Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Obama Administration

2011-06-10T06:20:21Z

DevonJ: /* See also */ Do you know what? Crappy "essays" and "hit pieces" shouldn't be linked into the mainspace.

The '''Obama Administration''' is the Executive Department portion of the U.S. government controlled by the [[progressive]] liberal, [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] [[Presidents of the United States|President]] [[Barack Hussein Obama]]; it began on January 20, 2009 for a term of four years. [[File:Obama-poll.jpg|thumb|330px|Excitement for Obama was very high before people understood his plans; enthusiasm has plunged as criticism becomes sharper and strong opponents grow more numerous than strong supporters]] Shortly after taking office President Obama's popularity sagged, his party weakened and opportunities for celebrating achievements dissipated. Contentious town-hall meetings criticized the injustice of his health care proposals, [[Barack Obama and United States Unemployment|unemployment grew]], the stimulus did not stimulate, Democrats bickered more than usual, grim forecasts of failure came from his generals in Afghanistan. Accused of [[socialism]], he was branded in Congress as a liar. He was criticized first for not making his case, and then for overexposure, as he deliberately put into the shadows everyone in his cabinet. Obama’s inexperience in domestic and foreign affairs worsened his troubles. Nothing worked right--he was embarrassed by winning the Nobel Peace Prize before any of his goals had been accomplished.

A Republican revival took form as the party won gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, and the Democrats continued in disarray in New York, Texas and California. Even more dramatic was the win by Republican [[Scott Brown]] of the Senate seat held by the late [[Edward M. Kennedy]] in Massachusetts, which was widely interpreted as a referendum on Obama's policies.

Obama's [[Recovery Summer]] in 2010 provided further disappointment and suffering for Americans with rising unemployment, [[GDP]] growth estimates revised down, and further declines in Obama's approval ratings. However Obama was able to maintain a steady schedule of vacations, parties and weekend get-aways at Camp David. By the Spring of his second year only 38% of voters surveyed said Obama deserves re-election, with 55% wanting someone new. A [[Gallup Poll]] had the president's support slipping among Hispanics and African-Americans. A large majority of Americans, 69%, believe the nation is on the wrong track.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html</ref>

==Economic Policy==
The Obama administration initially followed what fiscal conservatives and libertarians call [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].
[[File:Varvel-11-19-09.jpg|thumb|330px|right|Gary Varvel pokes fun at VP Biden's outlandish claims]]

===Background===
Following the [[Recession of 2008]] Obama declared that failure to pass his [[Economic stimulus]] would turn a "crisis into a catastrophe," and promised [[Unemployment]] would not rise above 7.8%.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html Obama's Stimulus Plan: Failing by Its Own Measure,] Stephen Gandel, ''TIME'', July 14, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31165217/ Obama promises economic relief this summer], AP, 6/8/2009.</ref> The House on Jan. 28 passed a stimulus package‎ of $819 billion in new spending and tax increases, despite unanimous Republican opposition. A revised bill passed the Senate with three Republican votes. A compromise bill known as the "[[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009]]" was passed, providing for $789 billion in new spending and stimulus.

Detroit spread gloom on Feb. 17 as GM starkly warned of impending bankruptcy unless it gets more aid. By August, both Chrysler and GM had entered bankruptcy, and come out again in much smaller size, as they closed a fourth of their dealerships, slashed wage rates, and repaid creditors with 29 cents on the dollar. The government gave Chrysler away free to Fiat of Italy, which acquired ownership without investing any money. Meanwhile the part makers, which employ more workers than the Big Three automakers, verged on disaster and begged for billions. The "[[cash for clunkers]]" proved to be a boondoggle for the rich at a cost of $3 billion to the Treasury.

===Obama policies problematic, say economists and public===
In the view of 51 mostly conservative economists polled by the ''Wall Street Journal'' in July 2009, the Obama administration's economic program is problematic. President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner both got an average grade of 70 out of 100 for their handling of the financial crisis, but those grades varied widely.<ref>Obama scored 59 in March 2009, Geithner 51, and Bernanke 71. See Phil Izzo, "Obama, Geithner Get Low Grades From Economists," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123671107124286261.html ''Wall Street Journal'' March 11, 2009]</ref> Former President Bush and ex-Treasury chief Paulson received average grades of 50 and 60, respectively, when economists were asked how they handled the crisis while in office. By contrast, Fed chairman Bernanke scored much better, with an average grade of 85.<ref>Phil Izzo, "Few Economists Favor More Stimulus," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124708099206913393.html ''Wall Street Journal'' July 10, 2009] </ref>
[[Image:Stim1.jpg|thumb|380px|Cartoonist Chuck Asay summarizes the debate]]

The economists were pessimistic, predicting the economy would shed another 2.8 million jobs over the next 12 months after the presidents program was passed.<ref>The Unemployment rate climbed to 9.5% in June 2009, then hit 10,2% in October, as the GDP fell at an alarming -6.4% annual rate in the first quarter of 2009.</ref> Economists see a one-in-six chance that the U.S. will fall into a depression, defined as a decline in per-person GDP or consumption by 10% or more. They gave equally poor marks to the efforts of other countries to end the recession.

