong, but wasn't the earth known to be billions of years old by then? And the view back then was that the Universe is static and that it had been around forever. Einstein actually inserted <math> \Lambda g^{ \mu \nu} </math> into the left hand side of his equation <math> \mathbf{G}= 8\pi \mathbf{T} </math> (geometrized units) so that he would get a static universe! So the big bang model proposes that the Universe is younger than previously thought, not older! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:15, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

== Dominant theory ==

Would it ruffle too many feathers to mention that it is the dominant theory amongst scientists today. I suggest that such a statement is an uncontroversial fact. Thoughts? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:No, I agree, it is the dominant theory among scientists. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 05:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sweeping generalisation ==

The following sentence should be removed:

:In contrast to young earth creationists, Old Earth Creationists and Theistic evolutionists agree that the Big Bang occured.

Just because you are an OEC or you believe evolution to be correct does not mean that you MUST believe in the Big Bang Theory. Does anyone remember Fred Hoyle?

Are there any objections to the removal of the sentence? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I think this article looks good right now. Good edits guys. Hopefully expressing positive emotions is not violative of probation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article split==

The intro confuses [[Big Bang]] with [[Expanding universe]]. I'd like to split the article up, with one short article treating each of these two distinct ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In fairness, no, an expanding universe is part of the "big bang" (which refers to far more than the universes creation. It's confusing, so I would leave it to someone with a background in physics. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Have the bounds of [[outer space]] expanded? Or is it just that the galaxies have been getting farther apart within boundless space? What exactly does the theory state? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently, the answer is "both", at least according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX --[[User:M|M]] 10:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's try to get this straight. Is [[outer space]] infinite or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:From what I understand most astrophysics believe that since the area that the universe is expanding into is void of matter and energy that yes currently, [[outer space]] is infinite.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Unknown. The spatial extent of the Universe could be finite or infinite. If you're picturing a lump of matter dispersing in a larger void, you're thinking of the wrong thing, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Again, I'm pretty much an amateur when it comes to astrophysics...but I think that the confusion comes from the fact that we're currently uncertain as to the actual curvature of space. I think I remember hearing that space seems to be curved enough that it's actually finite (though boundless, like the three-dimensional equivalent of the surface of a sphere), but I can't provide citation of that at the moment.--[[User:M|M]] 07:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think a split is neccesary, however, on a related note, an article describing the Big Freeze, Big Rip, and Big Crunch theories for the end of the universe might be called for, as those also center on the way in which the universe is expanding (specifically, from measurements of type 1 supernovae in extremely distant galaxies, we have evidence that the universe's expansion is in fact, speeding up, giving support to the Big Freeze (everything expands until entropy is at a maximum), or possibly Big Rip (if Dark Energy is the cause of expansion, then if the universe keeps expanding, dark energy could start to rip apart galaxies, then solar systems, then stars and planets, and finally atoms). So yeah, an article on the possible ways the universe will 'end' (or if it is infinite) would probably help provide more information about the nature of the expanding universe, without having to create an article solely about the expansion of the universe. [[User:Warhawk|Warhawk]] 14:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== YEC Citations ==

Conservative, your citations don't appear to agree with each other...compare:
<blockquote>
A prediction had been made prior to the discovery, that if the Big Bang were true, there should be some sort of constant radiation in space, although the prediction was for a temperature several times higher. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30)
</blockquote>

with

<blockquote>
All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.
</blockquote>

Is it standard procedure to use citations which don't agree with each other on the particulars?

:::Is it standard procedure to give me two citations without giving me the specific cite to the second citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I found the second citation and it appears to use the following to support its contention: “The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.” Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html][http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes55.html#wp1077943] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::It's a good thing Tom Van Flandern didn't publish in peer-reviewed journals. I'll believe your numbers, but current data indicates that BOTH were wrong. Redoing a computation of the ambient temperature of the Universe (given modern observations) will ''not'' yield Eddington's prediction; reworking Gamow's calculation ''will'' reproduce the CMB temperature very accurately. Additionally, the CMB data is more than just temperature data; the anisotropies in the CMB are also indicative of the premordial expansion. Just because you can dig up a citation doesn't mean it's correct.

== Common Misconceptions ==

As previously written, this was untrue. The Big Bang does not claim that all matter was tightly packed together before the Big Bang started. That is an assumption that the Big Bang does not address. It is unfortunate that in a section titled common misconceptions that a misconception was added. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:08, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Misconception about Evolution==
I think evolution discredits itself. But I think it is unfortunate when us anti-evolutionist mistrepresent the theory. It is discreditable on many points, but this sentence mistrepresents it:

:''Many scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory are Evolutionists, though not all are. One can believe that God both created the Universe AND laid out the plan for all life in the Big Bang, as opposed to the idea that life evolved randomly after the Big Bang. ''

Evolution does not say life evolved randomly. It says the intitial organism came about through essentially "random" events. (although not strictly random).

Evolution is wrong for other reasons. And if we are going to make evolutionists see its falsity, we have to correctly represent the theory. Or atleast not MISREPRESENT the theory. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 00:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree and I'm glad that the article at least makes that distinction, although as an a Creationist who believes the Big Bang is one of the strongest theistic arguments out there, I'm not incredibly happy about Evolution being mentioned in there; one has nothing to do with the other. However, I won't press the issue because I think what's there is a reasonable compromise. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:23, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
==Big Bang proves Universe had a beginning==
Why are so many creationists against the big bang, it proves that the universe had a beginning point. It also seems to violate physics because matter can't be created from nothing. It indicates a creative force behind the universe.

:Well, for one thing the "billions of years" makes it just laughable, but more importantly it goes against the Bible which says God created the Earth in 6 days around 6000 years ago. --[[User:Rolloffle|Rolloffle]] 15:43, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::Where, exactly, is the age of the Earth specified as being 6000 years in the Bible. Please reference the relevant chapters and verses. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 11:38, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

::"'Billions of years' makes it just laughable." The good old argument from ridiculity. It's like the argument from incredulity, but more fun.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 12:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

==Most atheists?==
Does anyone have ANY reference that backs up the claim about "most atheists"? Or is it just made up off the top of people's heads?
: The scientific community (which I define as the doctorate-level degree holding scientists) in the U.S. overwhelmingly accept the Big Bang and old universe. I think most atheists just believe what scientists say is right despite the fact they don't know anything about it. I don't have a source for the U.S. public relating atheism to big bang belief, but I have a source for correlation between scientists' atheism and big bang belief, which we could extrapolate from. [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html From Nature magazine]. --[[User:Theonlyconservative|Theonlyconservative]] 12:38, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Article Depth ==

In all honesty, this article does not tell anyone very much about the big bang theory, evidence for it, or the reasons why it was formulated in the first place. The article basically introduces the topic with a mish mash of unrelated facts in no particular order, then the next section is "dissent letter" followed by "starlight problem". These are hardly the most relevant topics about the Big Bang theory. May I suggest that as this article is (hopefully) reworked, those doing the writing keep in mind that the Big Bang Theory is a very general class of theories that all have one thing in common - the assertion that long ago the universe "began" from a mathematical singularity and has been increasing in size ever since. Also, be wary about the throwing around the word "singularity" - contrary to popular belief and science fiction, a singularity is not a physical thing - it is an asymptotic point in a mathematical function where the function breaks down and can no longer make any predictions. Other singularities include the center of black holes, and objects traveling at the speed of light. The mathematical models for these systems break down at these values and become meaningless. Likewise, the Big Bang Theory has nothing to say about the origin of the singularity or what came "before" it. It is outside the realm of the theory, and in the opinion of some scientist (I'm not comfortable saying most or few here, as I'm basing this statement only on my personal discussions) outside the realm of science as a whole.

== Georges-Henri Lemaître ==

Could somebody add something in about how Roman Catholic priest [[Georges-Henri Lemaître]], the original proposer of the Big Bang theory, felt that the theory fitted beautifully with his faith as it supports a "creation event"? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:51, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Change "Starlight problem" to "Horizon problem"? ==

There's a section in this article that refers to the "starlight problem" but I believe scientists actually refer to this issue as the "horizon problem." See [http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/HorizonProblem.html here] and [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/astro/cosmo.html#c5 here] for example. One reason is that the problem has to do with more than starlight--there are questions about density, temperature, etc. The term "starlight problem" is generally used by people discussing creationist cosmological models, while "horizon problem" is more appropriate in the context of the big bang model.--[[User:JamesR|JamesR]] 20:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
: I've changed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:27, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Inflation and YEC ==

Couldn't inflation make the Big Bang and YEC compatible? I mean if it happened faster than the speed of light. Then why couldn't it happen in the YEC time scale? [[jfraatz|jfraatz]]

== "God's Role" ==

Can someone help me come up with a better way of saying "God's role in creating the universe." ? Obviously God didn't just have a 'role,' He simply created it by Himself! Thanks! [[User:WillS|WillS]] 18:16, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:I tried; do you think my wording is OK? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 03:06, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

::Looks great. And good job catching some other areas where liberal bias crept in as well!

== Correcting "scientific" ==

I just corrected "scientific" the word used in description of the Big Bang to the proper in this case term "pseudo scientific". See also my [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]] where I explain why the Big Bang is a pseudo scientific hypothesis (between other things it assumes "curved" spacetime for which there is no evidence and a lot of to contrary) and how Einsteinian gravitation works. The essay is still not finished and so I invite anybody to expres their opinion on the talk page of the essay. Thanks. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 17:35, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I have already expressed my opinion on the talk page of that essay: you're a crackpot. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:02, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::Sam, the fact that I'm a crackpot has certain influence on my credibility (which I never claimed being high, while I'm only a sculptor, with only one year training in general realativity, and the rest of my formal education being in electrical engineeiring) but it surely has no influence on the truth of Big Bang hypothesis (BBH).

::The biggest flaw of BBH is an assumption that the universe is expanding while it is not.

::This error of expansion of universe was created many years ago by [[relativists]] giving up the checking what is the ''[[intrinsic redshift]]'' in the universe before jumping to conclusion that the ''redshift is a '''proof''' that the universe is expanding''. It is clearly a non scientific approach to science. There are no proofs in science (except in math, and that's why math is not considered to be science). There are only better or worse ''hypotheses'' that are surely no proof. Some last long time until they collapse when a '''proof of their invalidity''' turns up and usually it is not accepted since no scientist cares about looking like an idiot who overlooke something important and assumed an impossible. Error that Newton avoided, not believeing in his own theory being more than just math.

::[[Intrinsic redshift]] is as it is observed in our universe (see my step-by-step derivation in [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]] and please comment on possible errors in this derivation). My derivation is done in such a simple way that an intelligent high school student shouldn't have problems with repeating it him/herself. Besides I'm here to explain if something is too difficult. Just ask a question about this derivation or other things since from 1985, when I discovered this derivation, I found out also many other thing. E.g. why the universe is looking as if it were expanding with accelerating expansion and the acceleration has just its value, observed with accuracy of only one standard deviation (max possible) by Supernova Cosmology Project team in 1998, which is

:::<math>dH/dt=-H_o^2/2</math>

::where <math>dH/dt</math> is acceleration of expansion in terms of derivation of Hubble constant with respect to time <math>t</math>, and <math>H_o</math> is the Hubble constant itself. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 16:44, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

== "even though the theory is based on little more than guesswork, speculation, and dubious assumptions." ==

I must agree with the removal of the above sentence. The big bang theory is based on the observations of red shifts, background radiation and other observational and physical properties of the universe. However, it is the assumptions the Big Bang theorists draw from this that are the debatable part. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks Max. I don't accept the Big Bang theory myself, but only on the grounds of my faith. The error - and I think it's a sincere one - that astrophysicists are making is in the use of methodological naturalism, which of course is a requirement of the scientific method. Within the constraints of that method it's a very sound theory; it just isn't correct. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:01, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::Yes Sam, ''"it just isn't correct"''. But can we say it while [[relativists]] maintain that it is correct? We have to have a proof that it isn't correct.

::I don't blame Max for him doing what he had to do not knowing such a proof. I just would like to start a discussion whether my proof is sound one, and justifying dumping BBH. I'm sure it is but I'm the author so I may be biased (though I took a general realtivity course at Harvard to be sure that I'm right and thought about this for over quater of a century so I'm relatively sure that it is a sound proof of invalidity of BBH).

::Anyway, I can only help in discussion by keeping it on track when I see wrong arguments, and without anybody discussing this issue it won't be even known that the proof of invalidity of BBH even exists. No mainstream scientific journal ever wanted to publish this proof despite it is only one page of print. It was published in conservapedia (after being blocked on my university server) as [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] in a short form suitable for physicists. Longer form with step-by-step derivation of redshift in our universe, and more, is in [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]]. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 17:25, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::Just as a note, Sam, the Scientific Theory (i.e. Scientific Method) was codified by two individuals that were deeply religious (Descartes and Francis Bacon). It is also derived from the theories of logic codified by Roger Bacon, a monk. I don't think it is a difference between faith and reason. St. Thomas Aquinas made the argument that we should seek to combine the two, which John Calvin said was a very important advancement that allowed us to move beyond Greek philosophy/science. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 19:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:::It's irrelevant that Descartes and the Bacons were religious; the scientific method does NOT combine faith and reason and in fact explicitly rejects faith. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 15:14, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Additional note, Sam, what good it would do if we believed in things that are not true? As pseudo scientific theories usually are. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 14:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::::It's interesting to our readers that the founders of the [[scientific method]] were religious. We always want to know more about people who have influenced currents of modern thought.

::::When someone proposes "[[intelligent design]]", do we respond to the challenge of the idea purely on its merits, or do we consider the motives of its proponents? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:32, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Hmm ==

As a Catholic, I hope people realize that the Catholic Church was involved in the matter. The Catholic Church is home to one of the most conservative Christian organizations in the US, the Knights of Columbus (1.8 million members), mind you. I do hope that we can at least acknowledge that this isn't an "atheist" view or a "liberal" view, but one that spreads across boundaries. :) After all, the Catholic Church's view about Genesis is based on St. Augustine's determination that Genesis was allegorical, which was something both Martin Luther and John Calvin agreed with. Just keep this in mind. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 18:56, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:In what sense ''"the Catholic Church was involved in the matter"''? The fact that ''"Martin Luther and John Calvin agreed (that Genesis was allegorical)"'' isn't a clear indication that ''"the Catholic Church was involved in the matter"''. At least to me (the crank :) that's why I'd appreciate if you explained it in more detail.

:My opinion is the same as yours that there was an involvement but I'm not sure that I understand it the same way as you do. I know that Gorges Lemaître, the Catholic prist, proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory<ref>

After wikipedia and believed this time.

</ref>, and also that the theory is false since I personally executed the for long time neglected calculation of value of [[intrinsic redshift]] and it turned out roughly as it is observed, which implies that practically there is no expansion of universe. Results of my calculations were not published since 1985 when they were done, except recently in conservapedia<ref>

[[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]].

</ref>, but I don't think that the Catholic Church was involved in the matter of blocking the publication. Do you? :) [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 14:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::Ottava, are you saying that a large percentage of Catholics accept the Big Bang theory? If so, is it because it seems reasonable to them? Or because it's Catholic dogma, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:36, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::It is both accepted by Catholics and given official approval by the Vatican. After all, [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] was a famous Catholic Priest and the originator of it. The Catholic Church also says there is enough reason to believe that evolution is okay. Afterall, Darwin made it clear that he believed in Aristotelian theory (and thus, Aristotelian Metaphysics which St. Thomas Aquinas relied upon), and that Darwin was Anglican his whole life, whether High Church or not is a different matter. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:03, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually Darwin was Unitarian, not Anglican (he was baptised Anglican mainly due to social pressure) and it's pretty clear that he at least partly abandoned Christianity. He intended to become an Anglican vicar at one point (mainly so he could spend six days a week collecting beetles) but his mother was a practicing Unitarian and took him to her church, and his father and paternal grandfather were atheists. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 15:33, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Unitarian at the time was not a set "religion" but a religious philosophy, with many Low Church Anglicans adopting it. Darwin trained to become an Anglican priest, and Anglican thought and wording is throughout his texts. Darwin's actions and ideals are in line with the Franciscan school of natural philosophy, which is deeply connected to Aristotelian belief. You can see that in the writings of Roger Bacon and many Franciscan scientists. Darwin's constant referral to Aristotelian beliefs and logic is inline with that. Darwin married as an Anglican, was buried as an Anglican, etc. Such things are stripped away by modern atheists who want to make their current view seem more "historic". Darwin had many supporters in the Anglican clergy, by the way. He was never "high church", but you don't have to be high church to be religious. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 16:02, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Darwin may well have been buried as an Anglican but he described himself as an agnostic. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:04, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That term didn't exist at his time. So I doubt it highly. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 16:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Of course it did; it was coined by his friend Thomas Huxley. Darwin used it on at least one occasion. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:24, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::[http://books.google.com/books?id=qjN6uTdy7hgC&pg=PA1&dq=Darwin+Anglican&hl=en&ei=xldyTtmGPOn00gGsiNWqCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Darwin%20Anglican&f=false By the way, a good read] on the matter. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 16:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Would you mind seeing to it that the above information gets into the appropriate articles? I'd like to see a [[Catholic views on evolution]] article, for example. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:06, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Eventually. However, I do have a rather strong conflict with my personal involvement with the Church, publications on Catholic Theology, Cathology apologia, my work with Catholic advocacy groups, etc. I merely wanted to add a little note that you don't have to be liberal to believe in it. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::JimJast, I'm a tad confused by your response. I was merely stating that belief in the Big Bang wasn't necessarily "liberal" or reflected a liberal bias. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Ottava, I agree on this point.

:::My question was whether you think that Catholics make it ''also'' a part of ''their faith'' (since the Pope accepts it).

:::Being from a Lutheran family, and being educated briefly by my grandpa in matters "of faith", mostly about "Catholic errors", and the absolute need to be trufhful, my concern was that the Catholics are wrong on one more point since the Big Bang was proven wrong in 1985 and then the sbject was considered not interesting enough to publish it, as editors of "''Physical Review Letters"'' wrote me).

:::There are many other pseudo scientific "theories" popping around and scientific journals can't waste space and time on rejecting them all and leave the rejection to "[[relativists]]". It creates an impression of the BBH being right which only "crackpots" like myself object to. But of course even a crackpot might be right especially when the ideas he/she supports are supported also by rigorous physics and math as in this case. Thanks for responding and consider the case explained. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 14:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::"you think that Catholics make it ''also'' a part of ''their faith'" I would say that many Catholics do. :) One of the reason why there were so many scientists who were Catholic monks is from St. Francis saying that we must understand nature so that we can most appreciate the world God has given us. Dominicans pursue science because they believe that knowledge is the path to God, which includes scientific knowledge. Combined with the allegorical interpretation of Genesis, many Catholics pursue these theories fully without seeing any contradiction with their faith (and instead see it as necessary to pursue them to best fulfill their faith). :) By the way, there has been no establishment of a universal understanding of matter, so the idea that the Big Bang was "proven" wrong is not true - there are a few contradictions, but there are a few contradictions in everything because we have not figured out how to tie all the loose ends together. P.S. I've had plenty of college level physics classes and not one ever dismissed the Big Bang. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Ottava, it is a '''fact''' that the Big Bang hangs only on the lack of understanding of gravitation among "[[relativists]]". It exists only since, as Feynman says, "no good men work in it". I strted my PhD in gravitation to see what's going on there. Einsteinian gravitation is against ''"[[relativists]]"'' and there is too many '''observations''' that support Einsteinian gravitation. Eventually someone with access to scientific publications starts treating astrophysics seriously and easily discovers that the Big Bang is a hoax. It is obvious for a real physicist (e.g. someone like Feynman). [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 21:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"it is a '''fact''' the Big Bang hangs only on the lack of understanding" - you are the only person I have ever seen make such a claim, so I find it incredibly hard to believe. The absurdity also makes me doubt that you have ever worked at the graduate level in physics, especially with such strong terms which I have never seen any physicist use. As such, I do not think I can, in clean conscience, continue discussing the matter with you. Sorry. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 00:05, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Before we part for good I'd like to appologise for hurting your feelings by doubting the infallibility of the Pope, and tell you briefly why I'm sure that the big bang is a fake. And BTW, why didn't you ask that question, before labeling me a lier, while the answer may satisfy your curiosity (as I believe you are a curious person).

::::::::You may ask your friends physicists who believe that the big bang is not a fake whether they know what is the [[intrinsic redshift]] in our universe. The possible answers are (i) "don't know", (ii) "negligible, I guess", (iii) "depending on density of universe, but I don't know how", (iv) "ca. 72km/s/Mpc".

:::::::::Redshift isn't measured in km/s/Mpc; it's measured in terms of z, or occasionally in terms of shifted frequency. You don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:30, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::I calculated this [[intrinsic redshift]] with very simple, easy to repeate for an intelligent high school student calculation, and the last answer is true. It means that there is no expansion of the universe since it is the redshift that astrophysicists observe but can't calculate since they don't know how. There is no such calculation in the whole scientific literature. The BBH theorists assume answer (ii) ("negligible"). Why, if I calculated it and got 72km/s/Mpc, which incidentally the Hubble redshift is observed as such?

::::::::And then I invented a relativistic theory explaining the illusion of expanding universe which predicted the illusion of accelerating expansion exacctly as Supernova Cosmology Project observed in 1998 with one standard deviation accuracy (max possible to confirm agreemant of theory with observations, predicted by little me 13 years earlier). Never published though (except in conservapedia) since editors '''belive''' that the universe is expanding and my university blocked my access to the university server so that I had to type the results into conservapedia manually instead just showing a link to them. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 20:19, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

My understanding is the Catholic Church has given ''qualified'' acceptance to Big Bang / evolution / etc., on the basis that that was the predominant scientific opinion, and they want Catholicism and Science to coexist harmoniously. The major qualification, as I understand it, is the need for a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Fall. But God could have say, permitted life to evolve up to higher animals, but then as a special act of creation God created Adam. (Maybe he created Adam out of some evolved primate species). The Church doesn't insist that Genesis need be read completely literally, but some elements (existence of Adam/Eve) are so important theologically they can't be dispensed with. How can Christ be the New Adam if there never was an old one? If the Fall never happened, who needs Redemption? Of course, while I understand this to be the official position, not all Catholics agree with it, or are even aware of it, which is not an uncommon thing in the Catholic church. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:[http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110113.htm See chapter XIII]. The Catholic Church was very anti-literalist and actually persecuted many literalist sects as heretics. :) I haven't seen anything in which they required a "literal Adam and Eve", but the "Fall" is different. See also [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05692b.htm Pope Leo XIII]'s warning about certain types of interpretation of the Bible in which we try to conform the divine into the human (i.e. trying to say things literally happened when our words cannot actually contain the divine). See also the statements about how "literal" we can interpret the Bible under "Literal sense". St. Augustine wrote a whole work criticizing taking the literal sense of Genesis (''The Literal Interpretation of Genesis'' which is anti-literalist). I don't want to get into a debate about this, though. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:53, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

The Roman Catholic Church also opposed Galileo plus Copernicus delayed the publishing of his work under after he died and it was probably due to the Roman Catholic Church. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

: The Catholic Church endorsed the Copernicus book, and did not delay it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:52, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

===Georges Lemaître===
He was a big name in coming up with it, as well as a Catholic priest. See Wikipedia for a rough biography [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre#Work]--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:54, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:Woops, I just read JimJast's post more carefully. Georges Lemaître has already been acknowledged in this debate.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:56, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

==Religious views of Charles Darwin==

* In his autobiography, Darwin wrote – “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.” [http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/04/darwin-an-agnostic/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:15, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:That is not our modern definition of "agnostic". Agnostic, at the time, was known to him as the Greek word for "ignorant" or "not knowing". An "agnostic" in the modern sense means something very different, just as atheist before the modern period meant "person who was a heretic to the standard faith" as opposed to "believing in no faiths". Furthermore, it is clear that he says he had doubts as to the proof of various aspects of religion, which is no real different from what Augustine and many others described (even Mother Theresa claimed that she had doubts until the end). Faith is not about knowing, after all. He goes through arguments based on "proof", and then ends up saying that he can't possibly know what the origin was. But he does not say that religion is wrong but that people could possibly be faulty. That is twisted around to say something far different than what Darwin said. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 00:41, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

==Forgiveness + km/s/Mpc + Holy Ghost's work==

Sam, Yes I do have an idea what I'm talking about since I studied astronomy at University of Warsaw, Poland (Country of Copernicus, remember the guy? Also an unconventional fellow) since 2004 (in case you insist on verifying it). I still remember some definitions. Even if your mom didn't teach you that it is not nice to butt in with your own opinion (especially with a false one) when grownups talk, I forgive you, and hope that Ottava, being a Catholic and therefore a Christian, forgives you as well, even if you tried to confuse her in the matter of units used in astronomy.

So clearing this point, and now outside the conversation with Ottava, who might have given up on talking to me whom she considers a lier since I don't belive in the Big Bang (woman's logic is strange, don't you think?) And BTW, there are many others who dissmiss the BBH on basis of its physics as me, and math as J. Narlikar, one of the best mathematicians of India, [[Halton Arp]], American astronomer famous for his work on [[quasar]]s which don't fit the BBH, and many others, so the resistance against pseudo science seems to grow in the world) but if you support the BBH you may explain why definitions of terms used in astronomy are wrong and explain why you think they should be different than they are and why. You may start with [[Hubble constant]] (unfortunately still measured in km/s/Mpc).

For the benefit of those who don't know what Mpc (megaparsec) is I explain that it is a ''distance'' million times greater then one 1pc (parsec, short for ''"paralax one second"'') from which the radius of Earth odbit is seen as 1" (one angular second). Mpc is roughly the distance between galaxies and it is equal about 3 million light years (distance the lihgt has to travel 3 million years to cover). It is a quite large distance if one takes under consderation that the whole universe has radius of only 13 bilion lught years and the whole universe contains in its space rughly 100 billion galaxies, each galaxy containing about 100 billion stars like our Sun, most with planets flying around them. Just imagine the work the Holy Ghost is involved in while taking care of all of those planets including the Earth as one of them. Of course if we assume that She does all this work instead of leaving it to some natural process which takes care of it by itself. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 13:48, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:I am from New Zealand, Rutherford was from New Zealand, Ergo I am an expert on nuclear physics. ;) [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 11:05, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

==References==
<References/>

== A suggestion. ==

there was a suggestion about the first sentence on here, but it got deleted. I looked at it and there didn't seem to be anything objectionable, just an idea about rewording one of the sections so that it was more accurate. I would presume that its deletion was the result of some form of oversight. If no-one objects I'll put it back on the page, and maybe change the article. Tell me if I'm wrong, Thanks, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 11:09, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

==Introductory sentence==

:I don't really know much about the subject, but the points seem to be valid. It looks like the change was made, but was then reverted without giving a reason. Could someone that knows more about the subject than I do explain please? thanks, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 02:54, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

::The individual who made them was originally thrown out of the site a long time ago, but apparently it hasn't sunk in. What it amounts to is a "push and shove" upon the site to force a theory as a fact, something we're just not going to accept. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:16, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
:::Ok, I see. But how about the expansion vs. acceleration thing? [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 21:48, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2012-10-30T01:35:59Z

Cmurphynz: /* point by point. */

== Public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old. ==

So is penicillin. That doesn't make it a bad thing. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 18:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: Then why don't liberals admit it about public schools, and question its long-term value (harm)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Can you provide any sources that show that the majority of liberals deny that the current public education system is less than 100 years old? As a liberal, and being in a fairly liberal community, I have never even heard that this was an issue. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::Should this entry not read 'American public schools...', I am not going to comment on American schools, as I know very little about them. However public schools (in the American sense, ie state sponsored and controlled schools) have existed for centuries in other countries. For instance the state school I went to was founded in 1445 --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 18:55, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Universal education has been provided from public funds in Scotland since about 1570. England caught up with the Education Act in 1870 and many towns and villages, including the one I live in, have state schools which are much older than that (early 19th century in our case). So as J00ni says, this statement is specific to the USA.
:::In any case, as AliceBG says, so what? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:29, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== This essay sparks interest, but... ==

...then we're left with no source or explanation, so the overall impression is a startled shrug. Which ''is'' a pity, so I offer my view in the hope that you could expand it.

For example, the Rhode Island point immediately triggers the question what makes you assume that this single cause (separation of church and state) among the undoubtedly many had the consequence (slave importer). Our entry about Rhode Island currently states that "Rhode Island was the first state to outlaw slavery", so what's to stop somebody from claiming that the separation of church and state caused this, too? Without any explanation or source, both conclusions are equally valid (and shaky).

The point about public school education in its current form being just 100 years old is fairly weak because my reaction was "...it seems to work pretty well, so what's the point?" You seem to assume that every conservative will go "Oh no! Public schools in their current form are horrible!", but... nope, sorry. :/ I'm not saying public schools are Heaven on Earth, but to me, this item looks out of place on a list about Liberal History Denials. It would help if you at least explained the alternative: What changed 100 years ago?

And if I'm not ''completely'' mistaken, liberals don't deny that chivalry was a big thing here (conversely, I never noticed conservatives pointing out that chivalry was customary throughout history) - it just happened to be a big thing in several other countries, too, so I don't see the need to go out of my way to point it out. It's sort of a given. But maybe I'm missing your point. Please enlighten me, I'm always open for new ideas!

Lastly, the "American Indians vs. Asians" thing... really needs a source. Who says they're "too different", for example? And on what basis? This sounds like a fairly complex evolution issue, so it ''really'' needs some background.

I'm fairly new here, and this essay strikes me as a collection of "inside jokes" (not in the "funny" sense, but in the "This will make little sense unless you also read my other fifty essays about these things" sense). So I would appreciate some expansion of these points. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 19:47, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: As to your first point, there's no denying a correlation between the separation of church and state and slavery, though [[liberals]] will refuse to admit it. I've updated our Rhode Island entry to reflect that this tiny state controlled 60-90% of the African slave trade after the Revolution.

: Your other points are not any more open-minded. Public schools in their current form is less than 100 years old. It's a fact. The fact has significance. Admit it and teach it. If you think critical analysis of the results of this less-than-100-year experience is inappropriate, then welcome to the liberal mindset.

: Chivalry is not taught as part of history. It should be. Your view is unclear.

: American Indians are different from Asians in almost every significant way. Blood type. Interests. Every other measure you can think of. Deny it and join the liberal denial about history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I have a few questions about these. I'll address them one by one for simplicity.
# Can one say for sure they are too different for one to have descended from the other? YEC theory postulates that everyone is descended from two people. Obviously major changes in such groups have occurred over the years, and very different groups must have common ancestry.
#Rhode Island was the biggest importer of slaves? That's news to me. Overall, I think you'll find Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas imported more slaves than Rhode Island ever did. I know you don't care for Wikipedia, but, for lack of a more convenient source, if you look at their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_America Slavery in America] article, you'll see he highest slave population for any year in RI was less than a thousand, while in Virginia it at one point reached nearly half a million.
#Chivalry, in its most literal sense, dealt with etiquette among the gentry and nobility. America does not have a nobility, has never had knighthood, and has not had such a code. In its less formal sense: etiquette rules in general, manners, politeness (especially towards women), I don't think anyone denies its presence.
#As for the age of the public school system, I'm not sure if its denied; I just wonder the significance. If you're saying it's not adequately tried and true, well, I have to wonder, what is the alternative? Homeschooling is not an option for most people. Even when one parent can stay home with the child for 18 years, how competent will any one person be at teaching multiple subjects at an advanced level? I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I couldn't teach most classes at a high school level. If I ever had a special needs child I wouldn't know where to begin. It seems to me there are 4 choices: public school, private school, home school, or no school. The last should not be an option, the middle two aren't available to everyone, so that just leaves public school. While its far from perfect, I think efforts should go towards improvement rather than dismissal.
Well, that's my thought. I hope you'll take the time to reply. Thanks. [[User:Sanders|Sanders]] 20:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::(Edit Conflict with Sanders, so some points might overlap)
::Andy, I believe you missed ''all'' of my points and simply replied by repeating your claims. But maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough. Paraphrasing Sun Tzu: "If words of question are not clear and distinct, if requests are not thoroughly understood, then the initial poster is to blame." So here we go again, more to the point (I hope):
::#"There's no denying it" is a very bad reply to a request for sourcing and explanation. If it's so obvious and undeniable, then you can surely produce at least a single source that explains (instead of just asserting) it. Or, since you arrived at that conclusion, you can surely explain it yourself. You're a teacher - would you tell your student that "there's no denying it" if they asked you "Could you explain how Rhode Island's position as #1 slave importer was a result of the church/state separation?"? I hope not.
::#I didn't doubt that "public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old". My questions were how things had been 100 years ago and what the point of this claim is. You don't even say what the results are, but you imply that I disfavor critical analysis of such results. In fact, that's why I repeatedly called for expansion of your points. I know you value conciseness, but in its current form, this essay only teases and hints, but fails to deliver. Which is why I made my initial comment in the first place (along with notes saying just that).
::#Chivalry... I really don't get why you want to stress it in a single country when it was widely spread. Unless your point is that it should be pointed out also for the other countries. I could agree with that. But either way, this strikes me as pointless. Also, your claim that it's not taught is weak: My History teacher pointed out that it was followed in the US and other countries as a basic concept, along with a brief primer about its roots. But from what I remember, it's more of a social issue and less of a distinct historic one in terms of impact (and even less of a distinct US History one), so I currently don't see the need for such emphasis. But I repeat: I'm willing to listen if you explain it. I'm open for new things. But simply repeating your short claims without any sort of source or background won't help.
::#A great response. I ask for background, a source and an expansion, and you basically reply with "Almost everything is different! If you deny this, then you're a Liberal History Denier!" Though I admit that the "Their interests are different!" bit cracked me up. I always like a teacher with humor. I can see it now. "Asians like Mahjong. American Indians didn't. Hah-ha!" :P Seriously, though, you're making a veeeeery strong claim here that deeply dips into evolutionary biology and ethnology, so in the interest of all your readers, I ask for a source.
::I hope this sums up my issues in a more clear way. I'm happy you replied, but I would be even happier if you actually replied to my questions/requests. :) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::: DirkB, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me try again:
::: Point 1: religion teaches that slavery is wrong. Separating church and state means separating "slavery is wrong" from "state". The result is legalized slavery. Got it now? That's why Rhode Island imported up to 90% of the slaves. Don't continue to pretend you don't get the connection. Of course liberals are going to deny the connection exists, and perhaps so will you.
::: Point 2: there's no question here requiring a response. This is a fact that should be taught and discussed. But liberals won't.
::: Point 3: if you think your history teacher taught you about chivalry in colonial America, then please repeat that for our benefit here. I doubt you heard much about it.
::: Point 4: I said the blood types (and virtually everything else) is different between American Indians and Asians. You respond with silliness. You have free will to deny the truth. I'm interested in the truth and that's where you'll find me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Aschlafly, I assume that the Asian/Native American theory is taught because it is the consensus generally agreed upon by the experts. If it is so obviously wrong, what do you suggest should be taught in its place? [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 11:07, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:I am curious about what is meant by "blood types". After all, all humans share the same blood types or groups (if it refers to A, B, O, AB). Or is it a reference to DNA? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']] 12:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

On the Rhode Is. slavery question, I think this may be Andy's reference:

''Rhode Island, of course, was among the most active Northern colonies in importing slaves. Between 1709 and 1807, Rhode Island merchants sponsored at least 934 slaving voyages to the coast of Africa and carried an estimated 106,544 slaves to the New World. From 1732-64, Rhode Islanders sent annually 18 ships, bearing 1,800 hogsheads of rum, to Africa to trade for slaves, earning £40,000 annually. Newport, the colony's leading slave port, took an estimated 59,070 slaves to America before the Revolution. Bristol and Providence also prospered from it. In the years after the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the American trade in African slaves.
http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:09, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==A bulleted list...==
A bullet list doesn't quite make it as an essay. While I'd like to think the author will be making additions and fleshing out his arguments, other [[Essay:5 Questions to Ask an Anti-Conservative|"essays"]] [[Essay:10 Ways Liberals Create Atheists|similarly]] are nothing more than [[Essay:Most Influential Persons|baldfaced assertions]] with little or no [[Essay:Electoral College|actual]] [[Essay:Conservatism Essential to Religion|substance]] or [[Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History|well thought-out]] [[Essay:Hillary's Strategy to Win|arguments]]. Most seem nothing more than mere lists of things to be against, to link to internal articles (or worse other "essays"). <s>Good luck defending your lists Aschlafly, for without an inkling as to what thoughts may be behind your spate of "essays", readers will likely come to the conclusion that the author of such drivel cannot be a vital, energetic thinker but an intellectually lazy and shallow person who cannot put across a cogent argument and satisfies his impotent rage with lists of "bad thoughts".</s> [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 15:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
===NOTE===
The above was written by me, Christopher Campbell using my mother's account here. She only found out that I was using her account shen she tried to edit later on and found that she could not due to being blocked. At first she thought someone on the internet "hacked" her account and while it was tempting to let her believe this I finally fessed up to making the edit. 
My Mother will not let me have any internet accounts of my own that she hasn't personally set up and monitor. Nor will she let me have an account here at Conservapedia, (which is why I was forced to use her account). She said that the above proves that I am not ready to edit responsibly, showing (as it does) little regard for the feelings of Mr Schlafly and his efforts to make Conservapedia the best it can be.

'''I therefore publicly apologize to you Mr Schlafly for the great wrong I have done, "speaking" rashly and denigrating your encyclopedia without care as to you, your administrators and the other fine editors who are attempting to make Conservapedia a resource we all can be proud of.'''

Christopher Campbell 16:15, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
(EDT)

:::Well I think that (for one so young) it was an excellent, if somewhat abrasive critique. It is, however, best to critique the work and ideas not the man: drop the "drivel", "intellectually lazy" and "shallow" comments next time. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 10:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dark Ages ==

Bullet point 7: "The so-called Dark Ages saw a great revolution in science and learning, brought about by the spread of Christianity throughout Europe and the establishment of networks of monastic 'universities'."

The first phrase is correct, but the rest isn't. The revolution in learning took place in Muslim countries in particular, as well as India and China although the latter two areas did not influence Europe directly until the late 13th century. Europe contributed very little original scholarship indeed for nearly six centuries. A list of notable scholars in Europe in the Dark Ages (by which I assume you mean from the end of the Western Empire in 476 to the early 11th century) would include Isidore of Seville, the great encyclopaedist (d.636), Bede, the historian (d.735), and Alcuin, the theologian and polymath (d.804). There may be a few others but these are probably the only three who stand comparison with the much large number of eminent Muslim scholars of that half-millennium (and even Alcuin would be doubtful in that regard). Europe was very much an intellectual backwater until Gerbert of Aurillac (later Pope Sylvester II from 999) brought Arab learning from Cordoba to Christian Europe.

Places like Seville around 600, Jarrow around 700 and Charlemagne's court at Aachen around 800 were centres of scholarship (qv Isidore, Bede and Alcuin respectively) but cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as universities. The concept of a university as an educational institution which teaches and awards degrees in a wide range of subjects originated in the Muslim world. Those at Fez and Cairo, built in what Europeans call the Dark Ages, are still very much active. The establishment of the earliest universities in Christian Europe, e.g. Bologna, was clearly inspired by the success of universities in Muslim Europe (i.e. Sicily and Spain).

Bottom line: this bullet point should be deleted. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 15:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

:You are incorrect in your interpretation. A study of Bede's life would show that Jarrow did not stand in isolation, but was part of a network of monastic 'universities' - and the term is used advisedly - that extended across [[Christendom]]. The emphasis in modern historical studies on [[Islamic]] scholarship is based upon a prevalent self-hating Liberal ideology that is unable to credit [[Christianity]] with any positive achievements, and retrospectively adorns the current enemy of modern democratic values with laurels. This is not top decry medieval Islamic scholarship, which had much of merit, but to rescue Christian science and scholarship from its current, politially-motivated neglect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::1. It sounds as though you need to do some reading about early mediaeval scholarship! Isidore certainly influenced Muslim scholars in Spain but, Bede apart, no Christian scholar from the mid-7th to early 11th century made an original contribution to scholarship comparable to those of Muslims such as Avicenna and Averroes or Jews such as Moses Maimonides.
::2. I don't understand your point about "the current enemy of modern democratic values". How does that relate to Islam in general? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:56, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

:::WaZi is correct. I've deleted this statement. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:32, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Conservative denials about history==
If liberals were to write their own version of this, it would probably accuse conservatives of lying about exactly the same subjects. Wouldn't it be better to make a serious historical claim, with references to academic analysis, verifiable sources, and such respectable things? It would certinly be better than just declaring that liberals are lying with a one-sentence claim and no backing evidence, even if they are. It makes conservapedia look stupid. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 14:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Misnamed ==

I always thought that it was called the "guilded age" because there was so much money and prosperity; everything was figuratively gold-coated (gilded). I'm confused why this age is misnamed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:15, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

==Status==
''That contributions to history are determined more by status than by effort or Providence. This bias is a form of status worship.'' I'm confused. Isn't it liberals who are always being accused of insisting that the contributions of minorities and women be added to textbooks and courses, even if that displaces learning about white men with more status whose contributions may have been more significant? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:10, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

: "Status" is not the same as "contributions". Often they are opposites. The comment here is about the increasing focus of history books on status, such as who held public office or who won an award, rather than on contributions such as Thomas Edison's works. This issue has nothing to do with race.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:48, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::Is there any evidence that history books once had less focus on "status" than they do now? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 21:27, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::: My personal experience as a teacher of over 6 years, and as a student. There is more focus today on who held what position, rather than who accomplished what. I welcome anyone who has old textbooks to see how much more attention was paid to folks like Thomas Edison in the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

== Amerindians & Asians ==

The statement that American Indians are too different from East Asians to have been descended from them is incorrect so I've deleted it. Several genetic studies using variation in DNA sequences have shown that American Indians are more closely related to East Asians than to any other group. E.g. see Risch et al (2003) in ''Genome Biology'' 3:1−12. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== Specific Denials ==
1. First of all, your source is "www.floridareenactorsonline.com." A history professor would laugh at you while writing a massive F if you used this as a source. Not that its facts are necessarily wrong. Northern merchants were almost certainly involved in the slave trade. The article does not attempt to make any connection between separation of church and state and the slave trade; in fact, its discussion of Rhode Island concentrates mainly on the pre-Revolution era, so describing it as a state in the essay is an anachronism.
2. Thomas Jefferson may not have been the single most successful president ever, but he did engineer the Louisiana Purchase and win the first Barbary War. As for important, his extensive political writings were fundamental in early American political thought. He also did write the first drafts of the Declaration, and most of his material remained in the final copy.
3. Not really sure what this means. How would this be taught in a history class? I assume you're talking about gender courtesies, not an archaic system of aristocratic hierarchy, but even these gender interactions are based around specific social and economic circumstances, and these are commonly addressed by history books. To simply teach that "chivalry was customary" tells the student nothing about history.
4. Quite frankly, so what? In general, the Grant era was corrupt on all counts. I assume this is some assertion that liberals hide all the Democrats' faults, but most liberals assert that the parties of the late 19th century are vastly different from today's, so the point is moot.
5. It did create tremendous prosperity, but it did this through the toil of an underclass that could rarely hope to see the fruits of their labors. The lack of regulation did allow for unprecedented growth, but at the expense of average people.
6. As other people have pointed out, so what? Lots of things are less than 100 years old, and they're perfectly fine. Glorification of traditionalism is not always a good thing.
7. Teaching it as purely "atheist materialism" is, as with much of these points, a vast oversimplification that does the student a disservice. The Holocaust has vast and complicated roots that are well studied and cannot be boiled down to simply "atheist materialism." Traditionally, this point is used to demonstrate how evil "Atheism" (and more specifically, "Darwinism") is, but that's not a very good, logical argument. An idea's misuse does not make it wrong; I'm sure you would agree anytime I point out some evil act a Christian has perpetrated with the defense "well they're not real Christians." Misapplication of an idea (and I'll let others get into more depth on how innacurate it is even to say it's an application of the idea) does not make the idea wrong.
9. Not once in my extensive liberal education was I tought that Lenin was a good dude. You're going to need to cite where this is denied.
10. I'll refer you back to point seven here. I could just as easily say "The KKK, with its insistence on authority, was a right-wing doctrine."
--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 23:41, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Virginia==
In what way does the naming of Virginia come under ''"The following truths about history are '''typically''' denied by liberal history textbooks:"''? In my extensive reading I have never come across a denial of Virginia being named after Elizabeth, and I am quite sure that many of these books would qualify as "liberal" in your eyes, Andy. Maybe some text book has denied it, but is it '''typical''' of the genre? May we have the names of some of these books please? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:20, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

== Triangular Trade ==

Why would liberals assert the existence of triangular trade if it didn't exist? I went to a Christian high school and I was taught about triangular trade. I'm not doubting, at all, the word of an actual history teacher, I'm genuinely curious what makes this a liberal myth, and if it maybe should be on the regular [[Essay:Greatest Myths of World History]] instead. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:52, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

:I have an open mind about this. But the "triangle" doesn't make sense because Africa was not a consumer of finished goods. The term "triangular trade" was an invention of modern historians; it was never used contemporaneously with the trade.

:Some people like [[deceit]] for its own sake. It seems to amuse them. Why did a phony runner enter the Munich stadium in 1972 as though he was leading the marathon? It accomplished nothing and robbed the real leader (Frank Shorter) of his moment of triumph, yet some people (often liberals) seem to get a thrill out of fooling others. It's quite possible someone amused himself with popularizing an absurd concept of "triangular trade."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:03, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

::Oh, I was just curious, I'm not claiming that this ISN'T liberal deceit. I've been looking into it for an hour or so and I understand now why it's untrue, which kind of makes me upset with my (private, Christian) school for teaching this. I was just wondering what made it ''liberal'' deceit.

::It does seem possible somebody made up the idea that Africa was consuming trade goods just to spread a falsehood, and attempting to portray an underdeveloped area as being more developed than it was, or more advanced than it was, reeks of multiculturalist revisionist history. Makes sense to call it liberal, then, in that sense. Thanks for explaining! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:51, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

The idea that Africa was not consuming any trade goods at all is, of course, wrong. The crew of the trading ships did not (at least not in all instances) hunt down and catch the slaves themselves, but often bought them from African (or European, for that matter) slave traders, in Africa. These slave traders, of course, demanded something in return. Yes, the goods brought to Africa for the slaves were absurdly cheap compared to the human lives that they bought, but that's what trade is all about - you buy something at a low price, and sell it at a high. Perhaps it can be debated whether the goods brought the Africa were plentiful enough to in a normal context call it a Triangular Trade, but there is no reason to believe anyone is trying to deceive anyone; there are just various semantic opinions. The facts are that (a small amount of) goods from Europe were used to pay for slaves in Africa, and from the evidence I have seen, I personally don't find it absurd to call this a Triangular Trade. [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 07:13, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

: The resistance by Crucialwood simply illustrates how difficult it is to eradicate a misleading liberal concept from education. "Triangular trade" is indisputably misleading. There was no significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa, and people at the time did not use that term. The term is a modern invention that misleads, and should be rejected. Yet Crucialwood insists on keeping it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:21, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

::I do not see how the term i misleading, almost no matter how little goods were traded to Africa. When I was taught of the triangular trade in school, I was presented with the following facts: Ships set off from Europe with a small amount of cheap goods, traded them for slaves in Africa, took the slaves to America and brought American goods back to Europe. Even if the goods in the first part of the triangle only consisted of a bottle of whiskey for 100 slaves, I can't see how the term "triangular trade" is misleading. Perhaps stating "there was significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa" is misleading (though I do not have enough evidence at this time to say even that for certain), but the term does not imply that.

::Also, maybe I am missing something, but I do not see why you insist on the term "finished manufactured goods". Does not any goods traded to Africa suffice? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 10:45, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

The point that's being missed here is that ''triangular trade'' implies that there was significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa. Trinkets are not "finished manufactured goods". Ships did move in a triangular course, but this does not mean that the 3 legs of the triangle were equal. Human life was terribly undervalued, both by the men who captured slaves in Africa and the European whites who bought those slaves and brought them to America. Note that treating people as chattel goods is '''not''' what trade is all about. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

:I would not say that point is being "missed", when I had addressed it quite specifically. Why does ''triangular trade'' imply significant trade of finished manufactured goods? Why does the three legs of the triangle have to be "equal" (which basically just means that WE set a subjective value for the trade goods, by today's standards; not taking into account that the goods were actually sufficient to buy humans in Africa, which, in a context of trade, would in fact imply they were "equal")? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 23:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal rant ==

This isn't an essay, rather an intellectually shallow, and unsourced bullet list of jingoistic propositions.

Example:
''1. That "Yankee ingenuity" (American inventions) far surpassed the rest of the world, and brought great wealth to it''

This is a useless assertion,if not outright jingoistic, as "Yankee ingenuity" (please define this term more exactly if you can) took place over a broad time period of competing inventions from Europe. Additionally, many "Yankee inventions" were conceptualized by foreign nationals, see for example the machine gun, nuclear fission, rocket science (the last two being the key factors in American hegemonic rise in the late 20th century) Additionally, you really need to define Yankee and even American nation. A great argument can be made that it didn't exist until the cusp of the American revolution (if by Yankee innovation you're referring to early history).

''5. That hard work was the key to the success of many Americans.''

It's not an American trait purely, you're referring to the "Protestant Work Ethic", a Weberian Thesis.
See for example ,for an overview;

"A. Furnham, The Protestant Work Ethic: A Review of the Psychological Literature, European Journal of Social Psychology, 14:1, pp 87-104

''6. That most great Americans, from Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Edison, were homeschooled.''

Irrelevant in the context of the educational standards of the day. Public education was rare and basic, private tutelage was the method of education for upper class families since time immemorial until the modern advent of public education.

10. That Rhode Island and Thomas Jefferson, and their view of a "separation of church and state," had no role in the formation of the Constitution.

False, Citation needed before I'll accept that.

''12. That "anti-imperialism" movements against the United States were really communist or Muslim movements against Christianity, as in denying the Islamic basis for the Philippine insurgency around 1900.''

False, Ditto #10. Additionally,You need to prove the presence of Muslim movements against Christian's as a theme in colonial conflict,a great argument can be made that Islamic resistance movements are solely a product of decolonization. Finally, you need to prove that these communist or muslim resistance groups are fighting for Marx or Muhammad rather than masking anti-imperial or nationalist urges with a thin cover of ideology.

''15. That President FDR did not end the Great Depression, and may have prolonged it.''

Arguable, citation needed. Argument against see:

Gauti Eggertsson, Great Expectations and the End of the Depression, American Economic Review, 98:4,2008,pp 1476-1516

''17. That President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy was key to ending the Cold War.
''
False. Shows a gross misunderstanding of the full view, jingoistic. Author needs to review the literature on Perestroika, and Glasnost, as well as passive resistance within the Soviet Union . Should also review the role of Yeltsin, and the presidents of Ukraine and Belorussia in the immediate period pre-dissolution. Argument should be that Reagan played a crucial role rather than the key role in my opinion.

''18. That NO "triangular trade" existed in the 17th and 18th centuries with the New World[1]''

Irrelevant, straw man argument. Triangle trade is no longer explained as tangible trade routes, rather as a historical construction to understand flows of commerce and explanations for slavery and the first explosion of imperialism in the 17th century. Analogous to the Columbian exchange. Triangle trade not taken absolutely seriously as a tangible fact since '70;s.

See Gilman Ostrander, The making of the Traignular trade myth, The william and mary quarterly, 3:30:4, 1973, pp 635-644

== Reply ==

:REPLY:

:''1. That "Yankee ingenuity" (American inventions) far surpassed the rest of the world, and brought great wealth to it''

:This is a useless assertion,if not outright jingoistic, as "Yankee ingenuity" (please define this term more exactly if you can) took place over a broad time period of competing inventions from Europe. Additionally, many "Yankee inventions" were conceptualized by foreign nationals, see for example the machine gun, nuclear fission, rocket science (the last two being the key factors in American hegemonic rise in the late 20th century) Additionally, you really need to define Yankee and even American nation. A great argument can be made that it didn't exist until the cusp of the American revolution (if by Yankee innovation you're referring to early history).

::You're in absurd denial here. There's no disputing that a vast majority of wealth-enhancing inventions have been American.

:''5. That hard work was the key to the success of many Americans.''

:It's not an American trait purely, you're referring to the "Protestant Work Ethic", a Weberian Thesis.
See for example ,for an overview;

:"A. Furnham, The Protestant Work Ethic: A Review of the Psychological Literature, European Journal of Social Psychology, 14:1, pp 87-104

::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world.

:''6. That most great Americans, from Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Edison, were homeschooled.''

:Irrelevant in the context of the educational standards of the day. Public education was rare and basic, private tutelage was the method of education for upper class families since time immemorial until the modern advent of public education.

::You're clueless. Try reading [[homeschooling]] with an open-mind and then let's discuss. Contributions by homeschoolers far surpass, in proportionate terms, contributions by people who went to public school.

::Before I waste time further on this discussion, can you indicate how you do on [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I'll do an [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]] when you discover the "liberal art of citation of sources".

"::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world." - Apparently you've never seen a malaysian work camp, I'd love to see an American work that hard. 12 hour shifts, diet cap of 1200 calories a day (less than a slice of pizza) In fact, if you leave the United States and Europe

:I'd ask you to cite a source, but since you're banned you can't. I'd have to check the math, but I don't think 1200 calories a day is sufficient to sustain hard labor. Don't U.S. lumberjacks eat over 5,000 calories a day? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:07, 27 December 2009 (EST)

::In this user's absence, I'm happy to provide two sources for you: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_hou_wor-labor-hours-worked this one] and [http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2008/11/hours-worked-per-year.html this one]. It looks like Australians, Japanese, and Koreans do indeed work a little harder on average (Koreans much harder).

::While the Malaysian labor camps may not exactly have been germane to this point, he didn't pull it out of thin air. A google search revealed [http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/24563-human-trafficking-malaysians-extort-thais-ignore this] and [http://209.85.135.132/search?q=cache:_rwpDZ6oTS8J:www.kanlungan.ngo.ph/Resources/Malaysia_Sic%2520Country.pdf+malaysian+workers+underfed&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk this] detailing labor camp workers being underfed. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 14:22, 27 December 2009 (EST)

== "Liberal Response" ==

You're in absurd denial here. There's no disputing that a vast majority of wealth-enhancing inventions have been American.
1] Ad Hominem, but I did it too, so it's acceptable in the context
2]"Ridiculous fallacy" - it's ridiculous to you, so you brush it off
3]"correlation doesnt lead to causation" - Because a lot of inventions are from the United States, it doesn't mean that the vast majority are, doesn't mean that they're invented by Americans, doesn't mean it's a specific American trait , to innovate.

"::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world." -

Apparently you've never seen a malaysian work camp, I'd love to see an American work that hard. 12 hour shifts, diet cap of 1200 calories a day (less than a slice of pizza) By rest of the world you mean Europe, which is true, European workers are lazy socialists, but take a job with a chinese labourer or a korean , even a japanese guy, much harder workers than the average American

1] Undeniable fact- can't remember which logical fallacy that is, but it's a major one. All facts are deniable, and in this case easily.
2] Vast generalisation, needs proof.

You're clueless. Try reading [[homeschooling]] with an open-mind and then let's discuss. Contributions by homeschoolers far surpass, in proportionate terms, contributions by people who went to public school.

1]Ad hominen
2]didn't mention homeschooling, mentioned the historical context of Thomas Jefferson and Abe Lincoln. you're homeschooling program has no correlation with the 19th century "home schooling". The contexts and curriculum are quite different. You're welcome to disagree, let's see the sources.

::Before I waste time further on this discussion, can you indicate how you do on [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I'll do an [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]] when you discover the "liberal art of citation of sources". I've seen no counter poiunts here except pointless logical fallacies.

::You still won't admit that the vast majority of inventions have been American? Look, you have free will to deny basic facts, but your denial is astounding.

::Re: homeschooling, people and homeschooling were not that different 150 years ago. Moreover, you seem to confuse cause with effect. The point is about the positive effect of homeschooling, regardless of the motivation. I realize that Germany bans homeschooling and England is over-regulating it, but it remains productive at a far greater level than its percentages. And this has always been true, as numerous examples [[homeschooling|here]] illustrate.

::If you were genuinely interested in logic, then you'd spend some time reading or translating the Bible, the most logical book of all. But I suspect you're more interested in trying to reject the Bible than giving it equal time in your activities. Am I right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Now that was a better point, which I can concede on. As per the bible, I'm [[Plymouth Brethren]], rejecting the bible isn't in my "Modus Operandi".--[[User:JeffD|JeffD]] 22:01, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Interesting. We seem to have quite an entry on that denomination.

:I don't mean to single you out. There seem to be many people who read everything ''except'' the most logical book of all, the Bible. Lots of people even claim to be well-read yet complete avoid and even censor this most influential and most widely read book of all. Objectively, such an approach is ... not logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 18 December 2009 (EST)

== Communism ==

The fact that the McCarthy article was featured on the main page recently got me to thinking: liberals, in general, try to gloss over the fact that there was good reason for people to be concerned about the threat posed by Communism. Public schools will teach the "Red Scares," for example, but seldom mention the reasons behind the concern--for instance, the 1919 bombing attacks against major American industrialists and government officials.

Should the fact that liberals deny that Communism was a serious threat be included? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:25, 16 December 2009 (EST)

I'm just reading "48 Liberal Lies about American History" now, and I bet I'll be able to add a whole bunch of stuff to this page soon! See the table of contents [http://books.google.com/books?id=A3Muu2TsOioC&dq=48+Liberal+Lies+About+American+History&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=QA7LddEssH&sig=lepXhrknDTwEN9HCN8AwB-RcOA8&hl=en&ei=qWAxS4aQBoPAsQP4yoG7BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=&f=false here]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:16, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== One question ==

Guys, let's face it. There's (as of... Now) three notes on this page, and only one reference to another source (which I personally find a bit suspect, but that might just be me...)

Umm... That means there's a lot of unsourced claims where it should be at least 72 sources (one that cite that it is something that liberals deny (or claim) about history, and one to point out why it's wrong)

Well anyway... Have fun :) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 16:11, 1 March 2011 (EST)

== Thomas Jefferson ==

So he's listed as being a failure and an unsuccessful president, and had little to do with the Declaration of Independence. However, the article for him on Conservapedia says he had a successful first term as president, followed by a poor 2nd term, and the [[Declaration of Independence]] article says:
<blockquote>
Early drafts [of the Declaration] exist dating to June 1776.[3] Jefferson's colleagues Benjamin Franklin and Adams made small changes in his draft text and Congress made more. The finished document, which both declared independence and proclaimed a philosophy of government, '''was singly and peculiarly Jefferson's.'''
</blockquote>

So at least the part about the Declaration of Independence should be removed, or the articles changed to reflect his small role in the Declaration. --[[User:MarkN85|MarkN85]] 14:30, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

== Rubbish ==

90% of the stuff on this page is unsourced rubbish. either the 'liberal historians' don't deny whatever the allegation is, or else the allegation is not true. There is also some stuff that's pretty subjective, so while the interpretation that this article gives is valid, it does not mean that competing allegations are false. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 20:39, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

== colonialism ==

colonialism was universally good? Have you read about the Belgian Congo? How about the war for Algerian independence? What was the native population of North America before colonisation and what was it afterwards? How did they live then, and how do they live now? Are there African countries that are better off now than they were before they were colonised? I think colonialism is definitely good for a number of people in the colonising country, it is usually good for the colonising government, but it tends to be quite bad for the native population. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 00:03, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

== point by point. ==

much as it pains me to have to even engage with this stuff I will deal with most of the points that I actually know about. (I mostly won't use sources as that would take hours but if you have a specific objection then I will find one.)

1. subjective and jingoistic if not actually false.

2. Maybe. This one is again pretty subjective, but has some merit. There would be a lot of textbooks that agree with you though.

3. There are two points here. for the first one, I don't think that textbooks do deny that there were non-racist reasons to be against immigration. Second point I don't know enough about, but the North's larger population (a result of immigration) surely had some impact on the war.

4. I don't think that this is really a distortion, textbooks just have a tendency to focus on the positive elements of unions, such as the advances in workers rights that they won. And was the violence really so 'senseless'? particularly in the nineteenth century the working conditions were in fact abysmal, and I believe that you will find that a large proportion of the violence in labour conflicts was initiated by the employers or police trying to break up strikers (an american example of some of the worse violence would I think be in 1914, ludlow, colorado?) anyway again it's quite a subjective issue of how much weight to put on different interpretations.

5. Eh? Find me a book that denies this.

6. there were no public schools so this doesn't even need to be mentioned (I'm sure that specific biographies would mention how they were educated)

7,8,9,10. Too american for me to comment.

11. What history books say that? Perhaps they would say that Reagan was the beginning of a 'New Conservatism' or something but they don't say that there were no conservatives prior to that date.

12. The Philippine rebellion against the US was led by anti-imperialist intellectuals, mostly Catholics and while the Moro certainly supported the war, and were some of the last holding out, the majority of the Philippine manpower was Roman Catholic or following some syncretic version (see the Pulahan for instance). I would be very surprised if a majority-Catholic movement could be characterized as being 'against Christianity'

13. When has this been denied, and what's 'liberal' about that?

14. Ditto.

15. Subjective. Others would say that his policies did help.

16. I don't really know enough about this or the historiography around it.

17. May be true. most historians would I think put more emphasis on other factors.

18. Oh, so slave traders were just given slaves for free? the version of the triangle trade that appears in school textbooks may be an over-simplification, but it is a valid historical model.

19. This one is somewhat more valid. However you will find a number of history books that agree with this, and a number of occasions where the Catholic church was opposed to new science.

20. I have a more specific comment above. I don't agree with the premise of this. For instance, the bit about democracy, when in most cases the native population wanted independence, but the colonising power refused to grant it. I will say that I do find it ironic when Americans promote imperialism seeing as their own country is the result of an anti-imperialist revolt. (You did engage in a lot of colonialism on your own though)

21. Ha ha. lol.

22. Subjective.

General bias. this section is almost completely subjective and very vague.

1. Not anymore. the 'great men' theory of history is not used much any more. There is a lot more emphasis on social history, or greater trends that lead to events.

2. Are they really more important?

3. what is the 'true' importance of popularity?

4. How much significance is 'really' warranted by presidential elections?

5. Have they? A lot of this depends on your definition of 'conservative'.

6. when have textbooks ever done this? I don't think any do.

Specific truths.

1. correlation does not imply causation. I read a couple of posts defending this point, and they are predicated on the church always opposing slavery. This unfortunately was not true, the southern churches were great supporters of slavery.

3. In the broader sense yes, but it is not really something significant enough to be mentioned. While talking about medieval Europe chivalry in the traditional sense would be mentioned.

5. What about the working classes? And 'the world' is certainly an overstatement.

6. I think most textbooks would acknowledge this if they mentioned anything about education. I'm sure I've seen it a number of places.

7. This is a genuine difference in interpretation. Few historians would agree that atheism was the cause. This is an actual disagreement.

8. don't really know whether american books would mention this or not. no comment.

9. Very few people would agree that Lenin oppressed the russians 'as thoroughly as Stalin', and I would say that this is pretty subjective.

10. Nazi's are almost uniformly described as right wing. They were extreme nationalists and favoured capitalism. The number of people who disagree is very small, and they are almost universally American, and very recent.

11. What textbooks deny this? All the ones that I've ever read mention it, and about how Lincoln was the first Republican president and all that.

12. Ok, I'd never heard of that, so maybe that one is true.

If no one objects, I will take out some of the more ridiculous bits. Thanks, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 03:10, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

And now there is a new point.

13. see 21. and add 'rotflol' and also the spelling's atrocious. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:55, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

And one i forgot to General bias.

23. patently false. The Crusades, The reconquista, the Russian conquest of siberia, British India, etc., etc. etc. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 10:20, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

:It appears that the person who added that bit is Dutch. So I will also mention the Dutch conquest of Indonesia, prince Diponegoro and all of that. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 16:38, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

User talk:Conservativedreams

2012-10-30T01:14:02Z

Cmurphynz: /* hey */

{{Welcome|--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 10:39, 10 March 2012 (EST)}}

== question. ==

is English your first language? [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:58, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

No, actually Dutch is . But I've lived at U.S. for a while.

:It's pretty good though considering.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 02:32, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

== hey ==

i see you were wondering about some stuff you wrote that I deleted. I am not quite sure which of it was written by you, but you said it was about the crusades and colonialism. I have most of my reasons on the talk page at the article, but I'll summarise here anyway. The colonialism bit said something about colonialism usually being a good thing, and bringing technology and democracy and that. I would fundamentally disagree about it being better for the colonised population, for instance Belgian Congo, which was perhaps a little more extreme than some other examples, but a good example of the colonial mindset. On the whole the natural resources of colonised countries were used for the benefit of either the colonising government or companies from that country. Also if you look at the current condition of many Aboriginal and Native American people, you will see that colonialism has done very little for them, and that the effects were mostly negative. About it bringing democracy, that was very rarely the case, and it makes little sense to claim that you are bringing democracy if the majority of the people want you gone. And anyway the entire idea of colonialism strikes me as being fundamentally patronising and paternalistic; assuming that you must 'look after' the local population as they are incapable of making responsible decisions for themselves.

About the Crusades bit, did it say something like 'the first crusade succeeded because it was the will of God' or something like that? If it was, then that seems pretty presumptuous to assume that you know that. And while the argument could easily be made that ''everything'' that succeeds is the will of God, what was in the article seemed to indicate that that meant that it was morally right, and justified, which I think is a pretty hard position to defend given the behaviour of many of those involved.

Anyway, those were my reasons, I don't know if you agree with them or not, but it should give you an idea of why I got rid of them. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 02:32, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

Ok, I just checked the history of that article and it looks like another one of the bits that I deleted was added by you. It was something about 'Muslims have always attacked Christians and the west, and the West has never attacked muslims'. That one I just removed because it was factually wrong. thanks, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 02:37, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

I replied to what you said, but I did it on my talk page so that it's all in one place.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 21:13, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

== Sherman ==

Done! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:54, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

:: Welcome here! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:56, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
Thanks!--[[User:Conservativedreams|Conservativedreams]] 22:22, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

User talk:Conservativedreams

2012-10-30T01:13:40Z

Cmurphynz:

{{Welcome|--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 10:39, 10 March 2012 (EST)}}

== question. ==

is English your first language? [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:58, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

No, actually Dutch is . But I've lived at U.S. for a while.

:It's pretty good though considering.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 02:32, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

== hey ==

i see you were wondering about some stuff you wrote that I deleted. I am not quite sure which of it was written by you, but you said it was about the crusades and colonialism. I have most of my reasons on the talk page at the article, but I'll summarise here anyway. The colonialism bit said something about colonialism usually being a good thing, and bringing technology and democracy and that. I would fundamentally disagree about it being better for the colonised population, for instance Belgian Congo, which was perhaps a little more extreme than some other examples, but a good example of the colonial mindset. On the whole the natural resources of colonised countries were used for the benefit of either the colonising government or companies from that country. Also if you look at the current condition of many Aboriginal and Native American people, you will see that colonialism has done very little for them, and that the effects were mostly negative. About it bringing democracy, that was very rarely the case, and it makes little sense to claim that you are bringing democracy if the majority of the people want you gone. And anyway the entire idea of colonialism strikes me as being fundamentally patronising and paternalistic; assuming that you must 'look after' the local population as they are incapable of making responsible decisions for themselves.

About the Crusades bit, did it say something like 'the first crusade succeeded because it was the will of God' or something like that? If it was, then that seems pretty presumptuous to assume that you know that. And while the argument could easily be made that ''everything'' that succeeds is the will of God, what was in the article seemed to indicate that that meant that it was morally right, and justified, which I think is a pretty hard position to defend given the behaviour of many of those involved.

Anyway, those were my reasons, I don't know if you agree with them or not, but it should give you an idea of why I got rid of them. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 02:32, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

Ok, I just checked the history of that article and it looks like another one of the bits that I deleted was added by you. It was something about 'Muslims have always attacked Christians and the west, and the West has never attacked muslims'. That one I just removed because it was factually wrong. thanks, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 02:37, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
I replied to what you said, but I did it on my talk page so that it's all in one place.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 21:13, 29 October 2012 (EDT)

== Sherman ==

Done! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:54, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

:: Welcome here! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:56, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
Thanks!--[[User:Conservativedreams|Conservativedreams]] 22:22, 27 October 2012 (EDT)

User talk:Tristan12

2012-10-26T02:41:16Z

Cmurphynz: Hi

== Hi ==

Hi. I was looking through this website, when I came across a rather interesting idea in something you had written (it was one of the 'homework answer' things, though I couldn't tell you the number). You said something indicating that in your opinion if it were not illegal for the government to restrict freedom of religion, then there would a lot more conflict between America and middle eastern countries. I was somewhat intrigued, as I couldn't work out quite how this was supposed to follow. Anyway, if you do see this, I wouldn't mind knowing a bit more detail about that idea, as it seemed pretty interesting. tnx, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 22:41, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Big Bang theory

2012-10-25T06:54:28Z

Cmurphynz: /* Introductory sentence */

It looks like this page may have to be protected, since evolutionists are getting on here and posting nonsense such as YEC being "non-scientific". [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:39, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The only nonsense involves the religious thinking there is "proof" of YEC. Really? An article on the big bang contains one scientific paragraph and a longer one about creationist views? How does one explain cosmic background radiation? Or Hubble's Law? Or Deuterium Observation? Or the fact that if you use the big imaging telescopes to look beyond 14 billion light years in any direction all you see is, well, big bang? Inasmuch proof as science allows (remember, science can't "prove" anything, it can only disprove the false in order to make a better hypothesis) the Big Bang is accepted fact. In what peer-reviewed journal did Matthew, Mark, Luke or John publish? [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:46 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Feel free to expand the article if you wish. I might even join you. But you can do that without removing the creationist material. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What I'm saying is, that material is fine--provided one acknowledges that the opinion of creationists, ESPECIALLY YEC's--is viewed in the scientific community as belonging to the lunatic fringe. One can be socially and politically conservative without making oneself look like idiot by espousing such nonsense as YEC. Science shouldn't be politicized--far too many things already are!! Scientific method should have nothing to with ideology; it should have everything to do with coming up with better hypotheses about the universe based on empirical observations. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:56 AM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::There, finally finished typing it in Word. This works so much better, although feel free to add to its information. Quite frankly, its absurd to believe in YEC--and I'm a committed social, political and economic conservative!! Please don't associate lunatics with conservatives, because it hurts our credibility. In the 1800s, the Comte de Buffon took composite lumps of molten rock of varying sizes and estimated (based on how long it took his samples to cool to room temperature) that a molten ball the size of Earth would've taken at least 35,000 years just to cool. YEC is idiotic, and those who believe it are blinded by their own ignorance of basic physics. [[User:Scientz|Scientz]] 10:42 PM, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm confused, Scorpionman. Are you saying that YEC is scientific?
:Personally, I don't see why a discussion of Biblical literalism has any place in an article about the Big Bang. If you want to dispute the current prevailing theory behind the origin of the cosmos, then you should do it scientific evidence or at the very least an attempt at refuting evidence presented for the theory and not with the contents of one religious text. As it is, the article abruptly changes the subject and goes totally off-topic. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 13:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Please update the article to include peer-reviewed scientific criticisms of Big Bang-like theories. Right now the article looks ridiculous: a half of a dozen scientific references followed by a bunch of references dominated by the Apologetic Press. Clearly somebody misunderstands the modern scientific process.

==Evolution and the Big Bang Theory==
You guys state: "Some creationists argue that the Big Bang theory is part of an effort to deny God's creation of all of existence. Christian physicists, such as Dr. John Hartnett,[12] have claimed that the Big Bang theory was constructed to account for serious pitfalls to the theory of evolution, particularly the needed timescale of billions of years, amply contradicted by terrestrial and astronomical evidence. Thus, the big bang is trotted out by atheist evolutionists to silence creationist opponents."

Sigh...I could be wrong, but wasn't the earth known to be billions of years old by then? And the view back then was that the Universe is static and that it had been around forever. Einstein actually inserted <math> \Lambda g^{ \mu \nu} </math> into the left hand side of his equation <math> \mathbf{G}= 8\pi \mathbf{T} </math> (geometrized units) so that he would get a static universe! So the big bang model proposes that the Universe is younger than previously thought, not older! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:15, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

== Dominant theory ==

Would it ruffle too many feathers to mention that it is the dominant theory amongst scientists today. I suggest that such a statement is an uncontroversial fact. Thoughts? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 05:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:No, I agree, it is the dominant theory among scientists. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 05:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sweeping generalisation ==

The following sentence should be removed:

:In contrast to young earth creationists, Old Earth Creationists and Theistic evolutionists agree that the Big Bang occured.

Just because you are an OEC or you believe evolution to be correct does not mean that you MUST believe in the Big Bang Theory. Does anyone remember Fred Hoyle?

Are there any objections to the removal of the sentence? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I think this article looks good right now. Good edits guys. Hopefully expressing positive emotions is not violative of probation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:16, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article split==

The intro confuses [[Big Bang]] with [[Expanding universe]]. I'd like to split the article up, with one short article treating each of these two distinct ideas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In fairness, no, an expanding universe is part of the "big bang" (which refers to far more than the universes creation. It's confusing, so I would leave it to someone with a background in physics. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Have the bounds of [[outer space]] expanded? Or is it just that the galaxies have been getting farther apart within boundless space? What exactly does the theory state? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently, the answer is "both", at least according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#MX --[[User:M|M]] 10:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's try to get this straight. Is [[outer space]] infinite or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:From what I understand most astrophysics believe that since the area that the universe is expanding into is void of matter and energy that yes currently, [[outer space]] is infinite.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Unknown. The spatial extent of the Universe could be finite or infinite. If you're picturing a lump of matter dispersing in a larger void, you're thinking of the wrong thing, though. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Again, I'm pretty much an amateur when it comes to astrophysics...but I think that the confusion comes from the fact that we're currently uncertain as to the actual curvature of space. I think I remember hearing that space seems to be curved enough that it's actually finite (though boundless, like the three-dimensional equivalent of the surface of a sphere), but I can't provide citation of that at the moment.--[[User:M|M]] 07:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think a split is neccesary, however, on a related note, an article describing the Big Freeze, Big Rip, and Big Crunch theories for the end of the universe might be called for, as those also center on the way in which the universe is expanding (specifically, from measurements of type 1 supernovae in extremely distant galaxies, we have evidence that the universe's expansion is in fact, speeding up, giving support to the Big Freeze (everything expands until entropy is at a maximum), or possibly Big Rip (if Dark Energy is the cause of expansion, then if the universe keeps expanding, dark energy could start to rip apart galaxies, then solar systems, then stars and planets, and finally atoms). So yeah, an article on the possible ways the universe will 'end' (or if it is infinite) would probably help provide more information about the nature of the expanding universe, without having to create an article solely about the expansion of the universe. [[User:Warhawk|Warhawk]] 14:07, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== YEC Citations ==

Conservative, your citations don't appear to agree with each other...compare:
<blockquote>
A prediction had been made prior to the discovery, that if the Big Bang were true, there should be some sort of constant radiation in space, although the prediction was for a temperature several times higher. (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/30)
</blockquote>

with

<blockquote>
All matter radiates heat, regardless of its temperature. Astronomers can detect an extremely uniform radiation, called cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, coming from all directions. It appears to come from perfectly radiating matter whose temperature is 2.73 K—nearly absolute zero. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.
</blockquote>

Is it standard procedure to use citations which don't agree with each other on the particulars?

:::Is it standard procedure to give me two citations without giving me the specific cite to the second citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I found the second citation and it appears to use the following to support its contention: “The big bang made no quantitative prediction that the ‘background’ radiation would have a temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin (in fact its initial prediction [by George Gamow in 1946] was 30 degrees Kelvin); whereas Eddington in 1926 had already calculated that the ‘temperature of space’ produced by the radiation of starlight would be found to be 3 degrees Kelvin.” Tom Van Flandern, “Did the Universe Have a Beginning?” Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 3, No. 3, 15 September 1994, p. 33. [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html][http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes55.html#wp1077943] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::::It's a good thing Tom Van Flandern didn't publish in peer-reviewed journals. I'll believe your numbers, but current data indicates that BOTH were wrong. Redoing a computation of the ambient temperature of the Universe (given modern observations) will ''not'' yield Eddington's prediction; reworking Gamow's calculation ''will'' reproduce the CMB temperature very accurately. Additionally, the CMB data is more than just temperature data; the anisotropies in the CMB are also indicative of the premordial expansion. Just because you can dig up a citation doesn't mean it's correct.

== Common Misconceptions ==

As previously written, this was untrue. The Big Bang does not claim that all matter was tightly packed together before the Big Bang started. That is an assumption that the Big Bang does not address. It is unfortunate that in a section titled common misconceptions that a misconception was added. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:08, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Misconception about Evolution==
I think evolution discredits itself. But I think it is unfortunate when us anti-evolutionist mistrepresent the theory. It is discreditable on many points, but this sentence mistrepresents it:

:''Many scientists who believe in the Big Bang Theory are Evolutionists, though not all are. One can believe that God both created the Universe AND laid out the plan for all life in the Big Bang, as opposed to the idea that life evolved randomly after the Big Bang. ''

Evolution does not say life evolved randomly. It says the intitial organism came about through essentially "random" events. (although not strictly random).

Evolution is wrong for other reasons. And if we are going to make evolutionists see its falsity, we have to correctly represent the theory. Or atleast not MISREPRESENT the theory. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 00:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree and I'm glad that the article at least makes that distinction, although as an a Creationist who believes the Big Bang is one of the strongest theistic arguments out there, I'm not incredibly happy about Evolution being mentioned in there; one has nothing to do with the other. However, I won't press the issue because I think what's there is a reasonable compromise. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:23, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
==Big Bang proves Universe had a beginning==
Why are so many creationists against the big bang, it proves that the universe had a beginning point. It also seems to violate physics because matter can't be created from nothing. It indicates a creative force behind the universe.

:Well, for one thing the "billions of years" makes it just laughable, but more importantly it goes against the Bible which says God created the Earth in 6 days around 6000 years ago. --[[User:Rolloffle|Rolloffle]] 15:43, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::Where, exactly, is the age of the Earth specified as being 6000 years in the Bible. Please reference the relevant chapters and verses. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 11:38, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

::"'Billions of years' makes it just laughable." The good old argument from ridiculity. It's like the argument from incredulity, but more fun.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 12:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

==Most atheists?==
Does anyone have ANY reference that backs up the claim about "most atheists"? Or is it just made up off the top of people's heads?
: The scientific community (which I define as the doctorate-level degree holding scientists) in the U.S. overwhelmingly accept the Big Bang and old universe. I think most atheists just believe what scientists say is right despite the fact they don't know anything about it. I don't have a source for the U.S. public relating atheism to big bang belief, but I have a source for correlation between scientists' atheism and big bang belief, which we could extrapolate from. [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html From Nature magazine]. --[[User:Theonlyconservative|Theonlyconservative]] 12:38, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Article Depth ==

In all honesty, this article does not tell anyone very much about the big bang theory, evidence for it, or the reasons why it was formulated in the first place. The article basically introduces the topic with a mish mash of unrelated facts in no particular order, then the next section is "dissent letter" followed by "starlight problem". These are hardly the most relevant topics about the Big Bang theory. May I suggest that as this article is (hopefully) reworked, those doing the writing keep in mind that the Big Bang Theory is a very general class of theories that all have one thing in common - the assertion that long ago the universe "began" from a mathematical singularity and has been increasing in size ever since. Also, be wary about the throwing around the word "singularity" - contrary to popular belief and science fiction, a singularity is not a physical thing - it is an asymptotic point in a mathematical function where the function breaks down and can no longer make any predictions. Other singularities include the center of black holes, and objects traveling at the speed of light. The mathematical models for these systems break down at these values and become meaningless. Likewise, the Big Bang Theory has nothing to say about the origin of the singularity or what came "before" it. It is outside the realm of the theory, and in the opinion of some scientist (I'm not comfortable saying most or few here, as I'm basing this statement only on my personal discussions) outside the realm of science as a whole.

== Georges-Henri Lemaître ==

Could somebody add something in about how Roman Catholic priest [[Georges-Henri Lemaître]], the original proposer of the Big Bang theory, felt that the theory fitted beautifully with his faith as it supports a "creation event"? [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:51, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Change "Starlight problem" to "Horizon problem"? ==

There's a section in this article that refers to the "starlight problem" but I believe scientists actually refer to this issue as the "horizon problem." See [http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/HorizonProblem.html here] and [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/astro/cosmo.html#c5 here] for example. One reason is that the problem has to do with more than starlight--there are questions about density, temperature, etc. The term "starlight problem" is generally used by people discussing creationist cosmological models, while "horizon problem" is more appropriate in the context of the big bang model.--[[User:JamesR|JamesR]] 20:07, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
: I've changed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:27, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Inflation and YEC ==

Couldn't inflation make the Big Bang and YEC compatible? I mean if it happened faster than the speed of light. Then why couldn't it happen in the YEC time scale? [[jfraatz|jfraatz]]

== "God's Role" ==

Can someone help me come up with a better way of saying "God's role in creating the universe." ? Obviously God didn't just have a 'role,' He simply created it by Himself! Thanks! [[User:WillS|WillS]] 18:16, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:I tried; do you think my wording is OK? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 03:06, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

::Looks great. And good job catching some other areas where liberal bias crept in as well!

== Correcting "scientific" ==

I just corrected "scientific" the word used in description of the Big Bang to the proper in this case term "pseudo scientific". See also my [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]] where I explain why the Big Bang is a pseudo scientific hypothesis (between other things it assumes "curved" spacetime for which there is no evidence and a lot of to contrary) and how Einsteinian gravitation works. The essay is still not finished and so I invite anybody to expres their opinion on the talk page of the essay. Thanks. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 17:35, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:I have already expressed my opinion on the talk page of that essay: you're a crackpot. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:02, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::Sam, the fact that I'm a crackpot has certain influence on my credibility (which I never claimed being high, while I'm only a sculptor, with only one year training in general realativity, and the rest of my formal education being in electrical engineeiring) but it surely has no influence on the truth of Big Bang hypothesis (BBH).

::The biggest flaw of BBH is an assumption that the universe is expanding while it is not.

::This error of expansion of universe was created many years ago by [[relativists]] giving up the checking what is the ''[[intrinsic redshift]]'' in the universe before jumping to conclusion that the ''redshift is a '''proof''' that the universe is expanding''. It is clearly a non scientific approach to science. There are no proofs in science (except in math, and that's why math is not considered to be science). There are only better or worse ''hypotheses'' that are surely no proof. Some last long time until they collapse when a '''proof of their invalidity''' turns up and usually it is not accepted since no scientist cares about looking like an idiot who overlooke something important and assumed an impossible. Error that Newton avoided, not believeing in his own theory being more than just math.

::[[Intrinsic redshift]] is as it is observed in our universe (see my step-by-step derivation in [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]] and please comment on possible errors in this derivation). My derivation is done in such a simple way that an intelligent high school student shouldn't have problems with repeating it him/herself. Besides I'm here to explain if something is too difficult. Just ask a question about this derivation or other things since from 1985, when I discovered this derivation, I found out also many other thing. E.g. why the universe is looking as if it were expanding with accelerating expansion and the acceleration has just its value, observed with accuracy of only one standard deviation (max possible) by Supernova Cosmology Project team in 1998, which is

:::<math>dH/dt=-H_o^2/2</math>

::where <math>dH/dt</math> is acceleration of expansion in terms of derivation of Hubble constant with respect to time <math>t</math>, and <math>H_o</math> is the Hubble constant itself. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 16:44, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

== "even though the theory is based on little more than guesswork, speculation, and dubious assumptions." ==

I must agree with the removal of the above sentence. The big bang theory is based on the observations of red shifts, background radiation and other observational and physical properties of the universe. However, it is the assumptions the Big Bang theorists draw from this that are the debatable part. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:51, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks Max. I don't accept the Big Bang theory myself, but only on the grounds of my faith. The error - and I think it's a sincere one - that astrophysicists are making is in the use of methodological naturalism, which of course is a requirement of the scientific method. Within the constraints of that method it's a very sound theory; it just isn't correct. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:01, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::Yes Sam, ''"it just isn't correct"''. But can we say it while [[relativists]] maintain that it is correct? We have to have a proof that it isn't correct.

::I don't blame Max for him doing what he had to do not knowing such a proof. I just would like to start a discussion whether my proof is sound one, and justifying dumping BBH. I'm sure it is but I'm the author so I may be biased (though I took a general realtivity course at Harvard to be sure that I'm right and thought about this for over quater of a century so I'm relatively sure that it is a sound proof of invalidity of BBH).

::Anyway, I can only help in discussion by keeping it on track when I see wrong arguments, and without anybody discussing this issue it won't be even known that the proof of invalidity of BBH even exists. No mainstream scientific journal ever wanted to publish this proof despite it is only one page of print. It was published in conservapedia (after being blocked on my university server) as [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] in a short form suitable for physicists. Longer form with step-by-step derivation of redshift in our universe, and more, is in [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]]. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 17:25, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::Just as a note, Sam, the Scientific Theory (i.e. Scientific Method) was codified by two individuals that were deeply religious (Descartes and Francis Bacon). It is also derived from the theories of logic codified by Roger Bacon, a monk. I don't think it is a difference between faith and reason. St. Thomas Aquinas made the argument that we should seek to combine the two, which John Calvin said was a very important advancement that allowed us to move beyond Greek philosophy/science. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 19:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:::It's irrelevant that Descartes and the Bacons were religious; the scientific method does NOT combine faith and reason and in fact explicitly rejects faith. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 15:14, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Additional note, Sam, what good it would do if we believed in things that are not true? As pseudo scientific theories usually are. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 14:29, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::::It's interesting to our readers that the founders of the [[scientific method]] were religious. We always want to know more about people who have influenced currents of modern thought.

::::When someone proposes "[[intelligent design]]", do we respond to the challenge of the idea purely on its merits, or do we consider the motives of its proponents? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:32, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Hmm ==

As a Catholic, I hope people realize that the Catholic Church was involved in the matter. The Catholic Church is home to one of the most conservative Christian organizations in the US, the Knights of Columbus (1.8 million members), mind you. I do hope that we can at least acknowledge that this isn't an "atheist" view or a "liberal" view, but one that spreads across boundaries. :) After all, the Catholic Church's view about Genesis is based on St. Augustine's determination that Genesis was allegorical, which was something both Martin Luther and John Calvin agreed with. Just keep this in mind. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 18:56, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:In what sense ''"the Catholic Church was involved in the matter"''? The fact that ''"Martin Luther and John Calvin agreed (that Genesis was allegorical)"'' isn't a clear indication that ''"the Catholic Church was involved in the matter"''. At least to me (the crank :) that's why I'd appreciate if you explained it in more detail.

:My opinion is the same as yours that there was an involvement but I'm not sure that I understand it the same way as you do. I know that Gorges Lemaître, the Catholic prist, proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory<ref>

After wikipedia and believed this time.

</ref>, and also that the theory is false since I personally executed the for long time neglected calculation of value of [[intrinsic redshift]] and it turned out roughly as it is observed, which implies that practically there is no expansion of universe. Results of my calculations were not published since 1985 when they were done, except recently in conservapedia<ref>

[[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]].

</ref>, but I don't think that the Catholic Church was involved in the matter of blocking the publication. Do you? :) [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 14:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::Ottava, are you saying that a large percentage of Catholics accept the Big Bang theory? If so, is it because it seems reasonable to them? Or because it's Catholic dogma, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:36, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::It is both accepted by Catholics and given official approval by the Vatican. After all, [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] was a famous Catholic Priest and the originator of it. The Catholic Church also says there is enough reason to believe that evolution is okay. Afterall, Darwin made it clear that he believed in Aristotelian theory (and thus, Aristotelian Metaphysics which St. Thomas Aquinas relied upon), and that Darwin was Anglican his whole life, whether High Church or not is a different matter. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:03, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Actually Darwin was Unitarian, not Anglican (he was baptised Anglican mainly due to social pressure) and it's pretty clear that he at least partly abandoned Christianity. He intended to become an Anglican vicar at one point (mainly so he could spend six days a week collecting beetles) but his mother was a practicing Unitarian and took him to her church, and his father and paternal grandfather were atheists. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 15:33, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Unitarian at the time was not a set "religion" but a religious philosophy, with many Low Church Anglicans adopting it. Darwin trained to become an Anglican priest, and Anglican thought and wording is throughout his texts. Darwin's actions and ideals are in line with the Franciscan school of natural philosophy, which is deeply connected to Aristotelian belief. You can see that in the writings of Roger Bacon and many Franciscan scientists. Darwin's constant referral to Aristotelian beliefs and logic is inline with that. Darwin married as an Anglican, was buried as an Anglican, etc. Such things are stripped away by modern atheists who want to make their current view seem more "historic". Darwin had many supporters in the Anglican clergy, by the way. He was never "high church", but you don't have to be high church to be religious. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 16:02, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Darwin may well have been buried as an Anglican but he described himself as an agnostic. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 16:04, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That term didn't exist at his time. So I doubt it highly. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 16:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Of course it did; it was coined by his friend Thomas Huxley. Darwin used it on at least one occasion. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:24, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::[http://books.google.com/books?id=qjN6uTdy7hgC&pg=PA1&dq=Darwin+Anglican&hl=en&ei=xldyTtmGPOn00gGsiNWqCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Darwin%20Anglican&f=false By the way, a good read] on the matter. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 16:07, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Would you mind seeing to it that the above information gets into the appropriate articles? I'd like to see a [[Catholic views on evolution]] article, for example. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:06, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Eventually. However, I do have a rather strong conflict with my personal involvement with the Church, publications on Catholic Theology, Cathology apologia, my work with Catholic advocacy groups, etc. I merely wanted to add a little note that you don't have to be liberal to believe in it. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

::JimJast, I'm a tad confused by your response. I was merely stating that belief in the Big Bang wasn't necessarily "liberal" or reflected a liberal bias. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:08, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Ottava, I agree on this point.

:::My question was whether you think that Catholics make it ''also'' a part of ''their faith'' (since the Pope accepts it).

:::Being from a Lutheran family, and being educated briefly by my grandpa in matters "of faith", mostly about "Catholic errors", and the absolute need to be trufhful, my concern was that the Catholics are wrong on one more point since the Big Bang was proven wrong in 1985 and then the sbject was considered not interesting enough to publish it, as editors of "''Physical Review Letters"'' wrote me).

:::There are many other pseudo scientific "theories" popping around and scientific journals can't waste space and time on rejecting them all and leave the rejection to "[[relativists]]". It creates an impression of the BBH being right which only "crackpots" like myself object to. But of course even a crackpot might be right especially when the ideas he/she supports are supported also by rigorous physics and math as in this case. Thanks for responding and consider the case explained. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 14:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::"you think that Catholics make it ''also'' a part of ''their faith'" I would say that many Catholics do. :) One of the reason why there were so many scientists who were Catholic monks is from St. Francis saying that we must understand nature so that we can most appreciate the world God has given us. Dominicans pursue science because they believe that knowledge is the path to God, which includes scientific knowledge. Combined with the allegorical interpretation of Genesis, many Catholics pursue these theories fully without seeing any contradiction with their faith (and instead see it as necessary to pursue them to best fulfill their faith). :) By the way, there has been no establishment of a universal understanding of matter, so the idea that the Big Bang was "proven" wrong is not true - there are a few contradictions, but there are a few contradictions in everything because we have not figured out how to tie all the loose ends together. P.S. I've had plenty of college level physics classes and not one ever dismissed the Big Bang. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:28, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Ottava, it is a '''fact''' that the Big Bang hangs only on the lack of understanding of gravitation among "[[relativists]]". It exists only since, as Feynman says, "no good men work in it". I strted my PhD in gravitation to see what's going on there. Einsteinian gravitation is against ''"[[relativists]]"'' and there is too many '''observations''' that support Einsteinian gravitation. Eventually someone with access to scientific publications starts treating astrophysics seriously and easily discovers that the Big Bang is a hoax. It is obvious for a real physicist (e.g. someone like Feynman). [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 21:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"it is a '''fact''' the Big Bang hangs only on the lack of understanding" - you are the only person I have ever seen make such a claim, so I find it incredibly hard to believe. The absurdity also makes me doubt that you have ever worked at the graduate level in physics, especially with such strong terms which I have never seen any physicist use. As such, I do not think I can, in clean conscience, continue discussing the matter with you. Sorry. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 00:05, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Before we part for good I'd like to appologise for hurting your feelings by doubting the infallibility of the Pope, and tell you briefly why I'm sure that the big bang is a fake. And BTW, why didn't you ask that question, before labeling me a lier, while the answer may satisfy your curiosity (as I believe you are a curious person).

::::::::You may ask your friends physicists who believe that the big bang is not a fake whether they know what is the [[intrinsic redshift]] in our universe. The possible answers are (i) "don't know", (ii) "negligible, I guess", (iii) "depending on density of universe, but I don't know how", (iv) "ca. 72km/s/Mpc".

:::::::::Redshift isn't measured in km/s/Mpc; it's measured in terms of z, or occasionally in terms of shifted frequency. You don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:30, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::I calculated this [[intrinsic redshift]] with very simple, easy to repeate for an intelligent high school student calculation, and the last answer is true. It means that there is no expansion of the universe since it is the redshift that astrophysicists observe but can't calculate since they don't know how. There is no such calculation in the whole scientific literature. The BBH theorists assume answer (ii) ("negligible"). Why, if I calculated it and got 72km/s/Mpc, which incidentally the Hubble redshift is observed as such?

::::::::And then I invented a relativistic theory explaining the illusion of expanding universe which predicted the illusion of accelerating expansion exacctly as Supernova Cosmology Project observed in 1998 with one standard deviation accuracy (max possible to confirm agreemant of theory with observations, predicted by little me 13 years earlier). Never published though (except in conservapedia) since editors '''belive''' that the universe is expanding and my university blocked my access to the university server so that I had to type the results into conservapedia manually instead just showing a link to them. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 20:19, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

My understanding is the Catholic Church has given ''qualified'' acceptance to Big Bang / evolution / etc., on the basis that that was the predominant scientific opinion, and they want Catholicism and Science to coexist harmoniously. The major qualification, as I understand it, is the need for a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Fall. But God could have say, permitted life to evolve up to higher animals, but then as a special act of creation God created Adam. (Maybe he created Adam out of some evolved primate species). The Church doesn't insist that Genesis need be read completely literally, but some elements (existence of Adam/Eve) are so important theologically they can't be dispensed with. How can Christ be the New Adam if there never was an old one? If the Fall never happened, who needs Redemption? Of course, while I understand this to be the official position, not all Catholics agree with it, or are even aware of it, which is not an uncommon thing in the Catholic church. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:22, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
:[http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110113.htm See chapter XIII]. The Catholic Church was very anti-literalist and actually persecuted many literalist sects as heretics. :) I haven't seen anything in which they required a "literal Adam and Eve", but the "Fall" is different. See also [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05692b.htm Pope Leo XIII]'s warning about certain types of interpretation of the Bible in which we try to conform the divine into the human (i.e. trying to say things literally happened when our words cannot actually contain the divine). See also the statements about how "literal" we can interpret the Bible under "Literal sense". St. Augustine wrote a whole work criticizing taking the literal sense of Genesis (''The Literal Interpretation of Genesis'' which is anti-literalist). I don't want to get into a debate about this, though. :) [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 15:53, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

The Roman Catholic Church also opposed Galileo plus Copernicus delayed the publishing of his work under after he died and it was probably due to the Roman Catholic Church. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

: The Catholic Church endorsed the Copernicus book, and did not delay it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:52, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

===Georges Lemaître===
He was a big name in coming up with it, as well as a Catholic priest. See Wikipedia for a rough biography [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre#Work]--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:54, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:Woops, I just read JimJast's post more carefully. Georges Lemaître has already been acknowledged in this debate.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:56, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

==Religious views of Charles Darwin==

* In his autobiography, Darwin wrote – “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.” [http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/04/darwin-an-agnostic/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:15, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:That is not our modern definition of "agnostic". Agnostic, at the time, was known to him as the Greek word for "ignorant" or "not knowing". An "agnostic" in the modern sense means something very different, just as atheist before the modern period meant "person who was a heretic to the standard faith" as opposed to "believing in no faiths". Furthermore, it is clear that he says he had doubts as to the proof of various aspects of religion, which is no real different from what Augustine and many others described (even Mother Theresa claimed that she had doubts until the end). Faith is not about knowing, after all. He goes through arguments based on "proof", and then ends up saying that he can't possibly know what the origin was. But he does not say that religion is wrong but that people could possibly be faulty. That is twisted around to say something far different than what Darwin said. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 00:41, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

==Forgiveness + km/s/Mpc + Holy Ghost's work==

Sam, Yes I do have an idea what I'm talking about since I studied astronomy at University of Warsaw, Poland (Country of Copernicus, remember the guy? Also an unconventional fellow) since 2004 (in case you insist on verifying it). I still remember some definitions. Even if your mom didn't teach you that it is not nice to butt in with your own opinion (especially with a false one) when grownups talk, I forgive you, and hope that Ottava, being a Catholic and therefore a Christian, forgives you as well, even if you tried to confuse her in the matter of units used in astronomy.

So clearing this point, and now outside the conversation with Ottava, who might have given up on talking to me whom she considers a lier since I don't belive in the Big Bang (woman's logic is strange, don't you think?) And BTW, there are many others who dissmiss the BBH on basis of its physics as me, and math as J. Narlikar, one of the best mathematicians of India, [[Halton Arp]], American astronomer famous for his work on [[quasar]]s which don't fit the BBH, and many others, so the resistance against pseudo science seems to grow in the world) but if you support the BBH you may explain why definitions of terms used in astronomy are wrong and explain why you think they should be different than they are and why. You may start with [[Hubble constant]] (unfortunately still measured in km/s/Mpc).

For the benefit of those who don't know what Mpc (megaparsec) is I explain that it is a ''distance'' million times greater then one 1pc (parsec, short for ''"paralax one second"'') from which the radius of Earth odbit is seen as 1" (one angular second). Mpc is roughly the distance between galaxies and it is equal about 3 million light years (distance the lihgt has to travel 3 million years to cover). It is a quite large distance if one takes under consderation that the whole universe has radius of only 13 bilion lught years and the whole universe contains in its space rughly 100 billion galaxies, each galaxy containing about 100 billion stars like our Sun, most with planets flying around them. Just imagine the work the Holy Ghost is involved in while taking care of all of those planets including the Earth as one of them. Of course if we assume that She does all this work instead of leaving it to some natural process which takes care of it by itself. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 13:48, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:I am from New Zealand, Rutherford was from New Zealand, Ergo I am an expert on nuclear physics. ;) [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 11:05, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

==References==
<References/>

== A suggestion. ==

there was a suggestion about the first sentence on here, but it got deleted. I looked at it and there didn't seem to be anything objectionable, just an idea about rewording one of the sections so that it was more accurate. I would presume that its deletion was the result of some form of oversight. If no-one objects I'll put it back on the page, and maybe change the article. Tell me if I'm wrong, Thanks, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 11:09, 19 October 2012 (EDT)

==Introductory sentence==

The First sentence in the article currently reads as follows:

:The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory used to account for the acceleration of matter throughout the Universe.

That appears to me to be wrong. Firstly, the ''acceleration'' of matter is a relatively recent discovery and is currently explained by reference to what is called dark energy. Secondly, as the article explains, the theory is not about the expansion of matter but also the expansion of space itself.

I propose that the sentence read as follows:

:The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory used to account for the observed expansion of the universe.

I invite the comments and criticism of other editors. --[[User:Horace3|Horace3]] 19:17, 18 October 2012 (EDT)

:I don't really know much about the subject, but the points seem to be valid. It looks like the change was made, but was then reverted without giving a reason. Could someone that knows more about the subject than I do explain please? thanks, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 02:54, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

User talk:Conservativedreams

2012-10-25T06:37:44Z

Cmurphynz:

User talk:Conservativedreams

2012-10-25T06:32:42Z

Cmurphynz:

{{Welcome|--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 10:39, 10 March 2012 (EST)}}

== question. ==

is English your first language? [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:58, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

No, actually Dutch is . But I've lived at U.S. for a while.
It's pretty good though considering.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 02:32, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

== hey ==

i see you were wondering about some stuff you wrote that I deleted. I am not quite sure which of it was written by you, but you said it was about the crusades and colonialism. I have most of my reasons on the talk page at the article, but I'll summarise here anyway. The colonialism bit said something about colonialism usually being a good thing, and bringing technology and democracy and that. I would fundamentally disagree about it being better for the colonised population, for instance Belgian Congo, which was perhaps a little more extreme than some other examples, but a good example of the colonial mindset. On the whole the natural resources of colonised countries were used for the benefit of either the colonising government or companies from that country. Also if you look at the current condition of many Aboriginal and Native American people, you will see that colonialism has done very little for them, and that the effects were mostly negative. About it bringing democracy, that was very rarely the case, and it makes little sense to claim that you are bringing democracy if the majority of the people want you gone. And anyway the entire idea of colonialism strikes me as being fundamentally patronising and paternalistic; assuming that you must 'look after' the local population as they are incapable of making responsible decisions for themselves.

About the Crusades bit, did it say something like 'the first crusade succeeded because it was the will of God' or something like that? If it was, then that seems pretty presumptuous to assume that you know that. And while the argument could easily be made that ''everything'' that succeeds is the will of God, what was in the article seemed to indicate that that meant that it was morally right, and justified, which I think is a pretty hard position to defend given the behaviour of many of those involved.

Anyway, those were my reasons, I don't know if you agree with them or not, but it should give you an idea of why I got rid of them. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 02:32, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

Progressive

2012-10-25T05:39:18Z

Cmurphynz: cleaned up phrasing slightly more

In US politics, '''progressive''' is sometimes used as a more specific word for "[[liberal]]", used to show the specific area that they want to focus on. Progressive policies, in [[political science]], are those which make [[progress]] towards goals seen as benefiting society. Since all politicians claim that their ideas and policies are meant to benefit the public, calling a policy "progressive" may be thought of as meaningless.

They often use the term to describe themselves and their policies in contrast to "regressive" policies of their opponents. For example, progressives will ask rhetorically, "Do you want to go back to the 1950s?" implying that women were oppressed by being forced to be [[housewife|housewives]] and men were oppressed by being falsely accused of favoring Communism (see [[McCarthyism]]).

The term progressive was recently revived by [[politician|politicians]] who considered themselves to be [[liberal]]. This revival occurred shortly before the [[2006 elections]]. It was implemented to help distance politicians, mainly [[Democrats]], for the negative history associated with various members of the party at that time. It was also meant to create a belief that [[conservatives]] were not able to think of a progressive future for the [[United States]]. The most famous historical usage of the term was in the 1890s to 1920s, sometimes called the [[Progressive Era]]. During the Progressive Era, politicians of both parties and various ideologies adopted the term, notably [[Theodore Roosevelt]], a Republican who founded the [[Progressive Party]] (also known as the Bull Moose Party) and [[Woodrow Wilson]].

The term has been popular among the [[media]]. And although most of the population still refers to the two major philosophies as [[conservative]] and liberal, it is often used to describe a more specific type of liberalism This is likely because these two titles are familiar to the current population and better recognized. Because of this familiarity it is easier to visualize the contrasts between conservative and liberal than the contrasts between conservative and progressive, because of the specific nature of "progressive"

A useful distinction to keep in mind is this: "progressives want bigger and supposedly better government; conservatives want less and supposedly better government."

[[category:political Ideologies]]

Darwin, Australia

2012-10-25T05:34:42Z

Cmurphynz:

'''Darwin''' is a city and port in northern [[Australia]]. It is the capital of the [[Northern Territory]], and by far the largest city in that territory. The harbour was discovered and named in 1839 by Lt John Lort Stokes of ''H. M.S. Beagle'' who named it after [[Charles Darwin|the biologist]] who had been on that ship on its circumnavigation of the world between 1831 and 1836. In 1869 the site for a new town and surrounding pastoral leases was surveyed - to be called Palmerston. It was renamed to agree with its harbour when control of the Northern Territory was transferred from [[South Australia]] to the Federal Government in 1911. (Palmerston is now the name of a rapidly growing satellite town, begun in the 1980s, some miles to the east of Darwin.)

Darwin's fortunes were given a boost in the early 1870s when the [[Overland Telegragh Line]] was completed and workers on the line discovered gold at Pine Creek, about 250km south. Suddenly Darwin was Australia's telegraphic gateway to the world while a goldrush was getting under way in its hinterland. The goldrush was to bring the Chinese - the "ABCs (Australian Born Chinese) are still a force in the political and social life of the city.

Darwin is the most cyclone-ravaged city in Australia. The city of Darwin was destroyed by Cyclone Tracy during the night of December 24-25, 1974, killing at least 66 people, and destroying 80% of the buildings in the city of 46,000 population. Darwin's utilities were knocked out and 35,000 people were evacuated.

==World War II==
In [[World War II]], Darwin was the target of Japanese bombing attacks between February 1942 and March 1943.

The first attack on Darwin was on the morning of February 19, 1942. It was launched from a Japanese carrier group which included the fleet carriers ''[[Akagi]]'', ''[[Kaga]]'', ''[[Hiryu]]'', and ''[[Soryu]]'', all of which were veterans of the [[Attack on Pearl Harbor|Pearl Harbor attack]].<ref>''A History of War at Sea'', by Helmut Pemsel, Naval Institute Press, 1975</ref> The attacking force consisted of over 150 carrier based bombers, with 36 escorting [[Mitsubishi Zero|Zeros]]. Another attack by over 50 land-based, twin-engine bombers took place at midday. The bombings sank the destroyer USS ''Peary'' and several other ships, and destroyed several buildings.<ref>''The Lonely Ships'', by Edwin P. Hoyt, Jove Books, 1976</ref> The Japanese lost only a few planes in the raid, while several defending Allied planes were shot down. t least 243 people were killed, mostly on the ships that were sunk.

This attack, and another attack on the town of Broome on the northern coast two weeks later, raised fears that [[Japan]] would invade Australia next. Many officers in the Japanese military wanted to do exactly that, but other objectives (such as the attack on [[Battle of Midway|Midway]]) were given priority, and the invasion never materialized.

Darwin endured more raids, but the Japanese effort was more focused on dislodging Allied forces from [[New Guinea]], so the city would usually go several weeks between attacks. On March 18, the American Ninth Pursuit Squadron, equipped with [[P-40 Warhawk]]s, arrived at Darwin to take up defense duties. Japanese bombers attacked again on April 4, and the fighters downed four [[Mitsubishi G4M|Mitsubishi "Betties"]] and probably downed a Zero for the loss of two P-40s. Subsequent raids suffered similar losses.<ref>''P-40 Warhawk Aces of the Pacific'', by Carl Molesworth, Osprey Publishing, 2003</ref>

==Post WWII==
Growth was sluggish after the War until the development of the uranium mine at Rum Jungle 50-odd km south in the early 1950s. Darwin was proclaimed a city in 1959. During the sixties and into the seventies Darwin became a boom town. It was the first touchdown for the waves of migrants - the "Ten-Pound Poms" and others - flying in from the Northern Hemisphere. The Federal Government was pouring money into infrastructure and personnel associated with [[Aboriginal]] Welfare ("Welfare Branch" was the largest branch of the Northern Territory Administration) and new mines were opening in the hinterland. Tourism was booming and Darwin was the gateway - both in and out - for the "hippy trail" between Australia and Britain. It was a "young" town and a place where a large proportion of the workforce were on 2-year contracts or the like.

By the mid-seventies more families were starting to stay - perhaps aided by the improvements in air conditioning technology - Darwin has one of the most uncomfortable climates of any "European" town. Building codes, forced by the deprivations of Cyclone Tracy, were in favour of housing more in tune with the rest of the country and away from the pre-1974 houses on stilts. It has been noted that less than half the population of Darwin in 1990 had lived in Darwin before Tracy.

The current population is about 130,000. Since 2003 it is the northern terminus of the north-south rail line linking it to [[Adelaide]] and the rest of Australia. The current "Track", the Stuart Highway, is now a well maintained highway 2000 miles south, replacing the narrow weather-challenged road built by the Army during World War II that only went as far as [[Alice Sprrings]], 952 miles to the south.

==References==
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://en.travelnt.com/explore/darwin.aspx Tourism Information]
*[http://www.smh.com.au/news/Northern-Territory/Darwin/2005/02/17/1108500201604.html/ History and sites] from the Sydney Morning Herald
*[http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/Special_darwin.htm Australia's Pearl Harbor: The Japanese Air Raid on Darwin]
*[http://www.ntl.nt.gov.au/online_resources/australias_northern_territory_wwii Online Exhibition of the Air Attack on Darwin]

[[Category:Northern Territory Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:World War II]]

Darwin, Australia

2012-10-25T05:33:47Z

Cmurphynz:

'''Darwin''' is a city and port in northern [[Australia]]. It is the capital of the [[Northern Territory]], and by far the largest city in that territory. The harbour was discovered and named in 1839 by Lt John Lort Stokes of ''H. M.S. Beagle'' who named it after [[Charles Darwin|the biologist]] who had been on that ship on its circumnavigation of the world between 1831 and 1836. In 1869 the site for a new town and surrounding pastoral leases was surveyed - to be called Palmerston. It was renamed to agree with its harbour when control of the Northern Territory was transferred from [[South Australia]] to the Federal Government in 1911. (Palmerston is now the name of a rapidly growing sattelite town, begun in the 1980s, some miles to the east of Darwin.)

Darwin's fortunes were given a boost in the early 1870s when the [[Overland Telegragh Line]] was completed and workers on the line discovered gold at Pine Creek, about 250km south. Suddenly Darwin was Australia's telegraphic gateway to the world while a goldrush was getting under way in its hinterland. The goldrush was to bring the Chinese - the "ABCs (Australian Born Chinese) are still a force in the political and social life of the city.

Darwin is the most cyclone-ravaged city in Australia. The city of Darwin was destroyed by Cyclone Tracy during the night of December 24-25, 1974, killing at least 66 people, and destroying 80% of the buildings in the city of 46,000 population. Darwin's utilities were knocked out and 35,000 people were evacuated.

==World War II==
In [[World War II]], Darwin was the target of Japanese bombing attacks between February 1942 and March 1943.

The first attack on Darwin was on the morning of February 19, 1942. It was launched from a Japanese carrier group which included the fleet carriers ''[[Akagi]]'', ''[[Kaga]]'', ''[[Hiryu]]'', and ''[[Soryu]]'', all of which were veterans of the [[Attack on Pearl Harbor|Pearl Harbor attack]].<ref>''A History of War at Sea'', by Helmut Pemsel, Naval Institute Press, 1975</ref> The attacking force consisted of over 150 carrier based bombers, with 36 escorting [[Mitsubishi Zero|Zeros]]. Another attack by over 50 land-based, twin-engine bombers took place at midday. The bombings sank the destroyer USS ''Peary'' and several other ships, and destroyed several buildings.<ref>''The Lonely Ships'', by Edwin P. Hoyt, Jove Books, 1976</ref> The Japanese lost only a few planes in the raid, while several defending Allied planes were shot down. t least 243 people were killed, mostly on the ships that were sunk.

This attack, and another attack on the town of Broome on the northern coast two weeks later, raised fears that [[Japan]] would invade Australia next. Many officers in the Japanese military wanted to do exactly that, but other objectives (such as the attack on [[Battle of Midway|Midway]]) were given priority, and the invasion never materialized.

Darwin endured more raids, but the Japanese effort was more focused on dislodging Allied forces from [[New Guinea]], so the city would usually go several weeks between attacks. On March 18, the American Ninth Pursuit Squadron, equipped with [[P-40 Warhawk]]s, arrived at Darwin to take up defense duties. Japanese bombers attacked again on April 4, and the fighters downed four [[Mitsubishi G4M|Mitsubishi "Betties"]] and probably downed a Zero for the loss of two P-40s. Subsequent raids suffered similar losses.<ref>''P-40 Warhawk Aces of the Pacific'', by Carl Molesworth, Osprey Publishing, 2003</ref>

==Post WWII==
Growth was sluggish after the War until the development of the uranium mine at Rum Jungle 50-odd km south in the early 1950s. Darwin was proclaimed a city in 1959. During the sixties and into the seventies Darwin became a boom town. It was the first touchdown for the waves of migrants - the "Ten-Pound Poms" and others - flying in from the Northern Hemisphere. The Federal Government was pouring money into infrastructure and personnel associated with [[Aboriginal]] Welfare ("Welfare Branch" was the largest branch of the Northern Territory Administration) and new mines were opening in the hinterland. Tourism was booming and Darwin was the gateway - both in and out - for the "hippy trail" between Australia and Britain. It was a "young" town and a place where a large proportion of the workforce were on 2-year contracts or the like.

By the mid-seventies more families were starting to stay - perhaps aided by the improvements in air conditioning technology - Darwin has one of the most uncomfortable climates of any "European" town. Building codes, forced by the deprivations of Cyclone Tracy, were in favour of housing more in tune with the rest of the country and away from the pre-1974 houses on stilts. It has been noted that less than half the population of Darwin in 1990 had lived in Darwin before Tracy.

The current population is about 130,000. Since 2003 it is the northern terminus of the north-south rail line linking it to [[Adelaide]] and the rest of Australia. The current "Track", the Stuart Highway, is now a well maintained highway 2000 miles south, replacing the narrow weather-challenged road built by the Army during World War II that only went as far as [[Alice Sprrings]], 952 miles to the south.

==References==
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://en.travelnt.com/explore/darwin.aspx Tourism Information]
*[http://www.smh.com.au/news/Northern-Territory/Darwin/2005/02/17/1108500201604.html/ History and sites] from the Sydney Morning Herald
*[http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/Special_darwin.htm Australia's Pearl Harbor: The Japanese Air Raid on Darwin]
*[http://www.ntl.nt.gov.au/online_resources/australias_northern_territory_wwii Online Exhibition of the Air Attack on Darwin]

[[Category:Northern Territory Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:World War II]]

Talk:Fu'kushima

2012-10-23T15:16:40Z

Cmurphynz:

F u k u s h i m a

"Fu-kushima" or "F u k u s h i m a" is just in this case [[F u k u s h i m a|Fukushima]] because of Spam Filter. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:18, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks, I was wondering about that. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:54, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

:Good morning, perhaps instead of inserting spaces, we could just use a different romanization system. Instead of using Hepburn-shiki romanization system, we could use Kunrei-siki and rename the article Hukusima. [[User:JoshDH|JoshDH]] 17:14, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

::: Hukusima in not known. Thanks anyway. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 17:50, 2 May 2011 (EDT)

== Spam Filter ==
Could an exception not be made for [f u kushima] given that it is obviously not spam ! It looks a bit stupid having the article like this [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]]

:* I agree! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 10:11, 23 October 2012 (EDT)

or we could just refer to it as 'eff you shima' :) [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 11:16, 23 October 2012 (EDT)

Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2012-10-23T15:01:00Z

Cmurphynz: /* Specific truths that history books deny or distort */ typo

Here are [[liberal]] denials about history, with the result that virtually no textbooks teach them.

== General denials ==

The following truths about history are typically denied by liberal history textbooks:

#That "Yankee ingenuity" (American inventions) far surpassed the rest of the world, and brought great wealth to it.
#That military battles are an essential part of history, and of preserving freedom.
#That there were valid reasons for past opposition to immigration which had nothing to do with racism; immigration did not enable the North to beat the South.
#That unions caused great harm, including senseless violence and lost jobs.
#That hard work was the key to the success of many Americans.
#That most great Americans, from Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Edison, were homeschooled.
#That [[Abraham Lincoln]]'s [[faith]] grew while he was President.
#That [[Benjamin Franklin]] abandoned the [[Deism]] of his youth later in his life.
#That [[Thomas Jefferson]]'s religious beliefs were not representative of the other [[Founding Fathers]].
#That [[Rhode Island]] and [[Thomas Jefferson]], and their view of a "separation of church and state," had no role in the formation of the [[Constitution]].
#That there were [[conservative]] Presidents before [[Ronald Reagan]], such as [[George Washington]], [[James Monroe]] and [[Grover Cleveland]].
#That President [[FDR]] did not end the [[Great Depression]], and may have prolonged it.
#That President [[LBJ]]'s [[Great Society]] did little to alleviate poverty.
#That President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s foreign policy was key to ending the Cold War.
#That NO "[[triangular trade]]" existed in the 17th and 18th centuries with the New World<ref>In fact, no specific "triangular" trade route has ever been identified and it is unlikely that there was significant sale of goods to Africa at that time. The term was invented by an historian more than 100 years later.</ref>
#That the [[Catholic Church]] has a history of promoting science, not suppressing it.
#That as an Intelligence agency, CIA was crucial for the Free world to defeat communism and their agents made huge sacrifices to defend our freedom.

== General bias ==

#Standard textbooks mislead students into thinking that contributions to history were somehow based more on status than by effort or Providence. This bias is a form of [[Essay:Status Worship|status worship]].
#Standard textbooks emphasize material things (like race, gender, wealth, scarcity) at the expense of the more important role played by ideas and "the power of the pen."
#Standard textbooks overemphasize the significance of popularity (e.g [[JFK]]).
#Standard textbooks ignore or deceive students about the fact that most great contributions to western society have been made by conservative Christians.

== Specific truths that history books deny or distort==

#[[Rhode Island]] was the only state to separate church and state, and it became the biggest importer of slaves.<ref>"The largest slave trading ports in America were located in Rhode Island and soon rivaled those of Liverpool. The wealth and economy of New England was based solely on slave trading and exporting rum; and the southern most colonies were NOT part of that odious slave trade."[http://www.floridareenactorsonline.com/realslavetraders.htm]</ref>
#[[Thomas Jefferson]] was not as successful or important as liberals claim;<ref>For example, Jefferson was given a wealthy estate but died in substantial debt.</ref> He failed personally and as president, especially in his second term.
#[[Chivalry]] was customary throughout most of American history.
#The greatest corruption in government during the Grant Administration was by the Democratic-controlled "[[Tammany Hall]]."
#The misnamed "[[Gilded Age]]" generated tremendous prosperity for some, thanks to an absence of stifling regulation.
#[[Public school]] education in its current form in the U.S.A. is less than 100 years old.
#[[Atheist]] materialism lay behind the genocidal crimes of the [[Nazi]]s
#[[Martin Luther King]] was a Republican.
#[[Lenin]] was a ruthless and violent dictator who oppressed the people of the [[Soviet Union]] almost as thoroughly as [[Stalin]].
#[[Nazism]], with its insistence on the collective, was a [[left-wing]] doctrine.
#The history of the "[[State of Franklin]]."
(add more)

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:United States History Essays]]

Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2012-10-23T14:58:42Z

Cmurphynz: made a start. a lot of the ones that I left I am going to delete too.

Here are [[liberal]] denials about history, with the result that virtually no textbooks teach them.

== General denials ==

The following truths about history are typically denied by liberal history textbooks:

#That "Yankee ingenuity" (American inventions) far surpassed the rest of the world, and brought great wealth to it.
#That military battles are an essential part of history, and of preserving freedom.
#That there were valid reasons for past opposition to immigration which had nothing to do with racism; immigration did not enable the North to beat the South.
#That unions caused great harm, including senseless violence and lost jobs.
#That hard work was the key to the success of many Americans.
#That most great Americans, from Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Edison, were homeschooled.
#That [[Abraham Lincoln]]'s [[faith]] grew while he was President.
#That [[Benjamin Franklin]] abandoned the [[Deism]] of his youth later in his life.
#That [[Thomas Jefferson]]'s religious beliefs were not representative of the other [[Founding Fathers]].
#That [[Rhode Island]] and [[Thomas Jefferson]], and their view of a "separation of church and state," had no role in the formation of the [[Constitution]].
#That there were [[conservative]] Presidents before [[Ronald Reagan]], such as [[George Washington]], [[James Monroe]] and [[Grover Cleveland]].
#That President [[FDR]] did not end the [[Great Depression]], and may have prolonged it.
#That President [[LBJ]]'s [[Great Society]] did little to alleviate poverty.
#That President [[Ronald Reagan]]'s foreign policy was key to ending the Cold War.
#That NO "[[triangular trade]]" existed in the 17th and 18th centuries with the New World<ref>In fact, no specific "triangular" trade route has ever been identified and it is unlikely that there was significant sale of goods to Africa at that time. The term was invented by an historian more than 100 years later.</ref>
#That the [[Catholic Church]] has a history of promoting science, not suppressing it.
#That as an Intelligence agency, CIA was crucial for the Free world to defeat communism and their agents made huge sacrifices to defend our freedom.

== General bias ==

#Standard textbooks mislead students into thinking that contributions to history were somehow based more on status than by effort or Providence. This bias is a form of [[Essay:Status Worship|status worship]].
#Standard textbooks emphasize material things (like race, gender, wealth, scarcity) at the expense of the more important role played by ideas and "the power of the pen."
#Standard textbooks overemphasize the significance of popularity (e.g [[JFK]]).
#Standard textbooks ignore or deceive students about the fact that most great contributions to western society have been made by conservative Christians.

== Specific truths that history books deny or distort==

#[[Rhode Island]] was the only state to separate church and state, and it became the biggest importer of slaves.<ref>"The largest slave trading ports in America were located in Rhode Island and soon rivaled those of Liverpool. The wealth and economy of New England was based solely on slave trading and exporting rum; and the southern most colonies were NOT part of that odious slave trade."[http://www.floridareenactorsonline.com/realslavetraders.htm]</ref>
#[[Thomas Jefferson]] was not as successful or important as liberals claim;<ref>For example, Jefferson was given a wealthy estate but died in substantial debt.</ref> He failed personally and as president, especially in his second term.
#[[Chivalry]] was customary throughout most of American history.
#The greatest corruption in government during the Grant Administration was by the Democratic-controlled "[[Tammany Hall]]."
#The misnamed "[[Gilded Age]]" generated tremendous prosperity for the some, thanks to an absence of stifling regulation.
#[[Public school]] education in its current form in the U.S.A. is less than 100 years old.
#[[Atheist]] materialism lay behind the genocidal crimes of the [[Nazi]]s
#[[Martin Luther King]] was a Republican.
#[[Lenin]] was a ruthless and violent dictator who oppressed the people of the [[Soviet Union]] almost as thoroughly as [[Stalin]].
#[[Nazism]], with its insistence on the collective, was a [[left-wing]] doctrine.
#The history of the "[[State of Franklin]]."
(add more)

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:United States History Essays]]

Talk:David Frum

2012-10-22T23:35:08Z

Cmurphynz:

Is it the practice of this site to refer to those who hold some conservative beliefs and other liberal beliefs as "faux conservatives"? Do we look at the whole of conservatism as a single stance, or do we see it as a set of viewpoints?
[[User:JStanBaker|Stan Baker]] 18:11, 22 October 2012 (EDT)
:Yes. That is the usual practice of most people on this site.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 19:35, 22 October 2012 (EDT) On an unrelated note, does this guy have anything to do with 'John Frum' the cargo cult god? [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 19:35, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2012-10-22T20:38:41Z

Cmurphynz: /* point by point. */

== Public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old. ==

So is penicillin. That doesn't make it a bad thing. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 18:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: Then why don't liberals admit it about public schools, and question its long-term value (harm)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Can you provide any sources that show that the majority of liberals deny that the current public education system is less than 100 years old? As a liberal, and being in a fairly liberal community, I have never even heard that this was an issue. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::Should this entry not read 'American public schools...', I am not going to comment on American schools, as I know very little about them. However public schools (in the American sense, ie state sponsored and controlled schools) have existed for centuries in other countries. For instance the state school I went to was founded in 1445 --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 18:55, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Universal education has been provided from public funds in Scotland since about 1570. England caught up with the Education Act in 1870 and many towns and villages, including the one I live in, have state schools which are much older than that (early 19th century in our case). So as J00ni says, this statement is specific to the USA.
:::In any case, as AliceBG says, so what? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:29, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== This essay sparks interest, but... ==

...then we're left with no source or explanation, so the overall impression is a startled shrug. Which ''is'' a pity, so I offer my view in the hope that you could expand it.

For example, the Rhode Island point immediately triggers the question what makes you assume that this single cause (separation of church and state) among the undoubtedly many had the consequence (slave importer). Our entry about Rhode Island currently states that "Rhode Island was the first state to outlaw slavery", so what's to stop somebody from claiming that the separation of church and state caused this, too? Without any explanation or source, both conclusions are equally valid (and shaky).

The point about public school education in its current form being just 100 years old is fairly weak because my reaction was "...it seems to work pretty well, so what's the point?" You seem to assume that every conservative will go "Oh no! Public schools in their current form are horrible!", but... nope, sorry. :/ I'm not saying public schools are Heaven on Earth, but to me, this item looks out of place on a list about Liberal History Denials. It would help if you at least explained the alternative: What changed 100 years ago?

And if I'm not ''completely'' mistaken, liberals don't deny that chivalry was a big thing here (conversely, I never noticed conservatives pointing out that chivalry was customary throughout history) - it just happened to be a big thing in several other countries, too, so I don't see the need to go out of my way to point it out. It's sort of a given. But maybe I'm missing your point. Please enlighten me, I'm always open for new ideas!

Lastly, the "American Indians vs. Asians" thing... really needs a source. Who says they're "too different", for example? And on what basis? This sounds like a fairly complex evolution issue, so it ''really'' needs some background.

I'm fairly new here, and this essay strikes me as a collection of "inside jokes" (not in the "funny" sense, but in the "This will make little sense unless you also read my other fifty essays about these things" sense). So I would appreciate some expansion of these points. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 19:47, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: As to your first point, there's no denying a correlation between the separation of church and state and slavery, though [[liberals]] will refuse to admit it. I've updated our Rhode Island entry to reflect that this tiny state controlled 60-90% of the African slave trade after the Revolution.

: Your other points are not any more open-minded. Public schools in their current form is less than 100 years old. It's a fact. The fact has significance. Admit it and teach it. If you think critical analysis of the results of this less-than-100-year experience is inappropriate, then welcome to the liberal mindset.

: Chivalry is not taught as part of history. It should be. Your view is unclear.

: American Indians are different from Asians in almost every significant way. Blood type. Interests. Every other measure you can think of. Deny it and join the liberal denial about history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I have a few questions about these. I'll address them one by one for simplicity.
# Can one say for sure they are too different for one to have descended from the other? YEC theory postulates that everyone is descended from two people. Obviously major changes in such groups have occurred over the years, and very different groups must have common ancestry.
#Rhode Island was the biggest importer of slaves? That's news to me. Overall, I think you'll find Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas imported more slaves than Rhode Island ever did. I know you don't care for Wikipedia, but, for lack of a more convenient source, if you look at their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_America Slavery in America] article, you'll see he highest slave population for any year in RI was less than a thousand, while in Virginia it at one point reached nearly half a million.
#Chivalry, in its most literal sense, dealt with etiquette among the gentry and nobility. America does not have a nobility, has never had knighthood, and has not had such a code. In its less formal sense: etiquette rules in general, manners, politeness (especially towards women), I don't think anyone denies its presence.
#As for the age of the public school system, I'm not sure if its denied; I just wonder the significance. If you're saying it's not adequately tried and true, well, I have to wonder, what is the alternative? Homeschooling is not an option for most people. Even when one parent can stay home with the child for 18 years, how competent will any one person be at teaching multiple subjects at an advanced level? I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I couldn't teach most classes at a high school level. If I ever had a special needs child I wouldn't know where to begin. It seems to me there are 4 choices: public school, private school, home school, or no school. The last should not be an option, the middle two aren't available to everyone, so that just leaves public school. While its far from perfect, I think efforts should go towards improvement rather than dismissal.
Well, that's my thought. I hope you'll take the time to reply. Thanks. [[User:Sanders|Sanders]] 20:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::(Edit Conflict with Sanders, so some points might overlap)
::Andy, I believe you missed ''all'' of my points and simply replied by repeating your claims. But maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough. Paraphrasing Sun Tzu: "If words of question are not clear and distinct, if requests are not thoroughly understood, then the initial poster is to blame." So here we go again, more to the point (I hope):
::#"There's no denying it" is a very bad reply to a request for sourcing and explanation. If it's so obvious and undeniable, then you can surely produce at least a single source that explains (instead of just asserting) it. Or, since you arrived at that conclusion, you can surely explain it yourself. You're a teacher - would you tell your student that "there's no denying it" if they asked you "Could you explain how Rhode Island's position as #1 slave importer was a result of the church/state separation?"? I hope not.
::#I didn't doubt that "public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old". My questions were how things had been 100 years ago and what the point of this claim is. You don't even say what the results are, but you imply that I disfavor critical analysis of such results. In fact, that's why I repeatedly called for expansion of your points. I know you value conciseness, but in its current form, this essay only teases and hints, but fails to deliver. Which is why I made my initial comment in the first place (along with notes saying just that).
::#Chivalry... I really don't get why you want to stress it in a single country when it was widely spread. Unless your point is that it should be pointed out also for the other countries. I could agree with that. But either way, this strikes me as pointless. Also, your claim that it's not taught is weak: My History teacher pointed out that it was followed in the US and other countries as a basic concept, along with a brief primer about its roots. But from what I remember, it's more of a social issue and less of a distinct historic one in terms of impact (and even less of a distinct US History one), so I currently don't see the need for such emphasis. But I repeat: I'm willing to listen if you explain it. I'm open for new things. But simply repeating your short claims without any sort of source or background won't help.
::#A great response. I ask for background, a source and an expansion, and you basically reply with "Almost everything is different! If you deny this, then you're a Liberal History Denier!" Though I admit that the "Their interests are different!" bit cracked me up. I always like a teacher with humor. I can see it now. "Asians like Mahjong. American Indians didn't. Hah-ha!" :P Seriously, though, you're making a veeeeery strong claim here that deeply dips into evolutionary biology and ethnology, so in the interest of all your readers, I ask for a source.
::I hope this sums up my issues in a more clear way. I'm happy you replied, but I would be even happier if you actually replied to my questions/requests. :) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::: DirkB, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me try again:
::: Point 1: religion teaches that slavery is wrong. Separating church and state means separating "slavery is wrong" from "state". The result is legalized slavery. Got it now? That's why Rhode Island imported up to 90% of the slaves. Don't continue to pretend you don't get the connection. Of course liberals are going to deny the connection exists, and perhaps so will you.
::: Point 2: there's no question here requiring a response. This is a fact that should be taught and discussed. But liberals won't.
::: Point 3: if you think your history teacher taught you about chivalry in colonial America, then please repeat that for our benefit here. I doubt you heard much about it.
::: Point 4: I said the blood types (and virtually everything else) is different between American Indians and Asians. You respond with silliness. You have free will to deny the truth. I'm interested in the truth and that's where you'll find me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Aschlafly, I assume that the Asian/Native American theory is taught because it is the consensus generally agreed upon by the experts. If it is so obviously wrong, what do you suggest should be taught in its place? [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 11:07, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:I am curious about what is meant by "blood types". After all, all humans share the same blood types or groups (if it refers to A, B, O, AB). Or is it a reference to DNA? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']] 12:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

On the Rhode Is. slavery question, I think this may be Andy's reference:

''Rhode Island, of course, was among the most active Northern colonies in importing slaves. Between 1709 and 1807, Rhode Island merchants sponsored at least 934 slaving voyages to the coast of Africa and carried an estimated 106,544 slaves to the New World. From 1732-64, Rhode Islanders sent annually 18 ships, bearing 1,800 hogsheads of rum, to Africa to trade for slaves, earning £40,000 annually. Newport, the colony's leading slave port, took an estimated 59,070 slaves to America before the Revolution. Bristol and Providence also prospered from it. In the years after the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the American trade in African slaves.
http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:09, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==A bulleted list...==
A bullet list doesn't quite make it as an essay. While I'd like to think the author will be making additions and fleshing out his arguments, other [[Essay:5 Questions to Ask an Anti-Conservative|"essays"]] [[Essay:10 Ways Liberals Create Atheists|similarly]] are nothing more than [[Essay:Most Influential Persons|baldfaced assertions]] with little or no [[Essay:Electoral College|actual]] [[Essay:Conservatism Essential to Religion|substance]] or [[Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History|well thought-out]] [[Essay:Hillary's Strategy to Win|arguments]]. Most seem nothing more than mere lists of things to be against, to link to internal articles (or worse other "essays"). <s>Good luck defending your lists Aschlafly, for without an inkling as to what thoughts may be behind your spate of "essays", readers will likely come to the conclusion that the author of such drivel cannot be a vital, energetic thinker but an intellectually lazy and shallow person who cannot put across a cogent argument and satisfies his impotent rage with lists of "bad thoughts".</s> [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 15:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
===NOTE===
The above was written by me, Christopher Campbell using my mother's account here. She only found out that I was using her account shen she tried to edit later on and found that she could not due to being blocked. At first she thought someone on the internet "hacked" her account and while it was tempting to let her believe this I finally fessed up to making the edit. 
My Mother will not let me have any internet accounts of my own that she hasn't personally set up and monitor. Nor will she let me have an account here at Conservapedia, (which is why I was forced to use her account). She said that the above proves that I am not ready to edit responsibly, showing (as it does) little regard for the feelings of Mr Schlafly and his efforts to make Conservapedia the best it can be.

'''I therefore publicly apologize to you Mr Schlafly for the great wrong I have done, "speaking" rashly and denigrating your encyclopedia without care as to you, your administrators and the other fine editors who are attempting to make Conservapedia a resource we all can be proud of.'''

Christopher Campbell 16:15, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
(EDT)

:::Well I think that (for one so young) it was an excellent, if somewhat abrasive critique. It is, however, best to critique the work and ideas not the man: drop the "drivel", "intellectually lazy" and "shallow" comments next time. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 10:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dark Ages ==

Bullet point 7: "The so-called Dark Ages saw a great revolution in science and learning, brought about by the spread of Christianity throughout Europe and the establishment of networks of monastic 'universities'."

The first phrase is correct, but the rest isn't. The revolution in learning took place in Muslim countries in particular, as well as India and China although the latter two areas did not influence Europe directly until the late 13th century. Europe contributed very little original scholarship indeed for nearly six centuries. A list of notable scholars in Europe in the Dark Ages (by which I assume you mean from the end of the Western Empire in 476 to the early 11th century) would include Isidore of Seville, the great encyclopaedist (d.636), Bede, the historian (d.735), and Alcuin, the theologian and polymath (d.804). There may be a few others but these are probably the only three who stand comparison with the much large number of eminent Muslim scholars of that half-millennium (and even Alcuin would be doubtful in that regard). Europe was very much an intellectual backwater until Gerbert of Aurillac (later Pope Sylvester II from 999) brought Arab learning from Cordoba to Christian Europe.

Places like Seville around 600, Jarrow around 700 and Charlemagne's court at Aachen around 800 were centres of scholarship (qv Isidore, Bede and Alcuin respectively) but cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as universities. The concept of a university as an educational institution which teaches and awards degrees in a wide range of subjects originated in the Muslim world. Those at Fez and Cairo, built in what Europeans call the Dark Ages, are still very much active. The establishment of the earliest universities in Christian Europe, e.g. Bologna, was clearly inspired by the success of universities in Muslim Europe (i.e. Sicily and Spain).

Bottom line: this bullet point should be deleted. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 15:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

:You are incorrect in your interpretation. A study of Bede's life would show that Jarrow did not stand in isolation, but was part of a network of monastic 'universities' - and the term is used advisedly - that extended across [[Christendom]]. The emphasis in modern historical studies on [[Islamic]] scholarship is based upon a prevalent self-hating Liberal ideology that is unable to credit [[Christianity]] with any positive achievements, and retrospectively adorns the current enemy of modern democratic values with laurels. This is not top decry medieval Islamic scholarship, which had much of merit, but to rescue Christian science and scholarship from its current, politially-motivated neglect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::1. It sounds as though you need to do some reading about early mediaeval scholarship! Isidore certainly influenced Muslim scholars in Spain but, Bede apart, no Christian scholar from the mid-7th to early 11th century made an original contribution to scholarship comparable to those of Muslims such as Avicenna and Averroes or Jews such as Moses Maimonides.
::2. I don't understand your point about "the current enemy of modern democratic values". How does that relate to Islam in general? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:56, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

:::WaZi is correct. I've deleted this statement. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:32, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Conservative denials about history==
If liberals were to write their own version of this, it would probably accuse conservatives of lying about exactly the same subjects. Wouldn't it be better to make a serious historical claim, with references to academic analysis, verifiable sources, and such respectable things? It would certinly be better than just declaring that liberals are lying with a one-sentence claim and no backing evidence, even if they are. It makes conservapedia look stupid. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 14:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Misnamed ==

I always thought that it was called the "guilded age" because there was so much money and prosperity; everything was figuratively gold-coated (gilded). I'm confused why this age is misnamed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:15, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

==Status==
''That contributions to history are determined more by status than by effort or Providence. This bias is a form of status worship.'' I'm confused. Isn't it liberals who are always being accused of insisting that the contributions of minorities and women be added to textbooks and courses, even if that displaces learning about white men with more status whose contributions may have been more significant? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:10, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

: "Status" is not the same as "contributions". Often they are opposites. The comment here is about the increasing focus of history books on status, such as who held public office or who won an award, rather than on contributions such as Thomas Edison's works. This issue has nothing to do with race.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:48, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::Is there any evidence that history books once had less focus on "status" than they do now? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 21:27, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::: My personal experience as a teacher of over 6 years, and as a student. There is more focus today on who held what position, rather than who accomplished what. I welcome anyone who has old textbooks to see how much more attention was paid to folks like Thomas Edison in the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

== Amerindians & Asians ==

The statement that American Indians are too different from East Asians to have been descended from them is incorrect so I've deleted it. Several genetic studies using variation in DNA sequences have shown that American Indians are more closely related to East Asians than to any other group. E.g. see Risch et al (2003) in ''Genome Biology'' 3:1−12. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== Specific Denials ==
1. First of all, your source is "www.floridareenactorsonline.com." A history professor would laugh at you while writing a massive F if you used this as a source. Not that its facts are necessarily wrong. Northern merchants were almost certainly involved in the slave trade. The article does not attempt to make any connection between separation of church and state and the slave trade; in fact, its discussion of Rhode Island concentrates mainly on the pre-Revolution era, so describing it as a state in the essay is an anachronism.
2. Thomas Jefferson may not have been the single most successful president ever, but he did engineer the Louisiana Purchase and win the first Barbary War. As for important, his extensive political writings were fundamental in early American political thought. He also did write the first drafts of the Declaration, and most of his material remained in the final copy.
3. Not really sure what this means. How would this be taught in a history class? I assume you're talking about gender courtesies, not an archaic system of aristocratic hierarchy, but even these gender interactions are based around specific social and economic circumstances, and these are commonly addressed by history books. To simply teach that "chivalry was customary" tells the student nothing about history.
4. Quite frankly, so what? In general, the Grant era was corrupt on all counts. I assume this is some assertion that liberals hide all the Democrats' faults, but most liberals assert that the parties of the late 19th century are vastly different from today's, so the point is moot.
5. It did create tremendous prosperity, but it did this through the toil of an underclass that could rarely hope to see the fruits of their labors. The lack of regulation did allow for unprecedented growth, but at the expense of average people.
6. As other people have pointed out, so what? Lots of things are less than 100 years old, and they're perfectly fine. Glorification of traditionalism is not always a good thing.
7. Teaching it as purely "atheist materialism" is, as with much of these points, a vast oversimplification that does the student a disservice. The Holocaust has vast and complicated roots that are well studied and cannot be boiled down to simply "atheist materialism." Traditionally, this point is used to demonstrate how evil "Atheism" (and more specifically, "Darwinism") is, but that's not a very good, logical argument. An idea's misuse does not make it wrong; I'm sure you would agree anytime I point out some evil act a Christian has perpetrated with the defense "well they're not real Christians." Misapplication of an idea (and I'll let others get into more depth on how innacurate it is even to say it's an application of the idea) does not make the idea wrong.
9. Not once in my extensive liberal education was I tought that Lenin was a good dude. You're going to need to cite where this is denied.
10. I'll refer you back to point seven here. I could just as easily say "The KKK, with its insistence on authority, was a right-wing doctrine."
--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 23:41, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Virginia==
In what way does the naming of Virginia come under ''"The following truths about history are '''typically''' denied by liberal history textbooks:"''? In my extensive reading I have never come across a denial of Virginia being named after Elizabeth, and I am quite sure that many of these books would qualify as "liberal" in your eyes, Andy. Maybe some text book has denied it, but is it '''typical''' of the genre? May we have the names of some of these books please? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:20, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

== Triangular Trade ==

Why would liberals assert the existence of triangular trade if it didn't exist? I went to a Christian high school and I was taught about triangular trade. I'm not doubting, at all, the word of an actual history teacher, I'm genuinely curious what makes this a liberal myth, and if it maybe should be on the regular [[Essay:Greatest Myths of World History]] instead. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:52, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

:I have an open mind about this. But the "triangle" doesn't make sense because Africa was not a consumer of finished goods. The term "triangular trade" was an invention of modern historians; it was never used contemporaneously with the trade.

:Some people like [[deceit]] for its own sake. It seems to amuse them. Why did a phony runner enter the Munich stadium in 1972 as though he was leading the marathon? It accomplished nothing and robbed the real leader (Frank Shorter) of his moment of triumph, yet some people (often liberals) seem to get a thrill out of fooling others. It's quite possible someone amused himself with popularizing an absurd concept of "triangular trade."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:03, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

::Oh, I was just curious, I'm not claiming that this ISN'T liberal deceit. I've been looking into it for an hour or so and I understand now why it's untrue, which kind of makes me upset with my (private, Christian) school for teaching this. I was just wondering what made it ''liberal'' deceit.

::It does seem possible somebody made up the idea that Africa was consuming trade goods just to spread a falsehood, and attempting to portray an underdeveloped area as being more developed than it was, or more advanced than it was, reeks of multiculturalist revisionist history. Makes sense to call it liberal, then, in that sense. Thanks for explaining! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:51, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

The idea that Africa was not consuming any trade goods at all is, of course, wrong. The crew of the trading ships did not (at least not in all instances) hunt down and catch the slaves themselves, but often bought them from African (or European, for that matter) slave traders, in Africa. These slave traders, of course, demanded something in return. Yes, the goods brought to Africa for the slaves were absurdly cheap compared to the human lives that they bought, but that's what trade is all about - you buy something at a low price, and sell it at a high. Perhaps it can be debated whether the goods brought the Africa were plentiful enough to in a normal context call it a Triangular Trade, but there is no reason to believe anyone is trying to deceive anyone; there are just various semantic opinions. The facts are that (a small amount of) goods from Europe were used to pay for slaves in Africa, and from the evidence I have seen, I personally don't find it absurd to call this a Triangular Trade. [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 07:13, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

: The resistance by Crucialwood simply illustrates how difficult it is to eradicate a misleading liberal concept from education. "Triangular trade" is indisputably misleading. There was no significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa, and people at the time did not use that term. The term is a modern invention that misleads, and should be rejected. Yet Crucialwood insists on keeping it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:21, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

::I do not see how the term i misleading, almost no matter how little goods were traded to Africa. When I was taught of the triangular trade in school, I was presented with the following facts: Ships set off from Europe with a small amount of cheap goods, traded them for slaves in Africa, took the slaves to America and brought American goods back to Europe. Even if the goods in the first part of the triangle only consisted of a bottle of whiskey for 100 slaves, I can't see how the term "triangular trade" is misleading. Perhaps stating "there was significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa" is misleading (though I do not have enough evidence at this time to say even that for certain), but the term does not imply that.

::Also, maybe I am missing something, but I do not see why you insist on the term "finished manufactured goods". Does not any goods traded to Africa suffice? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 10:45, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

The point that's being missed here is that ''triangular trade'' implies that there was significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa. Trinkets are not "finished manufactured goods". Ships did move in a triangular course, but this does not mean that the 3 legs of the triangle were equal. Human life was terribly undervalued, both by the men who captured slaves in Africa and the European whites who bought those slaves and brought them to America. Note that treating people as chattel goods is '''not''' what trade is all about. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

:I would not say that point is being "missed", when I had addressed it quite specifically. Why does ''triangular trade'' imply significant trade of finished manufactured goods? Why does the three legs of the triangle have to be "equal" (which basically just means that WE set a subjective value for the trade goods, by today's standards; not taking into account that the goods were actually sufficient to buy humans in Africa, which, in a context of trade, would in fact imply they were "equal")? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 23:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal rant ==

This isn't an essay, rather an intellectually shallow, and unsourced bullet list of jingoistic propositions.

Example:
''1. That "Yankee ingenuity" (American inventions) far surpassed the rest of the world, and brought great wealth to it''

This is a useless assertion,if not outright jingoistic, as "Yankee ingenuity" (please define this term more exactly if you can) took place over a broad time period of competing inventions from Europe. Additionally, many "Yankee inventions" were conceptualized by foreign nationals, see for example the machine gun, nuclear fission, rocket science (the last two being the key factors in American hegemonic rise in the late 20th century) Additionally, you really need to define Yankee and even American nation. A great argument can be made that it didn't exist until the cusp of the American revolution (if by Yankee innovation you're referring to early history).

''5. That hard work was the key to the success of many Americans.''

It's not an American trait purely, you're referring to the "Protestant Work Ethic", a Weberian Thesis.
See for example ,for an overview;

"A. Furnham, The Protestant Work Ethic: A Review of the Psychological Literature, European Journal of Social Psychology, 14:1, pp 87-104

''6. That most great Americans, from Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Edison, were homeschooled.''

Irrelevant in the context of the educational standards of the day. Public education was rare and basic, private tutelage was the method of education for upper class families since time immemorial until the modern advent of public education.

10. That Rhode Island and Thomas Jefferson, and their view of a "separation of church and state," had no role in the formation of the Constitution.

False, Citation needed before I'll accept that.

''12. That "anti-imperialism" movements against the United States were really communist or Muslim movements against Christianity, as in denying the Islamic basis for the Philippine insurgency around 1900.''

False, Ditto #10. Additionally,You need to prove the presence of Muslim movements against Christian's as a theme in colonial conflict,a great argument can be made that Islamic resistance movements are solely a product of decolonization. Finally, you need to prove that these communist or muslim resistance groups are fighting for Marx or Muhammad rather than masking anti-imperial or nationalist urges with a thin cover of ideology.

''15. That President FDR did not end the Great Depression, and may have prolonged it.''

Arguable, citation needed. Argument against see:

Gauti Eggertsson, Great Expectations and the End of the Depression, American Economic Review, 98:4,2008,pp 1476-1516

''17. That President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy was key to ending the Cold War.
''
False. Shows a gross misunderstanding of the full view, jingoistic. Author needs to review the literature on Perestroika, and Glasnost, as well as passive resistance within the Soviet Union . Should also review the role of Yeltsin, and the presidents of Ukraine and Belorussia in the immediate period pre-dissolution. Argument should be that Reagan played a crucial role rather than the key role in my opinion.

''18. That NO "triangular trade" existed in the 17th and 18th centuries with the New World[1]''

Irrelevant, straw man argument. Triangle trade is no longer explained as tangible trade routes, rather as a historical construction to understand flows of commerce and explanations for slavery and the first explosion of imperialism in the 17th century. Analogous to the Columbian exchange. Triangle trade not taken absolutely seriously as a tangible fact since '70;s.

See Gilman Ostrander, The making of the Traignular trade myth, The william and mary quarterly, 3:30:4, 1973, pp 635-644

== Reply ==

:REPLY:

:''1. That "Yankee ingenuity" (American inventions) far surpassed the rest of the world, and brought great wealth to it''

:This is a useless assertion,if not outright jingoistic, as "Yankee ingenuity" (please define this term more exactly if you can) took place over a broad time period of competing inventions from Europe. Additionally, many "Yankee inventions" were conceptualized by foreign nationals, see for example the machine gun, nuclear fission, rocket science (the last two being the key factors in American hegemonic rise in the late 20th century) Additionally, you really need to define Yankee and even American nation. A great argument can be made that it didn't exist until the cusp of the American revolution (if by Yankee innovation you're referring to early history).

::You're in absurd denial here. There's no disputing that a vast majority of wealth-enhancing inventions have been American.

:''5. That hard work was the key to the success of many Americans.''

:It's not an American trait purely, you're referring to the "Protestant Work Ethic", a Weberian Thesis.
See for example ,for an overview;

:"A. Furnham, The Protestant Work Ethic: A Review of the Psychological Literature, European Journal of Social Psychology, 14:1, pp 87-104

::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world.

:''6. That most great Americans, from Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Edison, were homeschooled.''

:Irrelevant in the context of the educational standards of the day. Public education was rare and basic, private tutelage was the method of education for upper class families since time immemorial until the modern advent of public education.

::You're clueless. Try reading [[homeschooling]] with an open-mind and then let's discuss. Contributions by homeschoolers far surpass, in proportionate terms, contributions by people who went to public school.

::Before I waste time further on this discussion, can you indicate how you do on [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I'll do an [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]] when you discover the "liberal art of citation of sources".

"::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world." - Apparently you've never seen a malaysian work camp, I'd love to see an American work that hard. 12 hour shifts, diet cap of 1200 calories a day (less than a slice of pizza) In fact, if you leave the United States and Europe

:I'd ask you to cite a source, but since you're banned you can't. I'd have to check the math, but I don't think 1200 calories a day is sufficient to sustain hard labor. Don't U.S. lumberjacks eat over 5,000 calories a day? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:07, 27 December 2009 (EST)

::In this user's absence, I'm happy to provide two sources for you: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_hou_wor-labor-hours-worked this one] and [http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2008/11/hours-worked-per-year.html this one]. It looks like Australians, Japanese, and Koreans do indeed work a little harder on average (Koreans much harder).

::While the Malaysian labor camps may not exactly have been germane to this point, he didn't pull it out of thin air. A google search revealed [http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/24563-human-trafficking-malaysians-extort-thais-ignore this] and [http://209.85.135.132/search?q=cache:_rwpDZ6oTS8J:www.kanlungan.ngo.ph/Resources/Malaysia_Sic%2520Country.pdf+malaysian+workers+underfed&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk this] detailing labor camp workers being underfed. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 14:22, 27 December 2009 (EST)

== "Liberal Response" ==

You're in absurd denial here. There's no disputing that a vast majority of wealth-enhancing inventions have been American.
1] Ad Hominem, but I did it too, so it's acceptable in the context
2]"Ridiculous fallacy" - it's ridiculous to you, so you brush it off
3]"correlation doesnt lead to causation" - Because a lot of inventions are from the United States, it doesn't mean that the vast majority are, doesn't mean that they're invented by Americans, doesn't mean it's a specific American trait , to innovate.

"::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world." -

Apparently you've never seen a malaysian work camp, I'd love to see an American work that hard. 12 hour shifts, diet cap of 1200 calories a day (less than a slice of pizza) By rest of the world you mean Europe, which is true, European workers are lazy socialists, but take a job with a chinese labourer or a korean , even a japanese guy, much harder workers than the average American

1] Undeniable fact- can't remember which logical fallacy that is, but it's a major one. All facts are deniable, and in this case easily.
2] Vast generalisation, needs proof.

You're clueless. Try reading [[homeschooling]] with an open-mind and then let's discuss. Contributions by homeschoolers far surpass, in proportionate terms, contributions by people who went to public school.

1]Ad hominen
2]didn't mention homeschooling, mentioned the historical context of Thomas Jefferson and Abe Lincoln. you're homeschooling program has no correlation with the 19th century "home schooling". The contexts and curriculum are quite different. You're welcome to disagree, let's see the sources.

::Before I waste time further on this discussion, can you indicate how you do on [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I'll do an [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]] when you discover the "liberal art of citation of sources". I've seen no counter poiunts here except pointless logical fallacies.

::You still won't admit that the vast majority of inventions have been American? Look, you have free will to deny basic facts, but your denial is astounding.

::Re: homeschooling, people and homeschooling were not that different 150 years ago. Moreover, you seem to confuse cause with effect. The point is about the positive effect of homeschooling, regardless of the motivation. I realize that Germany bans homeschooling and England is over-regulating it, but it remains productive at a far greater level than its percentages. And this has always been true, as numerous examples [[homeschooling|here]] illustrate.

::If you were genuinely interested in logic, then you'd spend some time reading or translating the Bible, the most logical book of all. But I suspect you're more interested in trying to reject the Bible than giving it equal time in your activities. Am I right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Now that was a better point, which I can concede on. As per the bible, I'm [[Plymouth Brethren]], rejecting the bible isn't in my "Modus Operandi".--[[User:JeffD|JeffD]] 22:01, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Interesting. We seem to have quite an entry on that denomination.

:I don't mean to single you out. There seem to be many people who read everything ''except'' the most logical book of all, the Bible. Lots of people even claim to be well-read yet complete avoid and even censor this most influential and most widely read book of all. Objectively, such an approach is ... not logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 18 December 2009 (EST)

== Communism ==

The fact that the McCarthy article was featured on the main page recently got me to thinking: liberals, in general, try to gloss over the fact that there was good reason for people to be concerned about the threat posed by Communism. Public schools will teach the "Red Scares," for example, but seldom mention the reasons behind the concern--for instance, the 1919 bombing attacks against major American industrialists and government officials.

Should the fact that liberals deny that Communism was a serious threat be included? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:25, 16 December 2009 (EST)

I'm just reading "48 Liberal Lies about American History" now, and I bet I'll be able to add a whole bunch of stuff to this page soon! See the table of contents [http://books.google.com/books?id=A3Muu2TsOioC&dq=48+Liberal+Lies+About+American+History&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=QA7LddEssH&sig=lepXhrknDTwEN9HCN8AwB-RcOA8&hl=en&ei=qWAxS4aQBoPAsQP4yoG7BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=&f=false here]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:16, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== One question ==

Guys, let's face it. There's (as of... Now) three notes on this page, and only one reference to another source (which I personally find a bit suspect, but that might just be me...)

Umm... That means there's a lot of unsourced claims where it should be at least 72 sources (one that cite that it is something that liberals deny (or claim) about history, and one to point out why it's wrong)

Well anyway... Have fun :) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 16:11, 1 March 2011 (EST)

== Thomas Jefferson ==

So he's listed as being a failure and an unsuccessful president, and had little to do with the Declaration of Independence. However, the article for him on Conservapedia says he had a successful first term as president, followed by a poor 2nd term, and the [[Declaration of Independence]] article says:
<blockquote>
Early drafts [of the Declaration] exist dating to June 1776.[3] Jefferson's colleagues Benjamin Franklin and Adams made small changes in his draft text and Congress made more. The finished document, which both declared independence and proclaimed a philosophy of government, '''was singly and peculiarly Jefferson's.'''
</blockquote>

So at least the part about the Declaration of Independence should be removed, or the articles changed to reflect his small role in the Declaration. --[[User:MarkN85|MarkN85]] 14:30, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

== Rubbish ==

90% of the stuff on this page is unsourced rubbish. either the 'liberal historians' don't deny whatever the allegation is, or else the allegation is not true. There is also some stuff that's pretty subjective, so while the interpretation that this article gives is valid, it does not mean that competing allegations are false. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 20:39, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

== colonialism ==

colonialism was universally good? Have you read about the Belgian Congo? How about the war for Algerian independence? What was the native population of North America before colonisation and what was it afterwards? How did they live then, and how do they live now? Are there African countries that are better off now than they were before they were colonised? I think colonialism is definitely good for a number of people in the colonising country, it is usually good for the colonising government, but it tends to be quite bad for the native population. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 00:03, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

== point by point. ==

much as it pains me to have to even engage with this stuff I will deal with most of the points that I actually know about. (I mostly won't use sources as that would take hours but if you have a specific objection then I will find one.)

1. subjective and jingoistic if not actually false.

2. Maybe. This one is again pretty subjective, but has some merit. There would be a lot of textbooks that agree with you though.

3. Two points here. for the first one, I don't think that textbooks do deny that there were non-racist reasons to be against immigration. Second point I don't know enough about, but the North's larger population (a result of immigration) surely had some impact on the war.

4. I don't think that this is really a distortion, textbooks just have a tendency to focus on the positive elements of unions, such as the advances in workers rights that they won. And was the violence really so 'senseless'? particularly in the nineteenth century the working conditions were in fact abysmal, and I believe that you will find that a large proportion of the violence in labour conflicts was initiated by the employers or police trying to break up strikers (an american example of some of the worse violence would I think be in 1914, ludlow, colorado?) anyway again it's quite a subjective issue of how much weight to put on different interpretations.

5. Eh? Find me a book that denies this.

6. there were no public schools so this doesn't even need to be mentioned (I'm sure that specific biographies would mention how they were educated)

7,8,9,10. Too american for me to comment.

11. What history books say that? Perhaps they would say that Reagan was the beginning of a 'New Conservatism' or something but they don't say that there were no conservatives prior to that date.

12. The Philippine rebellion against the US was led by anti-imperialist intellectuals, mostly Catholics and while the Moro certainly supported the war, and were some of the last holding out, the majority of the Philippine manpower was Roman Catholic or following some syncretic version (see the Pulahan for instance). I would be very surprised if a majority-Catholic movement could be characterized as being 'against Christianity'

13. When has this been denied, and what's 'liberal' about that?

14. Ditto.

15. Subjective. Others would say that his policies did help.

16. I don't really know enough about this or the historiography around it.

17. May be true. most historians would I think put more emphasis on other factors.

18. Oh, so slave traders were just given slaves for free? the version of the triangle trade that appears in school textbooks may be an over-simplification, but it is a valid historical model.

19. This one is somewhat more valid. However you will find a number of history books that agree with this, and a number of occasions where the Catholic church was opposed to new science.

20. I have a more specific comment above. I don't agree with the premise of this. For instance, the bit about democracy, when in most cases the native population wanted independence, but the colonising power refused to grant it. I will say that I do find it ironic when Americans promote imperialism seeing as their own country is the result of an anti-imperialist revolt. (You did engage in a lot of colonialism on your own though)

21. Ha ha. lol.

22. Subjective.

General bias. this section is almost completely subjective and very vague.

1. Not anymore. the 'great men' theory of history is not used much any more. There is a lot more emphasis on social history, or greater trends that lead to events.

2. Are they really more important?

3. what is the 'true' importance of popularity?

4. How much significance is 'really' warranted by presidential elections?

5. Have they? A lot of this depends on your definition of 'conservative'.

6. when have textbooks ever done this? I don't think any do.

Specific truths.

1. correlation does not imply causation. I read a couple of posts defending this point, and they are predicated on the church always opposing slavery. This unfortunately was not true, the southern churches were great supporters of slavery.

3. In the broader sense yes, but it is not really something significant enough to be mentioned. While talking about medieval Europe chivalry in the traditional sense would be mentioned.

5. What about the working classes? And 'the world' is certainly an overstatement.

6. I think most textbooks would acknowledge this if they mentioned anything about education. I'm sure I've seen it a number of places.

7. This is a genuine difference in interpretation. Few historians would agree that atheism was the cause. This is an actual disagreement.

8. don't really know whether american books would mention this or not. no comment.

9. Very few people would agree that Lenin oppressed the russians 'as thoroughly as Stalin', and I would say that this is pretty subjective.

10. Nazi's are almost uniformly described as right wing. They were extreme nationalists and favoured capitalism. The number of people who disagree is very small, and they are almost universally American, and very recent.

11. What textbooks deny this? All the ones that I've ever read mention it, and about how Lincoln was the first Republican president and all that.

12. Ok, I'd never heard of that, so maybe that one is true.

If no one objects, I will take out some of the more ridiculous bits. Thanks, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 03:10, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

And now there is a new point.

13. see 21. and add 'rotflol' and also the spelling's atrocious. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:55, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

And one i forgot to General bias.

23. patently false. The Crusades, The reconquista, the Russian conquest of siberia, British India, etc., etc. etc. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 10:20, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

:It appears that the person who added that bit is Dutch. So I will also mention the Dutch conquest of Indonesia, prince Diponegoro and all of that. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 16:38, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2012-10-22T20:38:17Z

Cmurphynz: /* point by point. */

== Public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old. ==

So is penicillin. That doesn't make it a bad thing. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 18:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: Then why don't liberals admit it about public schools, and question its long-term value (harm)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Can you provide any sources that show that the majority of liberals deny that the current public education system is less than 100 years old? As a liberal, and being in a fairly liberal community, I have never even heard that this was an issue. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::Should this entry not read 'American public schools...', I am not going to comment on American schools, as I know very little about them. However public schools (in the American sense, ie state sponsored and controlled schools) have existed for centuries in other countries. For instance the state school I went to was founded in 1445 --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 18:55, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Universal education has been provided from public funds in Scotland since about 1570. England caught up with the Education Act in 1870 and many towns and villages, including the one I live in, have state schools which are much older than that (early 19th century in our case). So as J00ni says, this statement is specific to the USA.
:::In any case, as AliceBG says, so what? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:29, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== This essay sparks interest, but... ==

...then we're left with no source or explanation, so the overall impression is a startled shrug. Which ''is'' a pity, so I offer my view in the hope that you could expand it.

For example, the Rhode Island point immediately triggers the question what makes you assume that this single cause (separation of church and state) among the undoubtedly many had the consequence (slave importer). Our entry about Rhode Island currently states that "Rhode Island was the first state to outlaw slavery", so what's to stop somebody from claiming that the separation of church and state caused this, too? Without any explanation or source, both conclusions are equally valid (and shaky).

The point about public school education in its current form being just 100 years old is fairly weak because my reaction was "...it seems to work pretty well, so what's the point?" You seem to assume that every conservative will go "Oh no! Public schools in their current form are horrible!", but... nope, sorry. :/ I'm not saying public schools are Heaven on Earth, but to me, this item looks out of place on a list about Liberal History Denials. It would help if you at least explained the alternative: What changed 100 years ago?

And if I'm not ''completely'' mistaken, liberals don't deny that chivalry was a big thing here (conversely, I never noticed conservatives pointing out that chivalry was customary throughout history) - it just happened to be a big thing in several other countries, too, so I don't see the need to go out of my way to point it out. It's sort of a given. But maybe I'm missing your point. Please enlighten me, I'm always open for new ideas!

Lastly, the "American Indians vs. Asians" thing... really needs a source. Who says they're "too different", for example? And on what basis? This sounds like a fairly complex evolution issue, so it ''really'' needs some background.

I'm fairly new here, and this essay strikes me as a collection of "inside jokes" (not in the "funny" sense, but in the "This will make little sense unless you also read my other fifty essays about these things" sense). So I would appreciate some expansion of these points. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 19:47, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: As to your first point, there's no denying a correlation between the separation of church and state and slavery, though [[liberals]] will refuse to admit it. I've updated our Rhode Island entry to reflect that this tiny state controlled 60-90% of the African slave trade after the Revolution.

: Your other points are not any more open-minded. Public schools in their current form is less than 100 years old. It's a fact. The fact has significance. Admit it and teach it. If you think critical analysis of the results of this less-than-100-year experience is inappropriate, then welcome to the liberal mindset.

: Chivalry is not taught as part of history. It should be. Your view is unclear.

: American Indians are different from Asians in almost every significant way. Blood type. Interests. Every other measure you can think of. Deny it and join the liberal denial about history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I have a few questions about these. I'll address them one by one for simplicity.
# Can one say for sure they are too different for one to have descended from the other? YEC theory postulates that everyone is descended from two people. Obviously major changes in such groups have occurred over the years, and very different groups must have common ancestry.
#Rhode Island was the biggest importer of slaves? That's news to me. Overall, I think you'll find Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas imported more slaves than Rhode Island ever did. I know you don't care for Wikipedia, but, for lack of a more convenient source, if you look at their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_America Slavery in America] article, you'll see he highest slave population for any year in RI was less than a thousand, while in Virginia it at one point reached nearly half a million.
#Chivalry, in its most literal sense, dealt with etiquette among the gentry and nobility. America does not have a nobility, has never had knighthood, and has not had such a code. In its less formal sense: etiquette rules in general, manners, politeness (especially towards women), I don't think anyone denies its presence.
#As for the age of the public school system, I'm not sure if its denied; I just wonder the significance. If you're saying it's not adequately tried and true, well, I have to wonder, what is the alternative? Homeschooling is not an option for most people. Even when one parent can stay home with the child for 18 years, how competent will any one person be at teaching multiple subjects at an advanced level? I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I couldn't teach most classes at a high school level. If I ever had a special needs child I wouldn't know where to begin. It seems to me there are 4 choices: public school, private school, home school, or no school. The last should not be an option, the middle two aren't available to everyone, so that just leaves public school. While its far from perfect, I think efforts should go towards improvement rather than dismissal.
Well, that's my thought. I hope you'll take the time to reply. Thanks. [[User:Sanders|Sanders]] 20:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::(Edit Conflict with Sanders, so some points might overlap)
::Andy, I believe you missed ''all'' of my points and simply replied by repeating your claims. But maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough. Paraphrasing Sun Tzu: "If words of question are not clear and distinct, if requests are not thoroughly understood, then the initial poster is to blame." So here we go again, more to the point (I hope):
::#"There's no denying it" is a very bad reply to a request for sourcing and explanation. If it's so obvious and undeniable, then you can surely produce at least a single source that explains (instead of just asserting) it. Or, since you arrived at that conclusion, you can surely explain it yourself. You're a teacher - would you tell your student that "there's no denying it" if they asked you "Could you explain how Rhode Island's position as #1 slave importer was a result of the church/state separation?"? I hope not.
::#I didn't doubt that "public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old". My questions were how things had been 100 years ago and what the point of this claim is. You don't even say what the results are, but you imply that I disfavor critical analysis of such results. In fact, that's why I repeatedly called for expansion of your points. I know you value conciseness, but in its current form, this essay only teases and hints, but fails to deliver. Which is why I made my initial comment in the first place (along with notes saying just that).
::#Chivalry... I really don't get why you want to stress it in a single country when it was widely spread. Unless your point is that it should be pointed out also for the other countries. I could agree with that. But either way, this strikes me as pointless. Also, your claim that it's not taught is weak: My History teacher pointed out that it was followed in the US and other countries as a basic concept, along with a brief primer about its roots. But from what I remember, it's more of a social issue and less of a distinct historic one in terms of impact (and even less of a distinct US History one), so I currently don't see the need for such emphasis. But I repeat: I'm willing to listen if you explain it. I'm open for new things. But simply repeating your short claims without any sort of source or background won't help.
::#A great response. I ask for background, a source and an expansion, and you basically reply with "Almost everything is different! If you deny this, then you're a Liberal History Denier!" Though I admit that the "Their interests are different!" bit cracked me up. I always like a teacher with humor. I can see it now. "Asians like Mahjong. American Indians didn't. Hah-ha!" :P Seriously, though, you're making a veeeeery strong claim here that deeply dips into evolutionary biology and ethnology, so in the interest of all your readers, I ask for a source.
::I hope this sums up my issues in a more clear way. I'm happy you replied, but I would be even happier if you actually replied to my questions/requests. :) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::: DirkB, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me try again:
::: Point 1: religion teaches that slavery is wrong. Separating church and state means separating "slavery is wrong" from "state". The result is legalized slavery. Got it now? That's why Rhode Island imported up to 90% of the slaves. Don't continue to pretend you don't get the connection. Of course liberals are going to deny the connection exists, and perhaps so will you.
::: Point 2: there's no question here requiring a response. This is a fact that should be taught and discussed. But liberals won't.
::: Point 3: if you think your history teacher taught you about chivalry in colonial America, then please repeat that for our benefit here. I doubt you heard much about it.
::: Point 4: I said the blood types (and virtually everything else) is different between American Indians and Asians. You respond with silliness. You have free will to deny the truth. I'm interested in the truth and that's where you'll find me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Aschlafly, I assume that the Asian/Native American theory is taught because it is the consensus generally agreed upon by the experts. If it is so obviously wrong, what do you suggest should be taught in its place? [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 11:07, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:I am curious about what is meant by "blood types". After all, all humans share the same blood types or groups (if it refers to A, B, O, AB). Or is it a reference to DNA? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']] 12:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

On the Rhode Is. slavery question, I think this may be Andy's reference:

''Rhode Island, of course, was among the most active Northern colonies in importing slaves. Between 1709 and 1807, Rhode Island merchants sponsored at least 934 slaving voyages to the coast of Africa and carried an estimated 106,544 slaves to the New World. From 1732-64, Rhode Islanders sent annually 18 ships, bearing 1,800 hogsheads of rum, to Africa to trade for slaves, earning £40,000 annually. Newport, the colony's leading slave port, took an estimated 59,070 slaves to America before the Revolution. Bristol and Providence also prospered from it. In the years after the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the American trade in African slaves.
http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:09, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==A bulleted list...==
A bullet list doesn't quite make it as an essay. While I'd like to think the author will be making additions and fleshing out his arguments, other [[Essay:5 Questions to Ask an Anti-Conservative|"essays"]] [[Essay:10 Ways Liberals Create Atheists|similarly]] are nothing more than [[Essay:Most Influential Persons|baldfaced assertions]] with little or no [[Essay:Electoral College|actual]] [[Essay:Conservatism Essential to Religion|substance]] or [[Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History|well thought-out]] [[Essay:Hillary's Strategy to Win|arguments]]. Most seem nothing more than mere lists of things to be against, to link to internal articles (or worse other "essays"). <s>Good luck defending your lists Aschlafly, for without an inkling as to what thoughts may be behind your spate of "essays", readers will likely come to the conclusion that the author of such drivel cannot be a vital, energetic thinker but an intellectually lazy and shallow person who cannot put across a cogent argument and satisfies his impotent rage with lists of "bad thoughts".</s> [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 15:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
===NOTE===
The above was written by me, Christopher Campbell using my mother's account here. She only found out that I was using her account shen she tried to edit later on and found that she could not due to being blocked. At first she thought someone on the internet "hacked" her account and while it was tempting to let her believe this I finally fessed up to making the edit. 
My Mother will not let me have any internet accounts of my own that she hasn't personally set up and monitor. Nor will she let me have an account here at Conservapedia, (which is why I was forced to use her account). She said that the above proves that I am not ready to edit responsibly, showing (as it does) little regard for the feelings of Mr Schlafly and his efforts to make Conservapedia the best it can be.

'''I therefore publicly apologize to you Mr Schlafly for the great wrong I have done, "speaking" rashly and denigrating your encyclopedia without care as to you, your administrators and the other fine editors who are attempting to make Conservapedia a resource we all can be proud of.'''

Christopher Campbell 16:15, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
(EDT)

:::Well I think that (for one so young) it was an excellent, if somewhat abrasive critique. It is, however, best to critique the work and ideas not the man: drop the "drivel", "intellectually lazy" and "shallow" comments next time. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 10:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dark Ages ==

Bullet point 7: "The so-called Dark Ages saw a great revolution in science and learning, brought about by the spread of Christianity throughout Europe and the establishment of networks of monastic 'universities'."

The first phrase is correct, but the rest isn't. The revolution in learning took place in Muslim countries in particular, as well as India and China although the latter two areas did not influence Europe directly until the late 13th century. Europe contributed very little original scholarship indeed for nearly six centuries. A list of notable scholars in Europe in the Dark Ages (by which I assume you mean from the end of the Western Empire in 476 to the early 11th century) would include Isidore of Seville, the great encyclopaedist (d.636), Bede, the historian (d.735), and Alcuin, the theologian and polymath (d.804). There may be a few others but these are probably the only three who stand comparison with the much large number of eminent Muslim scholars of that half-millennium (and even Alcuin would be doubtful in that regard). Europe was very much an intellectual backwater until Gerbert of Aurillac (later Pope Sylvester II from 999) brought Arab learning from Cordoba to Christian Europe.

Places like Seville around 600, Jarrow around 700 and Charlemagne's court at Aachen around 800 were centres of scholarship (qv Isidore, Bede and Alcuin respectively) but cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as universities. The concept of a university as an educational institution which teaches and awards degrees in a wide range of subjects originated in the Muslim world. Those at Fez and Cairo, built in what Europeans call the Dark Ages, are still very much active. The establishment of the earliest universities in Christian Europe, e.g. Bologna, was clearly inspired by the success of universities in Muslim Europe (i.e. Sicily and Spain).

Bottom line: this bullet point should be deleted. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 15:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

:You are incorrect in your interpretation. A study of Bede's life would show that Jarrow did not stand in isolation, but was part of a network of monastic 'universities' - and the term is used advisedly - that extended across [[Christendom]]. The emphasis in modern historical studies on [[Islamic]] scholarship is based upon a prevalent self-hating Liberal ideology that is unable to credit [[Christianity]] with any positive achievements, and retrospectively adorns the current enemy of modern democratic values with laurels. This is not top decry medieval Islamic scholarship, which had much of merit, but to rescue Christian science and scholarship from its current, politially-motivated neglect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::1. It sounds as though you need to do some reading about early mediaeval scholarship! Isidore certainly influenced Muslim scholars in Spain but, Bede apart, no Christian scholar from the mid-7th to early 11th century made an original contribution to scholarship comparable to those of Muslims such as Avicenna and Averroes or Jews such as Moses Maimonides.
::2. I don't understand your point about "the current enemy of modern democratic values". How does that relate to Islam in general? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:56, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

:::WaZi is correct. I've deleted this statement. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:32, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Conservative denials about history==
If liberals were to write their own version of this, it would probably accuse conservatives of lying about exactly the same subjects. Wouldn't it be better to make a serious historical claim, with references to academic analysis, verifiable sources, and such respectable things? It would certinly be better than just declaring that liberals are lying with a one-sentence claim and no backing evidence, even if they are. It makes conservapedia look stupid. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 14:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Misnamed ==

I always thought that it was called the "guilded age" because there was so much money and prosperity; everything was figuratively gold-coated (gilded). I'm confused why this age is misnamed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:15, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

==Status==
''That contributions to history are determined more by status than by effort or Providence. This bias is a form of status worship.'' I'm confused. Isn't it liberals who are always being accused of insisting that the contributions of minorities and women be added to textbooks and courses, even if that displaces learning about white men with more status whose contributions may have been more significant? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:10, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

: "Status" is not the same as "contributions". Often they are opposites. The comment here is about the increasing focus of history books on status, such as who held public office or who won an award, rather than on contributions such as Thomas Edison's works. This issue has nothing to do with race.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:48, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::Is there any evidence that history books once had less focus on "status" than they do now? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 21:27, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::: My personal experience as a teacher of over 6 years, and as a student. There is more focus today on who held what position, rather than who accomplished what. I welcome anyone who has old textbooks to see how much more attention was paid to folks like Thomas Edison in the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

== Amerindians & Asians ==

The statement that American Indians are too different from East Asians to have been descended from them is incorrect so I've deleted it. Several genetic studies using variation in DNA sequences have shown that American Indians are more closely related to East Asians than to any other group. E.g. see Risch et al (2003) in ''Genome Biology'' 3:1−12. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== Specific Denials ==
1. First of all, your source is "www.floridareenactorsonline.com." A history professor would laugh at you while writing a massive F if you used this as a source. Not that its facts are necessarily wrong. Northern merchants were almost certainly involved in the slave trade. The article does not attempt to make any connection between separation of church and state and the slave trade; in fact, its discussion of Rhode Island concentrates mainly on the pre-Revolution era, so describing it as a state in the essay is an anachronism.
2. Thomas Jefferson may not have been the single most successful president ever, but he did engineer the Louisiana Purchase and win the first Barbary War. As for important, his extensive political writings were fundamental in early American political thought. He also did write the first drafts of the Declaration, and most of his material remained in the final copy.
3. Not really sure what this means. How would this be taught in a history class? I assume you're talking about gender courtesies, not an archaic system of aristocratic hierarchy, but even these gender interactions are based around specific social and economic circumstances, and these are commonly addressed by history books. To simply teach that "chivalry was customary" tells the student nothing about history.
4. Quite frankly, so what? In general, the Grant era was corrupt on all counts. I assume this is some assertion that liberals hide all the Democrats' faults, but most liberals assert that the parties of the late 19th century are vastly different from today's, so the point is moot.
5. It did create tremendous prosperity, but it did this through the toil of an underclass that could rarely hope to see the fruits of their labors. The lack of regulation did allow for unprecedented growth, but at the expense of average people.
6. As other people have pointed out, so what? Lots of things are less than 100 years old, and they're perfectly fine. Glorification of traditionalism is not always a good thing.
7. Teaching it as purely "atheist materialism" is, as with much of these points, a vast oversimplification that does the student a disservice. The Holocaust has vast and complicated roots that are well studied and cannot be boiled down to simply "atheist materialism." Traditionally, this point is used to demonstrate how evil "Atheism" (and more specifically, "Darwinism") is, but that's not a very good, logical argument. An idea's misuse does not make it wrong; I'm sure you would agree anytime I point out some evil act a Christian has perpetrated with the defense "well they're not real Christians." Misapplication of an idea (and I'll let others get into more depth on how innacurate it is even to say it's an application of the idea) does not make the idea wrong.
9. Not once in my extensive liberal education was I tought that Lenin was a good dude. You're going to need to cite where this is denied.
10. I'll refer you back to point seven here. I could just as easily say "The KKK, with its insistence on authority, was a right-wing doctrine."
--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 23:41, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Virginia==
In what way does the naming of Virginia come under ''"The following truths about history are '''typically''' denied by liberal history textbooks:"''? In my extensive reading I have never come across a denial of Virginia being named after Elizabeth, and I am quite sure that many of these books would qualify as "liberal" in your eyes, Andy. Maybe some text book has denied it, but is it '''typical''' of the genre? May we have the names of some of these books please? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:20, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

== Triangular Trade ==

Why would liberals assert the existence of triangular trade if it didn't exist? I went to a Christian high school and I was taught about triangular trade. I'm not doubting, at all, the word of an actual history teacher, I'm genuinely curious what makes this a liberal myth, and if it maybe should be on the regular [[Essay:Greatest Myths of World History]] instead. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:52, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

:I have an open mind about this. But the "triangle" doesn't make sense because Africa was not a consumer of finished goods. The term "triangular trade" was an invention of modern historians; it was never used contemporaneously with the trade.

:Some people like [[deceit]] for its own sake. It seems to amuse them. Why did a phony runner enter the Munich stadium in 1972 as though he was leading the marathon? It accomplished nothing and robbed the real leader (Frank Shorter) of his moment of triumph, yet some people (often liberals) seem to get a thrill out of fooling others. It's quite possible someone amused himself with popularizing an absurd concept of "triangular trade."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:03, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

::Oh, I was just curious, I'm not claiming that this ISN'T liberal deceit. I've been looking into it for an hour or so and I understand now why it's untrue, which kind of makes me upset with my (private, Christian) school for teaching this. I was just wondering what made it ''liberal'' deceit.

::It does seem possible somebody made up the idea that Africa was consuming trade goods just to spread a falsehood, and attempting to portray an underdeveloped area as being more developed than it was, or more advanced than it was, reeks of multiculturalist revisionist history. Makes sense to call it liberal, then, in that sense. Thanks for explaining! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:51, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

The idea that Africa was not consuming any trade goods at all is, of course, wrong. The crew of the trading ships did not (at least not in all instances) hunt down and catch the slaves themselves, but often bought them from African (or European, for that matter) slave traders, in Africa. These slave traders, of course, demanded something in return. Yes, the goods brought to Africa for the slaves were absurdly cheap compared to the human lives that they bought, but that's what trade is all about - you buy something at a low price, and sell it at a high. Perhaps it can be debated whether the goods brought the Africa were plentiful enough to in a normal context call it a Triangular Trade, but there is no reason to believe anyone is trying to deceive anyone; there are just various semantic opinions. The facts are that (a small amount of) goods from Europe were used to pay for slaves in Africa, and from the evidence I have seen, I personally don't find it absurd to call this a Triangular Trade. [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 07:13, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

: The resistance by Crucialwood simply illustrates how difficult it is to eradicate a misleading liberal concept from education. "Triangular trade" is indisputably misleading. There was no significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa, and people at the time did not use that term. The term is a modern invention that misleads, and should be rejected. Yet Crucialwood insists on keeping it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:21, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

::I do not see how the term i misleading, almost no matter how little goods were traded to Africa. When I was taught of the triangular trade in school, I was presented with the following facts: Ships set off from Europe with a small amount of cheap goods, traded them for slaves in Africa, took the slaves to America and brought American goods back to Europe. Even if the goods in the first part of the triangle only consisted of a bottle of whiskey for 100 slaves, I can't see how the term "triangular trade" is misleading. Perhaps stating "there was significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa" is misleading (though I do not have enough evidence at this time to say even that for certain), but the term does not imply that.

::Also, maybe I am missing something, but I do not see why you insist on the term "finished manufactured goods". Does not any goods traded to Africa suffice? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 10:45, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

The point that's being missed here is that ''triangular trade'' implies that there was significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa. Trinkets are not "finished manufactured goods". Ships did move in a triangular course, but this does not mean that the 3 legs of the triangle were equal. Human life was terribly undervalued, both by the men who captured slaves in Africa and the European whites who bought those slaves and brought them to America. Note that treating people as chattel goods is '''not''' what trade is all about. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

:I would not say that point is being "missed", when I had addressed it quite specifically. Why does ''triangular trade'' imply significant trade of finished manufactured goods? Why does the three legs of the triangle have to be "equal" (which basically just means that WE set a subjective value for the trade goods, by today's standards; not taking into account that the goods were actually sufficient to buy humans in Africa, which, in a context of trade, would in fact imply they were "equal")? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 23:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal rant ==

This isn't an essay, rather an intellectually shallow, and unsourced bullet list of jingoistic propositions.

Example:
''1. That "Yankee ingenuity" (American inventions) far surpassed the rest of the world, and brought great wealth to it''

This is a useless assertion,if not outright jingoistic, as "Yankee ingenuity" (please define this term more exactly if you can) took place over a broad time period of competing inventions from Europe. Additionally, many "Yankee inventions" were conceptualized by foreign nationals, see for example the machine gun, nuclear fission, rocket science (the last two being the key factors in American hegemonic rise in the late 20th century) Additionally, you really need to define Yankee and even American nation. A great argument can be made that it didn't exist until the cusp of the American revolution (if by Yankee innovation you're referring to early history).

''5. That hard work was the key to the success of many Americans.''

It's not an American trait purely, you're referring to the "Protestant Work Ethic", a Weberian Thesis.
See for example ,for an overview;

"A. Furnham, The Protestant Work Ethic: A Review of the Psychological Literature, European Journal of Social Psychology, 14:1, pp 87-104

''6. That most great Americans, from Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Edison, were homeschooled.''

Irrelevant in the context of the educational standards of the day. Public education was rare and basic, private tutelage was the method of education for upper class families since time immemorial until the modern advent of public education.

10. That Rhode Island and Thomas Jefferson, and their view of a "separation of church and state," had no role in the formation of the Constitution.

False, Citation needed before I'll accept that.

''12. That "anti-imperialism" movements against the United States were really communist or Muslim movements against Christianity, as in denying the Islamic basis for the Philippine insurgency around 1900.''

False, Ditto #10. Additionally,You need to prove the presence of Muslim movements against Christian's as a theme in colonial conflict,a great argument can be made that Islamic resistance movements are solely a product of decolonization. Finally, you need to prove that these communist or muslim resistance groups are fighting for Marx or Muhammad rather than masking anti-imperial or nationalist urges with a thin cover of ideology.

''15. That President FDR did not end the Great Depression, and may have prolonged it.''

Arguable, citation needed. Argument against see:

Gauti Eggertsson, Great Expectations and the End of the Depression, American Economic Review, 98:4,2008,pp 1476-1516

''17. That President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy was key to ending the Cold War.
''
False. Shows a gross misunderstanding of the full view, jingoistic. Author needs to review the literature on Perestroika, and Glasnost, as well as passive resistance within the Soviet Union . Should also review the role of Yeltsin, and the presidents of Ukraine and Belorussia in the immediate period pre-dissolution. Argument should be that Reagan played a crucial role rather than the key role in my opinion.

''18. That NO "triangular trade" existed in the 17th and 18th centuries with the New World[1]''

Irrelevant, straw man argument. Triangle trade is no longer explained as tangible trade routes, rather as a historical construction to understand flows of commerce and explanations for slavery and the first explosion of imperialism in the 17th century. Analogous to the Columbian exchange. Triangle trade not taken absolutely seriously as a tangible fact since '70;s.

See Gilman Ostrander, The making of the Traignular trade myth, The william and mary quarterly, 3:30:4, 1973, pp 635-644

== Reply ==

:REPLY:

:''1. That "Yankee ingenuity" (American inventions) far surpassed the rest of the world, and brought great wealth to it''

:This is a useless assertion,if not outright jingoistic, as "Yankee ingenuity" (please define this term more exactly if you can) took place over a broad time period of competing inventions from Europe. Additionally, many "Yankee inventions" were conceptualized by foreign nationals, see for example the machine gun, nuclear fission, rocket science (the last two being the key factors in American hegemonic rise in the late 20th century) Additionally, you really need to define Yankee and even American nation. A great argument can be made that it didn't exist until the cusp of the American revolution (if by Yankee innovation you're referring to early history).

::You're in absurd denial here. There's no disputing that a vast majority of wealth-enhancing inventions have been American.

:''5. That hard work was the key to the success of many Americans.''

:It's not an American trait purely, you're referring to the "Protestant Work Ethic", a Weberian Thesis.
See for example ,for an overview;

:"A. Furnham, The Protestant Work Ethic: A Review of the Psychological Literature, European Journal of Social Psychology, 14:1, pp 87-104

::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world.

:''6. That most great Americans, from Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Edison, were homeschooled.''

:Irrelevant in the context of the educational standards of the day. Public education was rare and basic, private tutelage was the method of education for upper class families since time immemorial until the modern advent of public education.

::You're clueless. Try reading [[homeschooling]] with an open-mind and then let's discuss. Contributions by homeschoolers far surpass, in proportionate terms, contributions by people who went to public school.

::Before I waste time further on this discussion, can you indicate how you do on [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I'll do an [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]] when you discover the "liberal art of citation of sources".

"::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world." - Apparently you've never seen a malaysian work camp, I'd love to see an American work that hard. 12 hour shifts, diet cap of 1200 calories a day (less than a slice of pizza) In fact, if you leave the United States and Europe

:I'd ask you to cite a source, but since you're banned you can't. I'd have to check the math, but I don't think 1200 calories a day is sufficient to sustain hard labor. Don't U.S. lumberjacks eat over 5,000 calories a day? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:07, 27 December 2009 (EST)

::In this user's absence, I'm happy to provide two sources for you: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_hou_wor-labor-hours-worked this one] and [http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2008/11/hours-worked-per-year.html this one]. It looks like Australians, Japanese, and Koreans do indeed work a little harder on average (Koreans much harder).

::While the Malaysian labor camps may not exactly have been germane to this point, he didn't pull it out of thin air. A google search revealed [http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/24563-human-trafficking-malaysians-extort-thais-ignore this] and [http://209.85.135.132/search?q=cache:_rwpDZ6oTS8J:www.kanlungan.ngo.ph/Resources/Malaysia_Sic%2520Country.pdf+malaysian+workers+underfed&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk this] detailing labor camp workers being underfed. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 14:22, 27 December 2009 (EST)

== "Liberal Response" ==

You're in absurd denial here. There's no disputing that a vast majority of wealth-enhancing inventions have been American.
1] Ad Hominem, but I did it too, so it's acceptable in the context
2]"Ridiculous fallacy" - it's ridiculous to you, so you brush it off
3]"correlation doesnt lead to causation" - Because a lot of inventions are from the United States, it doesn't mean that the vast majority are, doesn't mean that they're invented by Americans, doesn't mean it's a specific American trait , to innovate.

"::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world." -

Apparently you've never seen a malaysian work camp, I'd love to see an American work that hard. 12 hour shifts, diet cap of 1200 calories a day (less than a slice of pizza) By rest of the world you mean Europe, which is true, European workers are lazy socialists, but take a job with a chinese labourer or a korean , even a japanese guy, much harder workers than the average American

1] Undeniable fact- can't remember which logical fallacy that is, but it's a major one. All facts are deniable, and in this case easily.
2] Vast generalisation, needs proof.

You're clueless. Try reading [[homeschooling]] with an open-mind and then let's discuss. Contributions by homeschoolers far surpass, in proportionate terms, contributions by people who went to public school.

1]Ad hominen
2]didn't mention homeschooling, mentioned the historical context of Thomas Jefferson and Abe Lincoln. you're homeschooling program has no correlation with the 19th century "home schooling". The contexts and curriculum are quite different. You're welcome to disagree, let's see the sources.

::Before I waste time further on this discussion, can you indicate how you do on [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I'll do an [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]] when you discover the "liberal art of citation of sources". I've seen no counter poiunts here except pointless logical fallacies.

::You still won't admit that the vast majority of inventions have been American? Look, you have free will to deny basic facts, but your denial is astounding.

::Re: homeschooling, people and homeschooling were not that different 150 years ago. Moreover, you seem to confuse cause with effect. The point is about the positive effect of homeschooling, regardless of the motivation. I realize that Germany bans homeschooling and England is over-regulating it, but it remains productive at a far greater level than its percentages. And this has always been true, as numerous examples [[homeschooling|here]] illustrate.

::If you were genuinely interested in logic, then you'd spend some time reading or translating the Bible, the most logical book of all. But I suspect you're more interested in trying to reject the Bible than giving it equal time in your activities. Am I right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Now that was a better point, which I can concede on. As per the bible, I'm [[Plymouth Brethren]], rejecting the bible isn't in my "Modus Operandi".--[[User:JeffD|JeffD]] 22:01, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Interesting. We seem to have quite an entry on that denomination.

:I don't mean to single you out. There seem to be many people who read everything ''except'' the most logical book of all, the Bible. Lots of people even claim to be well-read yet complete avoid and even censor this most influential and most widely read book of all. Objectively, such an approach is ... not logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 18 December 2009 (EST)

== Communism ==

The fact that the McCarthy article was featured on the main page recently got me to thinking: liberals, in general, try to gloss over the fact that there was good reason for people to be concerned about the threat posed by Communism. Public schools will teach the "Red Scares," for example, but seldom mention the reasons behind the concern--for instance, the 1919 bombing attacks against major American industrialists and government officials.

Should the fact that liberals deny that Communism was a serious threat be included? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:25, 16 December 2009 (EST)

I'm just reading "48 Liberal Lies about American History" now, and I bet I'll be able to add a whole bunch of stuff to this page soon! See the table of contents [http://books.google.com/books?id=A3Muu2TsOioC&dq=48+Liberal+Lies+About+American+History&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=QA7LddEssH&sig=lepXhrknDTwEN9HCN8AwB-RcOA8&hl=en&ei=qWAxS4aQBoPAsQP4yoG7BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=&f=false here]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:16, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== One question ==

Guys, let's face it. There's (as of... Now) three notes on this page, and only one reference to another source (which I personally find a bit suspect, but that might just be me...)

Umm... That means there's a lot of unsourced claims where it should be at least 72 sources (one that cite that it is something that liberals deny (or claim) about history, and one to point out why it's wrong)

Well anyway... Have fun :) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 16:11, 1 March 2011 (EST)

== Thomas Jefferson ==

So he's listed as being a failure and an unsuccessful president, and had little to do with the Declaration of Independence. However, the article for him on Conservapedia says he had a successful first term as president, followed by a poor 2nd term, and the [[Declaration of Independence]] article says:
<blockquote>
Early drafts [of the Declaration] exist dating to June 1776.[3] Jefferson's colleagues Benjamin Franklin and Adams made small changes in his draft text and Congress made more. The finished document, which both declared independence and proclaimed a philosophy of government, '''was singly and peculiarly Jefferson's.'''
</blockquote>

So at least the part about the Declaration of Independence should be removed, or the articles changed to reflect his small role in the Declaration. --[[User:MarkN85|MarkN85]] 14:30, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

== Rubbish ==

90% of the stuff on this page is unsourced rubbish. either the 'liberal historians' don't deny whatever the allegation is, or else the allegation is not true. There is also some stuff that's pretty subjective, so while the interpretation that this article gives is valid, it does not mean that competing allegations are false. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 20:39, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

== colonialism ==

colonialism was universally good? Have you read about the Belgian Congo? How about the war for Algerian independence? What was the native population of North America before colonisation and what was it afterwards? How did they live then, and how do they live now? Are there African countries that are better off now than they were before they were colonised? I think colonialism is definitely good for a number of people in the colonising country, it is usually good for the colonising government, but it tends to be quite bad for the native population. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 00:03, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

== point by point. ==

much as it pains me to have to even engage with this stuff I will deal with most of the points that I actually know about. (I mostly won't use sources as that would take hours but if you have a specific objection then I will find one.)

1. subjective and jingoistic if not actually false.

2. Maybe. This one is again pretty subjective, but has some merit. There would be a lot of textbooks that agree with you though.

3. Two points here. for the first one, I don't think that textbooks do deny that there were non-racist reasons to be against immigration. Second point I don't know enough about, but the North's larger population (a result of immigration) surely had some impact on the war.

4. I don't think that this is really a distortion, textbooks just have a tendency to focus on the positive elements of unions, such as the advances in workers rights that they won. And was the violence really so 'senseless'? particularly in the nineteenth century the working conditions were in fact abysmal, and I believe that you will find that a large proportion of the violence in labour conflicts was initiated by the employers or police trying to break up strikers (an american example of some of the worse violence would I think be in 1914, ludlow, colorado?) anyway again it's quite a subjective issue of how much weight to put on different interpretations.

5. Eh? Find me a book that denies this.

6. there were no public schools so this doesn't even need to be mentioned (I'm sure that specific biographies would mention how they were educated)

7,8,9,10. Too american for me to comment.

11. What history books say that? Perhaps they would say that Reagan was the beginning of a 'New Conservatism' or something but they don't say that there were no conservatives prior to that date.

12. The Philippine rebellion against the US was led by anti-imperialist intellectuals, mostly Catholics and while the Moro certainly supported the war, and were some of the last holding out, the majority of the Philippine manpower was Roman Catholic or following some syncretic version (see the Pulahan for instance). I would be very surprised if a majority-Catholic movement could be characterized as being 'against Christianity'

13. When has this been denied, and what's 'liberal' about that?

14. Ditto.

15. Subjective. Others would say that his policies did help.

16. I don't really know enough about this or the historiography around it.

17. May be true. most historians would I think put more emphasis on other factors.

18. Oh, so slave traders were just given slaves for free? the version of the triangle trade that appears in school textbooks may be an over-simplification, but it is a valid historical model.

19. This one is somewhat more valid. However you will find a number of history books that agree with this, and a number of occasions where the Catholic church was opposed to new science.

20. I have a more specific comment above. I don't agree with the premise of this. For instance, the bit about democracy, when in most cases the native population wanted independence, but the colonising power refused to grant it. I will say that I do find it ironic when Americans promote imperialism seeing as their own country is the result of an anti-imperialist revolt. (You did engage in a lot of colonialism on your own though)

21. Ha ha. lol.

22. Subjective.

General bias. this section is almost completely subjective and very vague.

1. Not anymore. the 'great men' theory of history is not used much any more. There is a lot more emphasis on social history, or greater trends that lead to events.

2. Are they really more important?

3. what is the 'true' importance of popularity?

4. How much significance is 'really' warranted by presidential elections?

5. Have they? A lot of this depends on your definition of 'conservative'.

6. when have textbooks ever done this? I don't think any do.

Specific truths.

1. correlation does not imply causation. I read a couple of posts defending this point, and they are predicated on the church always opposing slavery. This unfortunately was not true, the southern churches were great supporters of slavery.

3. In the broader sense yes, but it is not really something significant enough to be mentioned. While talking about medieval Europe chivalry in the traditional sense would be mentioned.

5. What about the working classes? And 'the world' is certainly an overstatement.

6. I think most textbooks would acknowledge this if they mentioned anything about education. I'm sure I've seen it a number of places.

7. This is a genuine difference in interpretation. Few historians would agree that atheism was the cause. This is an actual disagreement.

8. don't really know whether american books would mention this or not. no comment.

9. Very few people would agree that Lenin oppressed the russians 'as thoroughly as Stalin', and I would say that this is pretty subjective.

10. Nazi's are almost uniformly described as right wing. They were extreme nationalists and favoured capitalism. The number of people who disagree is very small, and they are almost universally American, and very recent.

11. What textbooks deny this? All the ones that I've ever read mention it, and about how Lincoln was the first Republican president and all that.

12. Ok, I'd never heard of that, so maybe that one is true.

If no one objects, I will take out some of the more ridiculous bits. Thanks, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 03:10, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

And now there is a new point.

13. see 21. and add 'rotflol' and also the spelling's atrocious. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:55, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

And one i forgot to General bias.

23. patently false. The Crusades, The reconquista, the Russian conquest of siberia, British India, etc., etc. etc. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 10:20, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

:It appears that the person who added that bit is Dutch. So I will also mention the Dutch conquest of Indonesia, prince Deponegoro and all of that. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 16:38, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Liberal Denials about History

2012-10-22T14:20:02Z

Cmurphynz: /* point by point. */

== Public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old. ==

So is penicillin. That doesn't make it a bad thing. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 18:15, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: Then why don't liberals admit it about public schools, and question its long-term value (harm)?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Can you provide any sources that show that the majority of liberals deny that the current public education system is less than 100 years old? As a liberal, and being in a fairly liberal community, I have never even heard that this was an issue. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:03, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::Should this entry not read 'American public schools...', I am not going to comment on American schools, as I know very little about them. However public schools (in the American sense, ie state sponsored and controlled schools) have existed for centuries in other countries. For instance the state school I went to was founded in 1445 --[[User:J00ni|J00ni]] 18:55, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Universal education has been provided from public funds in Scotland since about 1570. England caught up with the Education Act in 1870 and many towns and villages, including the one I live in, have state schools which are much older than that (early 19th century in our case). So as J00ni says, this statement is specific to the USA.
:::In any case, as AliceBG says, so what? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:29, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== This essay sparks interest, but... ==

...then we're left with no source or explanation, so the overall impression is a startled shrug. Which ''is'' a pity, so I offer my view in the hope that you could expand it.

For example, the Rhode Island point immediately triggers the question what makes you assume that this single cause (separation of church and state) among the undoubtedly many had the consequence (slave importer). Our entry about Rhode Island currently states that "Rhode Island was the first state to outlaw slavery", so what's to stop somebody from claiming that the separation of church and state caused this, too? Without any explanation or source, both conclusions are equally valid (and shaky).

The point about public school education in its current form being just 100 years old is fairly weak because my reaction was "...it seems to work pretty well, so what's the point?" You seem to assume that every conservative will go "Oh no! Public schools in their current form are horrible!", but... nope, sorry. :/ I'm not saying public schools are Heaven on Earth, but to me, this item looks out of place on a list about Liberal History Denials. It would help if you at least explained the alternative: What changed 100 years ago?

And if I'm not ''completely'' mistaken, liberals don't deny that chivalry was a big thing here (conversely, I never noticed conservatives pointing out that chivalry was customary throughout history) - it just happened to be a big thing in several other countries, too, so I don't see the need to go out of my way to point it out. It's sort of a given. But maybe I'm missing your point. Please enlighten me, I'm always open for new ideas!

Lastly, the "American Indians vs. Asians" thing... really needs a source. Who says they're "too different", for example? And on what basis? This sounds like a fairly complex evolution issue, so it ''really'' needs some background.

I'm fairly new here, and this essay strikes me as a collection of "inside jokes" (not in the "funny" sense, but in the "This will make little sense unless you also read my other fifty essays about these things" sense). So I would appreciate some expansion of these points. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 19:47, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

: As to your first point, there's no denying a correlation between the separation of church and state and slavery, though [[liberals]] will refuse to admit it. I've updated our Rhode Island entry to reflect that this tiny state controlled 60-90% of the African slave trade after the Revolution.

: Your other points are not any more open-minded. Public schools in their current form is less than 100 years old. It's a fact. The fact has significance. Admit it and teach it. If you think critical analysis of the results of this less-than-100-year experience is inappropriate, then welcome to the liberal mindset.

: Chivalry is not taught as part of history. It should be. Your view is unclear.

: American Indians are different from Asians in almost every significant way. Blood type. Interests. Every other measure you can think of. Deny it and join the liberal denial about history.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

I have a few questions about these. I'll address them one by one for simplicity.
# Can one say for sure they are too different for one to have descended from the other? YEC theory postulates that everyone is descended from two people. Obviously major changes in such groups have occurred over the years, and very different groups must have common ancestry.
#Rhode Island was the biggest importer of slaves? That's news to me. Overall, I think you'll find Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas imported more slaves than Rhode Island ever did. I know you don't care for Wikipedia, but, for lack of a more convenient source, if you look at their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_America Slavery in America] article, you'll see he highest slave population for any year in RI was less than a thousand, while in Virginia it at one point reached nearly half a million.
#Chivalry, in its most literal sense, dealt with etiquette among the gentry and nobility. America does not have a nobility, has never had knighthood, and has not had such a code. In its less formal sense: etiquette rules in general, manners, politeness (especially towards women), I don't think anyone denies its presence.
#As for the age of the public school system, I'm not sure if its denied; I just wonder the significance. If you're saying it's not adequately tried and true, well, I have to wonder, what is the alternative? Homeschooling is not an option for most people. Even when one parent can stay home with the child for 18 years, how competent will any one person be at teaching multiple subjects at an advanced level? I consider myself a pretty smart guy, but I couldn't teach most classes at a high school level. If I ever had a special needs child I wouldn't know where to begin. It seems to me there are 4 choices: public school, private school, home school, or no school. The last should not be an option, the middle two aren't available to everyone, so that just leaves public school. While its far from perfect, I think efforts should go towards improvement rather than dismissal.
Well, that's my thought. I hope you'll take the time to reply. Thanks. [[User:Sanders|Sanders]] 20:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::(Edit Conflict with Sanders, so some points might overlap)
::Andy, I believe you missed ''all'' of my points and simply replied by repeating your claims. But maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough. Paraphrasing Sun Tzu: "If words of question are not clear and distinct, if requests are not thoroughly understood, then the initial poster is to blame." So here we go again, more to the point (I hope):
::#"There's no denying it" is a very bad reply to a request for sourcing and explanation. If it's so obvious and undeniable, then you can surely produce at least a single source that explains (instead of just asserting) it. Or, since you arrived at that conclusion, you can surely explain it yourself. You're a teacher - would you tell your student that "there's no denying it" if they asked you "Could you explain how Rhode Island's position as #1 slave importer was a result of the church/state separation?"? I hope not.
::#I didn't doubt that "public school education in its current form is less than 100 years old". My questions were how things had been 100 years ago and what the point of this claim is. You don't even say what the results are, but you imply that I disfavor critical analysis of such results. In fact, that's why I repeatedly called for expansion of your points. I know you value conciseness, but in its current form, this essay only teases and hints, but fails to deliver. Which is why I made my initial comment in the first place (along with notes saying just that).
::#Chivalry... I really don't get why you want to stress it in a single country when it was widely spread. Unless your point is that it should be pointed out also for the other countries. I could agree with that. But either way, this strikes me as pointless. Also, your claim that it's not taught is weak: My History teacher pointed out that it was followed in the US and other countries as a basic concept, along with a brief primer about its roots. But from what I remember, it's more of a social issue and less of a distinct historic one in terms of impact (and even less of a distinct US History one), so I currently don't see the need for such emphasis. But I repeat: I'm willing to listen if you explain it. I'm open for new things. But simply repeating your short claims without any sort of source or background won't help.
::#A great response. I ask for background, a source and an expansion, and you basically reply with "Almost everything is different! If you deny this, then you're a Liberal History Denier!" Though I admit that the "Their interests are different!" bit cracked me up. I always like a teacher with humor. I can see it now. "Asians like Mahjong. American Indians didn't. Hah-ha!" :P Seriously, though, you're making a veeeeery strong claim here that deeply dips into evolutionary biology and ethnology, so in the interest of all your readers, I ask for a source.
::I hope this sums up my issues in a more clear way. I'm happy you replied, but I would be even happier if you actually replied to my questions/requests. :) --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:57, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::: DirkB, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, let me try again:
::: Point 1: religion teaches that slavery is wrong. Separating church and state means separating "slavery is wrong" from "state". The result is legalized slavery. Got it now? That's why Rhode Island imported up to 90% of the slaves. Don't continue to pretend you don't get the connection. Of course liberals are going to deny the connection exists, and perhaps so will you.
::: Point 2: there's no question here requiring a response. This is a fact that should be taught and discussed. But liberals won't.
::: Point 3: if you think your history teacher taught you about chivalry in colonial America, then please repeat that for our benefit here. I doubt you heard much about it.
::: Point 4: I said the blood types (and virtually everything else) is different between American Indians and Asians. You respond with silliness. You have free will to deny the truth. I'm interested in the truth and that's where you'll find me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Aschlafly, I assume that the Asian/Native American theory is taught because it is the consensus generally agreed upon by the experts. If it is so obviously wrong, what do you suggest should be taught in its place? [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 11:07, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

:I am curious about what is meant by "blood types". After all, all humans share the same blood types or groups (if it refers to A, B, O, AB). Or is it a reference to DNA? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']] 12:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

On the Rhode Is. slavery question, I think this may be Andy's reference:

''Rhode Island, of course, was among the most active Northern colonies in importing slaves. Between 1709 and 1807, Rhode Island merchants sponsored at least 934 slaving voyages to the coast of Africa and carried an estimated 106,544 slaves to the New World. From 1732-64, Rhode Islanders sent annually 18 ships, bearing 1,800 hogsheads of rum, to Africa to trade for slaves, earning £40,000 annually. Newport, the colony's leading slave port, took an estimated 59,070 slaves to America before the Revolution. Bristol and Providence also prospered from it. In the years after the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the American trade in African slaves.
http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:09, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

==A bulleted list...==
A bullet list doesn't quite make it as an essay. While I'd like to think the author will be making additions and fleshing out his arguments, other [[Essay:5 Questions to Ask an Anti-Conservative|"essays"]] [[Essay:10 Ways Liberals Create Atheists|similarly]] are nothing more than [[Essay:Most Influential Persons|baldfaced assertions]] with little or no [[Essay:Electoral College|actual]] [[Essay:Conservatism Essential to Religion|substance]] or [[Essay:Greatest Mysteries of American History|well thought-out]] [[Essay:Hillary's Strategy to Win|arguments]]. Most seem nothing more than mere lists of things to be against, to link to internal articles (or worse other "essays"). <s>Good luck defending your lists Aschlafly, for without an inkling as to what thoughts may be behind your spate of "essays", readers will likely come to the conclusion that the author of such drivel cannot be a vital, energetic thinker but an intellectually lazy and shallow person who cannot put across a cogent argument and satisfies his impotent rage with lists of "bad thoughts".</s> [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 15:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
===NOTE===
The above was written by me, Christopher Campbell using my mother's account here. She only found out that I was using her account shen she tried to edit later on and found that she could not due to being blocked. At first she thought someone on the internet "hacked" her account and while it was tempting to let her believe this I finally fessed up to making the edit. 
My Mother will not let me have any internet accounts of my own that she hasn't personally set up and monitor. Nor will she let me have an account here at Conservapedia, (which is why I was forced to use her account). She said that the above proves that I am not ready to edit responsibly, showing (as it does) little regard for the feelings of Mr Schlafly and his efforts to make Conservapedia the best it can be.

'''I therefore publicly apologize to you Mr Schlafly for the great wrong I have done, "speaking" rashly and denigrating your encyclopedia without care as to you, your administrators and the other fine editors who are attempting to make Conservapedia a resource we all can be proud of.'''

Christopher Campbell 16:15, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
(EDT)

:::Well I think that (for one so young) it was an excellent, if somewhat abrasive critique. It is, however, best to critique the work and ideas not the man: drop the "drivel", "intellectually lazy" and "shallow" comments next time. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 10:35, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Dark Ages ==

Bullet point 7: "The so-called Dark Ages saw a great revolution in science and learning, brought about by the spread of Christianity throughout Europe and the establishment of networks of monastic 'universities'."

The first phrase is correct, but the rest isn't. The revolution in learning took place in Muslim countries in particular, as well as India and China although the latter two areas did not influence Europe directly until the late 13th century. Europe contributed very little original scholarship indeed for nearly six centuries. A list of notable scholars in Europe in the Dark Ages (by which I assume you mean from the end of the Western Empire in 476 to the early 11th century) would include Isidore of Seville, the great encyclopaedist (d.636), Bede, the historian (d.735), and Alcuin, the theologian and polymath (d.804). There may be a few others but these are probably the only three who stand comparison with the much large number of eminent Muslim scholars of that half-millennium (and even Alcuin would be doubtful in that regard). Europe was very much an intellectual backwater until Gerbert of Aurillac (later Pope Sylvester II from 999) brought Arab learning from Cordoba to Christian Europe.

Places like Seville around 600, Jarrow around 700 and Charlemagne's court at Aachen around 800 were centres of scholarship (qv Isidore, Bede and Alcuin respectively) but cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as universities. The concept of a university as an educational institution which teaches and awards degrees in a wide range of subjects originated in the Muslim world. Those at Fez and Cairo, built in what Europeans call the Dark Ages, are still very much active. The establishment of the earliest universities in Christian Europe, e.g. Bologna, was clearly inspired by the success of universities in Muslim Europe (i.e. Sicily and Spain).

Bottom line: this bullet point should be deleted. [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 15:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

:You are incorrect in your interpretation. A study of Bede's life would show that Jarrow did not stand in isolation, but was part of a network of monastic 'universities' - and the term is used advisedly - that extended across [[Christendom]]. The emphasis in modern historical studies on [[Islamic]] scholarship is based upon a prevalent self-hating Liberal ideology that is unable to credit [[Christianity]] with any positive achievements, and retrospectively adorns the current enemy of modern democratic values with laurels. This is not top decry medieval Islamic scholarship, which had much of merit, but to rescue Christian science and scholarship from its current, politially-motivated neglect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:53, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::1. It sounds as though you need to do some reading about early mediaeval scholarship! Isidore certainly influenced Muslim scholars in Spain but, Bede apart, no Christian scholar from the mid-7th to early 11th century made an original contribution to scholarship comparable to those of Muslims such as Avicenna and Averroes or Jews such as Moses Maimonides.
::2. I don't understand your point about "the current enemy of modern democratic values". How does that relate to Islam in general? [[User:WaZi|WaZi]] 16:56, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

:::WaZi is correct. I've deleted this statement. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:32, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Conservative denials about history==
If liberals were to write their own version of this, it would probably accuse conservatives of lying about exactly the same subjects. Wouldn't it be better to make a serious historical claim, with references to academic analysis, verifiable sources, and such respectable things? It would certinly be better than just declaring that liberals are lying with a one-sentence claim and no backing evidence, even if they are. It makes conservapedia look stupid. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 14:40, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Misnamed ==

I always thought that it was called the "guilded age" because there was so much money and prosperity; everything was figuratively gold-coated (gilded). I'm confused why this age is misnamed. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:15, 13 October 2008 (EDT)

==Status==
''That contributions to history are determined more by status than by effort or Providence. This bias is a form of status worship.'' I'm confused. Isn't it liberals who are always being accused of insisting that the contributions of minorities and women be added to textbooks and courses, even if that displaces learning about white men with more status whose contributions may have been more significant? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:10, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

: "Status" is not the same as "contributions". Often they are opposites. The comment here is about the increasing focus of history books on status, such as who held public office or who won an award, rather than on contributions such as Thomas Edison's works. This issue has nothing to do with race.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:48, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::Is there any evidence that history books once had less focus on "status" than they do now? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 21:27, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

::: My personal experience as a teacher of over 6 years, and as a student. There is more focus today on who held what position, rather than who accomplished what. I welcome anyone who has old textbooks to see how much more attention was paid to folks like Thomas Edison in the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:34, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

== Amerindians & Asians ==

The statement that American Indians are too different from East Asians to have been descended from them is incorrect so I've deleted it. Several genetic studies using variation in DNA sequences have shown that American Indians are more closely related to East Asians than to any other group. E.g. see Risch et al (2003) in ''Genome Biology'' 3:1−12. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== Specific Denials ==
1. First of all, your source is "www.floridareenactorsonline.com." A history professor would laugh at you while writing a massive F if you used this as a source. Not that its facts are necessarily wrong. Northern merchants were almost certainly involved in the slave trade. The article does not attempt to make any connection between separation of church and state and the slave trade; in fact, its discussion of Rhode Island concentrates mainly on the pre-Revolution era, so describing it as a state in the essay is an anachronism.
2. Thomas Jefferson may not have been the single most successful president ever, but he did engineer the Louisiana Purchase and win the first Barbary War. As for important, his extensive political writings were fundamental in early American political thought. He also did write the first drafts of the Declaration, and most of his material remained in the final copy.
3. Not really sure what this means. How would this be taught in a history class? I assume you're talking about gender courtesies, not an archaic system of aristocratic hierarchy, but even these gender interactions are based around specific social and economic circumstances, and these are commonly addressed by history books. To simply teach that "chivalry was customary" tells the student nothing about history.
4. Quite frankly, so what? In general, the Grant era was corrupt on all counts. I assume this is some assertion that liberals hide all the Democrats' faults, but most liberals assert that the parties of the late 19th century are vastly different from today's, so the point is moot.
5. It did create tremendous prosperity, but it did this through the toil of an underclass that could rarely hope to see the fruits of their labors. The lack of regulation did allow for unprecedented growth, but at the expense of average people.
6. As other people have pointed out, so what? Lots of things are less than 100 years old, and they're perfectly fine. Glorification of traditionalism is not always a good thing.
7. Teaching it as purely "atheist materialism" is, as with much of these points, a vast oversimplification that does the student a disservice. The Holocaust has vast and complicated roots that are well studied and cannot be boiled down to simply "atheist materialism." Traditionally, this point is used to demonstrate how evil "Atheism" (and more specifically, "Darwinism") is, but that's not a very good, logical argument. An idea's misuse does not make it wrong; I'm sure you would agree anytime I point out some evil act a Christian has perpetrated with the defense "well they're not real Christians." Misapplication of an idea (and I'll let others get into more depth on how innacurate it is even to say it's an application of the idea) does not make the idea wrong.
9. Not once in my extensive liberal education was I tought that Lenin was a good dude. You're going to need to cite where this is denied.
10. I'll refer you back to point seven here. I could just as easily say "The KKK, with its insistence on authority, was a right-wing doctrine."
--[[User:CWaddell|CWaddell]] 23:41, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Virginia==
In what way does the naming of Virginia come under ''"The following truths about history are '''typically''' denied by liberal history textbooks:"''? In my extensive reading I have never come across a denial of Virginia being named after Elizabeth, and I am quite sure that many of these books would qualify as "liberal" in your eyes, Andy. Maybe some text book has denied it, but is it '''typical''' of the genre? May we have the names of some of these books please? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:20, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

== Triangular Trade ==

Why would liberals assert the existence of triangular trade if it didn't exist? I went to a Christian high school and I was taught about triangular trade. I'm not doubting, at all, the word of an actual history teacher, I'm genuinely curious what makes this a liberal myth, and if it maybe should be on the regular [[Essay:Greatest Myths of World History]] instead. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:52, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

:I have an open mind about this. But the "triangle" doesn't make sense because Africa was not a consumer of finished goods. The term "triangular trade" was an invention of modern historians; it was never used contemporaneously with the trade.

:Some people like [[deceit]] for its own sake. It seems to amuse them. Why did a phony runner enter the Munich stadium in 1972 as though he was leading the marathon? It accomplished nothing and robbed the real leader (Frank Shorter) of his moment of triumph, yet some people (often liberals) seem to get a thrill out of fooling others. It's quite possible someone amused himself with popularizing an absurd concept of "triangular trade."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:03, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

::Oh, I was just curious, I'm not claiming that this ISN'T liberal deceit. I've been looking into it for an hour or so and I understand now why it's untrue, which kind of makes me upset with my (private, Christian) school for teaching this. I was just wondering what made it ''liberal'' deceit.

::It does seem possible somebody made up the idea that Africa was consuming trade goods just to spread a falsehood, and attempting to portray an underdeveloped area as being more developed than it was, or more advanced than it was, reeks of multiculturalist revisionist history. Makes sense to call it liberal, then, in that sense. Thanks for explaining! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:51, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

The idea that Africa was not consuming any trade goods at all is, of course, wrong. The crew of the trading ships did not (at least not in all instances) hunt down and catch the slaves themselves, but often bought them from African (or European, for that matter) slave traders, in Africa. These slave traders, of course, demanded something in return. Yes, the goods brought to Africa for the slaves were absurdly cheap compared to the human lives that they bought, but that's what trade is all about - you buy something at a low price, and sell it at a high. Perhaps it can be debated whether the goods brought the Africa were plentiful enough to in a normal context call it a Triangular Trade, but there is no reason to believe anyone is trying to deceive anyone; there are just various semantic opinions. The facts are that (a small amount of) goods from Europe were used to pay for slaves in Africa, and from the evidence I have seen, I personally don't find it absurd to call this a Triangular Trade. [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 07:13, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

: The resistance by Crucialwood simply illustrates how difficult it is to eradicate a misleading liberal concept from education. "Triangular trade" is indisputably misleading. There was no significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa, and people at the time did not use that term. The term is a modern invention that misleads, and should be rejected. Yet Crucialwood insists on keeping it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:21, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

::I do not see how the term i misleading, almost no matter how little goods were traded to Africa. When I was taught of the triangular trade in school, I was presented with the following facts: Ships set off from Europe with a small amount of cheap goods, traded them for slaves in Africa, took the slaves to America and brought American goods back to Europe. Even if the goods in the first part of the triangle only consisted of a bottle of whiskey for 100 slaves, I can't see how the term "triangular trade" is misleading. Perhaps stating "there was significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa" is misleading (though I do not have enough evidence at this time to say even that for certain), but the term does not imply that.

::Also, maybe I am missing something, but I do not see why you insist on the term "finished manufactured goods". Does not any goods traded to Africa suffice? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 10:45, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

The point that's being missed here is that ''triangular trade'' implies that there was significant trade of finished manufactured goods to Africa. Trinkets are not "finished manufactured goods". Ships did move in a triangular course, but this does not mean that the 3 legs of the triangle were equal. Human life was terribly undervalued, both by the men who captured slaves in Africa and the European whites who bought those slaves and brought them to America. Note that treating people as chattel goods is '''not''' what trade is all about. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:12, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

:I would not say that point is being "missed", when I had addressed it quite specifically. Why does ''triangular trade'' imply significant trade of finished manufactured goods? Why does the three legs of the triangle have to be "equal" (which basically just means that WE set a subjective value for the trade goods, by today's standards; not taking into account that the goods were actually sufficient to buy humans in Africa, which, in a context of trade, would in fact imply they were "equal")? [[User:Crucialwood|Crucialwood]] 23:28, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal rant ==

This isn't an essay, rather an intellectually shallow, and unsourced bullet list of jingoistic propositions.

Example:
''1. That "Yankee ingenuity" (American inventions) far surpassed the rest of the world, and brought great wealth to it''

This is a useless assertion,if not outright jingoistic, as "Yankee ingenuity" (please define this term more exactly if you can) took place over a broad time period of competing inventions from Europe. Additionally, many "Yankee inventions" were conceptualized by foreign nationals, see for example the machine gun, nuclear fission, rocket science (the last two being the key factors in American hegemonic rise in the late 20th century) Additionally, you really need to define Yankee and even American nation. A great argument can be made that it didn't exist until the cusp of the American revolution (if by Yankee innovation you're referring to early history).

''5. That hard work was the key to the success of many Americans.''

It's not an American trait purely, you're referring to the "Protestant Work Ethic", a Weberian Thesis.
See for example ,for an overview;

"A. Furnham, The Protestant Work Ethic: A Review of the Psychological Literature, European Journal of Social Psychology, 14:1, pp 87-104

''6. That most great Americans, from Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Edison, were homeschooled.''

Irrelevant in the context of the educational standards of the day. Public education was rare and basic, private tutelage was the method of education for upper class families since time immemorial until the modern advent of public education.

10. That Rhode Island and Thomas Jefferson, and their view of a "separation of church and state," had no role in the formation of the Constitution.

False, Citation needed before I'll accept that.

''12. That "anti-imperialism" movements against the United States were really communist or Muslim movements against Christianity, as in denying the Islamic basis for the Philippine insurgency around 1900.''

False, Ditto #10. Additionally,You need to prove the presence of Muslim movements against Christian's as a theme in colonial conflict,a great argument can be made that Islamic resistance movements are solely a product of decolonization. Finally, you need to prove that these communist or muslim resistance groups are fighting for Marx or Muhammad rather than masking anti-imperial or nationalist urges with a thin cover of ideology.

''15. That President FDR did not end the Great Depression, and may have prolonged it.''

Arguable, citation needed. Argument against see:

Gauti Eggertsson, Great Expectations and the End of the Depression, American Economic Review, 98:4,2008,pp 1476-1516

''17. That President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy was key to ending the Cold War.
''
False. Shows a gross misunderstanding of the full view, jingoistic. Author needs to review the literature on Perestroika, and Glasnost, as well as passive resistance within the Soviet Union . Should also review the role of Yeltsin, and the presidents of Ukraine and Belorussia in the immediate period pre-dissolution. Argument should be that Reagan played a crucial role rather than the key role in my opinion.

''18. That NO "triangular trade" existed in the 17th and 18th centuries with the New World[1]''

Irrelevant, straw man argument. Triangle trade is no longer explained as tangible trade routes, rather as a historical construction to understand flows of commerce and explanations for slavery and the first explosion of imperialism in the 17th century. Analogous to the Columbian exchange. Triangle trade not taken absolutely seriously as a tangible fact since '70;s.

See Gilman Ostrander, The making of the Traignular trade myth, The william and mary quarterly, 3:30:4, 1973, pp 635-644

== Reply ==

:REPLY:

:''1. That "Yankee ingenuity" (American inventions) far surpassed the rest of the world, and brought great wealth to it''

:This is a useless assertion,if not outright jingoistic, as "Yankee ingenuity" (please define this term more exactly if you can) took place over a broad time period of competing inventions from Europe. Additionally, many "Yankee inventions" were conceptualized by foreign nationals, see for example the machine gun, nuclear fission, rocket science (the last two being the key factors in American hegemonic rise in the late 20th century) Additionally, you really need to define Yankee and even American nation. A great argument can be made that it didn't exist until the cusp of the American revolution (if by Yankee innovation you're referring to early history).

::You're in absurd denial here. There's no disputing that a vast majority of wealth-enhancing inventions have been American.

:''5. That hard work was the key to the success of many Americans.''

:It's not an American trait purely, you're referring to the "Protestant Work Ethic", a Weberian Thesis.
See for example ,for an overview;

:"A. Furnham, The Protestant Work Ethic: A Review of the Psychological Literature, European Journal of Social Psychology, 14:1, pp 87-104

::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world.

:''6. That most great Americans, from Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Edison, were homeschooled.''

:Irrelevant in the context of the educational standards of the day. Public education was rare and basic, private tutelage was the method of education for upper class families since time immemorial until the modern advent of public education.

::You're clueless. Try reading [[homeschooling]] with an open-mind and then let's discuss. Contributions by homeschoolers far surpass, in proportionate terms, contributions by people who went to public school.

::Before I waste time further on this discussion, can you indicate how you do on [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I'll do an [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]] when you discover the "liberal art of citation of sources".

"::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world." - Apparently you've never seen a malaysian work camp, I'd love to see an American work that hard. 12 hour shifts, diet cap of 1200 calories a day (less than a slice of pizza) In fact, if you leave the United States and Europe

:I'd ask you to cite a source, but since you're banned you can't. I'd have to check the math, but I don't think 1200 calories a day is sufficient to sustain hard labor. Don't U.S. lumberjacks eat over 5,000 calories a day? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:07, 27 December 2009 (EST)

::In this user's absence, I'm happy to provide two sources for you: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_hou_wor-labor-hours-worked this one] and [http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2008/11/hours-worked-per-year.html this one]. It looks like Australians, Japanese, and Koreans do indeed work a little harder on average (Koreans much harder).

::While the Malaysian labor camps may not exactly have been germane to this point, he didn't pull it out of thin air. A google search revealed [http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/24563-human-trafficking-malaysians-extort-thais-ignore this] and [http://209.85.135.132/search?q=cache:_rwpDZ6oTS8J:www.kanlungan.ngo.ph/Resources/Malaysia_Sic%2520Country.pdf+malaysian+workers+underfed&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk this] detailing labor camp workers being underfed. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 14:22, 27 December 2009 (EST)

== "Liberal Response" ==

You're in absurd denial here. There's no disputing that a vast majority of wealth-enhancing inventions have been American.
1] Ad Hominem, but I did it too, so it's acceptable in the context
2]"Ridiculous fallacy" - it's ridiculous to you, so you brush it off
3]"correlation doesnt lead to causation" - Because a lot of inventions are from the United States, it doesn't mean that the vast majority are, doesn't mean that they're invented by Americans, doesn't mean it's a specific American trait , to innovate.

"::It's an undeniable fact: Americans work harder than the rest of the world." -

Apparently you've never seen a malaysian work camp, I'd love to see an American work that hard. 12 hour shifts, diet cap of 1200 calories a day (less than a slice of pizza) By rest of the world you mean Europe, which is true, European workers are lazy socialists, but take a job with a chinese labourer or a korean , even a japanese guy, much harder workers than the average American

1] Undeniable fact- can't remember which logical fallacy that is, but it's a major one. All facts are deniable, and in this case easily.
2] Vast generalisation, needs proof.

You're clueless. Try reading [[homeschooling]] with an open-mind and then let's discuss. Contributions by homeschoolers far surpass, in proportionate terms, contributions by people who went to public school.

1]Ad hominen
2]didn't mention homeschooling, mentioned the historical context of Thomas Jefferson and Abe Lincoln. you're homeschooling program has no correlation with the 19th century "home schooling". The contexts and curriculum are quite different. You're welcome to disagree, let's see the sources.

::Before I waste time further on this discussion, can you indicate how you do on [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I'll do an [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|open-mindedness test]] when you discover the "liberal art of citation of sources". I've seen no counter poiunts here except pointless logical fallacies.

::You still won't admit that the vast majority of inventions have been American? Look, you have free will to deny basic facts, but your denial is astounding.

::Re: homeschooling, people and homeschooling were not that different 150 years ago. Moreover, you seem to confuse cause with effect. The point is about the positive effect of homeschooling, regardless of the motivation. I realize that Germany bans homeschooling and England is over-regulating it, but it remains productive at a far greater level than its percentages. And this has always been true, as numerous examples [[homeschooling|here]] illustrate.

::If you were genuinely interested in logic, then you'd spend some time reading or translating the Bible, the most logical book of all. But I suspect you're more interested in trying to reject the Bible than giving it equal time in your activities. Am I right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Now that was a better point, which I can concede on. As per the bible, I'm [[Plymouth Brethren]], rejecting the bible isn't in my "Modus Operandi".--[[User:JeffD|JeffD]] 22:01, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Interesting. We seem to have quite an entry on that denomination.

:I don't mean to single you out. There seem to be many people who read everything ''except'' the most logical book of all, the Bible. Lots of people even claim to be well-read yet complete avoid and even censor this most influential and most widely read book of all. Objectively, such an approach is ... not logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 18 December 2009 (EST)

== Communism ==

The fact that the McCarthy article was featured on the main page recently got me to thinking: liberals, in general, try to gloss over the fact that there was good reason for people to be concerned about the threat posed by Communism. Public schools will teach the "Red Scares," for example, but seldom mention the reasons behind the concern--for instance, the 1919 bombing attacks against major American industrialists and government officials.

Should the fact that liberals deny that Communism was a serious threat be included? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:25, 16 December 2009 (EST)

I'm just reading "48 Liberal Lies about American History" now, and I bet I'll be able to add a whole bunch of stuff to this page soon! See the table of contents [http://books.google.com/books?id=A3Muu2TsOioC&dq=48+Liberal+Lies+About+American+History&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=QA7LddEssH&sig=lepXhrknDTwEN9HCN8AwB-RcOA8&hl=en&ei=qWAxS4aQBoPAsQP4yoG7BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=&f=false here]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:16, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== One question ==

Guys, let's face it. There's (as of... Now) three notes on this page, and only one reference to another source (which I personally find a bit suspect, but that might just be me...)

Umm... That means there's a lot of unsourced claims where it should be at least 72 sources (one that cite that it is something that liberals deny (or claim) about history, and one to point out why it's wrong)

Well anyway... Have fun :) [[User:SaWi|SaWi]] 16:11, 1 March 2011 (EST)

== Thomas Jefferson ==

So he's listed as being a failure and an unsuccessful president, and had little to do with the Declaration of Independence. However, the article for him on Conservapedia says he had a successful first term as president, followed by a poor 2nd term, and the [[Declaration of Independence]] article says:
<blockquote>
Early drafts [of the Declaration] exist dating to June 1776.[3] Jefferson's colleagues Benjamin Franklin and Adams made small changes in his draft text and Congress made more. The finished document, which both declared independence and proclaimed a philosophy of government, '''was singly and peculiarly Jefferson's.'''
</blockquote>

So at least the part about the Declaration of Independence should be removed, or the articles changed to reflect his small role in the Declaration. --[[User:MarkN85|MarkN85]] 14:30, 28 April 2011 (EDT)

== Rubbish ==

90% of the stuff on this page is unsourced rubbish. either the 'liberal historians' don't deny whatever the allegation is, or else the allegation is not true. There is also some stuff that's pretty subjective, so while the interpretation that this article gives is valid, it does not mean that competing allegations are false. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 20:39, 17 October 2012 (EDT)

== colonialism ==

colonialism was universally good? Have you read about the Belgian Congo? How about the war for Algerian independence? What was the native population of North America before colonisation and what was it afterwards? How did they live then, and how do they live now? Are there African countries that are better off now than they were before they were colonised? I think colonialism is definitely good for a number of people in the colonising country, it is usually good for the colonising government, but it tends to be quite bad for the native population. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 00:03, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

== point by point. ==

much as it pains me to have to even engage with this stuff I will deal with most of the points that I actually know about. (I mostly won't use sources as that would take hours but if you have a specific objection then I will find one.)

1. subjective and jingoistic if not actually false.

2. Maybe. This one is again pretty subjective, but has some merit. There would be a lot of textbooks that agree with you though.

3. Two points here. for the first one, I don't think that textbooks do deny that there were non-racist reasons to be against immigration. Second point I don't know enough about, but the North's larger population (a result of immigration) surely had some impact on the war.

4. I don't think that this is really a distortion, textbooks just have a tendency to focus on the positive elements of unions, such as the advances in workers rights that they won. And was the violence really so 'senseless'? particularly in the nineteenth century the working conditions were in fact abysmal, and I believe that you will find that a large proportion of the violence in labour conflicts was initiated by the employers or police trying to break up strikers (an american example of some of the worse violence would I think be in 1914, ludlow, colorado?) anyway again it's quite a subjective issue of how much weight to put on different interpretations.

5. Eh? Find me a book that denies this.

6. there were no public schools so this doesn't even need to be mentioned (I'm sure that specific biographies would mention how they were educated)

7,8,9,10. Too american for me to comment.

11. What history books say that? Perhaps they would say that Reagan was the beginning of a 'New Conservatism' or something but they don't say that there were no conservatives prior to that date.

12. The Philippine rebellion against the US was led by anti-imperialist intellectuals, mostly Catholics and while the Moro certainly supported the war, and were some of the last holding out, the majority of the Philippine manpower was Roman Catholic or following some syncretic version (see the Pulahan for instance). I would be very surprised if a majority-Catholic movement could be characterized as being 'against Christianity'

13. When has this been denied, and what's 'liberal' about that?

14. Ditto.

15. Subjective. Others would say that his policies did help.

16. I don't really know enough about this or the historiography around it.

17. May be true. most historians would I think put more emphasis on other factors.

18. Oh, so slave traders were just given slaves for free? the version of the triangle trade that appears in school textbooks may be an over-simplification, but it is a valid historical model.

19. This one is somewhat more valid. However you will find a number of history books that agree with this, and a number of occasions where the Catholic church was opposed to new science.

20. I have a more specific comment above. I don't agree with the premise of this. For instance, the bit about democracy, when in most cases the native population wanted independence, but the colonising power refused to grant it. I will say that I do find it ironic when Americans promote imperialism seeing as their own country is the result of an anti-imperialist revolt. (You did engage in a lot of colonialism on your own though)

21. Ha ha. lol.

22. Subjective.

General bias. this section is almost completely subjective and very vague.

1. Not anymore. the 'great men' theory of history is not used much any more. There is a lot more emphasis on social history, or greater trends that lead to events.

2. Are they really more important?

3. what is the 'true' importance of popularity?

4. How much significance is 'really' warranted by presidential elections?

5. Have they? A lot of this depends on your definition of 'conservative'.

6. when have textbooks ever done this? I don't think any do.

Specific truths.

1. correlation does not imply causation. I read a couple of posts defending this point, and they are predicated on the church always opposing slavery. This unfortunately was not true, the southern churches were great supporters of slavery.

3. In the broader sense yes, but it is not really something significant enough to be mentioned. While talking about medieval Europe chivalry in the traditional sense would be mentioned.

5. What about the working classes? And 'the world' is certainly an overstatement.

6. I think most textbooks would acknowledge this if they mentioned anything about education. I'm sure I've seen it a number of places.

7. This is a genuine difference in interpretation. Few historians would agree that atheism was the cause. This is an actual disagreement.

8. don't really know whether american books would mention this or not. no comment.

9. Very few people would agree that Lenin oppressed the russians 'as thoroughly as Stalin', and I would say that this is pretty subjective.

10. Nazi's are almost uniformly described as right wing. They were extreme nationalists and favoured capitalism. The number of people who disagree is very small, and they are almost universally American, and very recent.

11. What textbooks deny this? All the ones that I've ever read mention it, and about how Lincoln was the first Republican president and all that.

12. Ok, I'd never heard of that, so maybe that one is true.

If no one objects, I will take out some of the more ridiculous bits. Thanks, [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 03:10, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

And now there is a new point.

13. see 21. and add 'rotflol' and also the spelling's atrocious. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:55, 22 October 2012 (EDT)

And one i forgot to General bias.

23. patently false. The Crusades, The reconquista, the Russian conquest of siberia, British India, etc., etc. etc. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 10:20, 22 October 2012 (EDT)