The economists, however, were broadly supportive of the Federal Reserve. Over 85% agreed that its proliferating lending programs are well-designed, well-executed and helping the economy.

In June 2009 public opinion was favorable toward Obama personally, but increasingly dubious about his plans to overhaul health care, bailout the auto industry and close the prison at Guantánamo Bay. With a positive job approval rating of 63% , Mr. Obama had the backing of Democrats and independents alike, with only 23% of Republicans expressing approval. Support for Obama's foreign policies and terrorism policies originally was high at 57-59%.

Billionaire [[Warren Buffett]], former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, and former Clinton Treasury Secretary [[Robert Rubin]] constituted Obama's transition team of Economic Advisers.<ref>[ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aSzNv81CYh0c Obama to Meet With Buffett, Daley, Economic Advisers], Bloomberg, Nov. 6 2008.</ref> Rubin was being sharply criticized for his role in the collapse of [[Citigroup]] which needed $45 billion in federal [[bailout]] money.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0930738020090109 Robert Rubin quits Citigroup amid criticism], Reuters, Jan 9, 2009</ref> Buffett, after the inauguration, spoke out against the administration's declared objective of not allowing "a crisis to go to waste" [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/03/buffett_hits_obama_congress_on.html] and Obama's massive tax increase on the needy and those least able to afford it. [http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/buffett-cap-and-trade-is-a-regressive-tax/]

==== FY 2010 Budget ====
[[Image:Budget-cbo.jpg|thumb|250px|left]]
The Democratic controlled Congress by a party line vote in late April passed the budget Obama proposed in late February. It called for $3.4 trillion in new spending, not counting the $787 billion in stimulus spending approved in February, nor the trillions in loan guarantees to banks. The 2010 budget allocated $1.2 trillion for defense, and an additional $130 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nondefense spending increased by 8% or $40 billion. The budget allowed the Obama health plan, which had not yet been written, to move through Congress on a fast track with no risk of filibuster.

The Tax Foundation says that 44% of all tax filers have no tax liability and most of those will get a check from the government, especially from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)<ref> EITC is a conservative idea first proposed by Milton Friedman, enacted under Republican presidents Ford and Reagan.</ref> and credits for college tuition and child care. The ''Wall Street Journal'' noted about Obama's plan that, "Once upon a time we called this 'welfare'". <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html</ref>

The Budget assumes a federal deficit of $1.75 trillion for 2009, or 12.3% of GDP--the highest deficit in percentage terms since World War II. The budget reordered priorities to provide national health care and raise the federal spending on schools.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the Obama plans will raise the national debt far more than Obama admitted. The CBO says the Obama plan will cause total deficits over the next ten years of $9.3 trillion, compared to Obama's estimate of "only" 7 trillion. The annual GDP by contrast is about $15 trillion.<ref> Jackie Calmes, "New Deficit Forecast Casts Shadow on Obama Agenda," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/washington/21deficit.html?th&emc=th ''New York Times'' Mar. 20, 2009]</ref> Senator Jedd Gregg says that Obama's budget will double the national debt in five years and triple it in ten. <ref>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/25/judd-gregg/judd-gregg-says-obamas-budget-doubles-national-deb/</ref>

Obama proposed a carbon [[cap and trade]] system, increasing taxes for families and businesses. The cost to energy consumers would be an additional $645 billion between 2012 and 2019, which will result in higher prices. Rep. John Boehner said, "Let's just be honest and call it a carbon tax that will increase taxes on all Americans who drive a car, who have a job, who turn on a light switch, pure and simple."<ref>see [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123566843777484625.html comment from conservative newspaper]</ref>

The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee was conservative Democrat [[Kent Conrad]] of [[North Dakota]], a deficit hawk who said he was "very uncomfortable with the build-up of debt" and urged Obama to make good on his promise to overhaul federal retirement and health-care programs. Conrad called for "more discipline on the spending side."<ref> [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/28/AR2009022801960.html?hpid=topnews ''Washington Post'' Mar. 1, 2009]</ref>

The Obama Administration based its domestic policies on the assumption of a rapid economic recovery generating the tax revenue needed to fund permanent new spending program for [[Obamacare]] and "greening the economy". Administration forecasts were more starry-eyed than private sector forecasts. Both parties agree that stimulus spending is needed to deal with the recession but Congress is unlikely to approve permanent new spending programs unless the economy improves, since a large number of conservative Democrats were elected who may vote with Republicans to keep down spending and deficits.<ref> Peter S. Goodman, "Sharper Downturn Clouds Obama Spending Plans," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/economy/28recession.html?_r=1&th&emc=th ''Washington Post'' Feb. 27, 2009]</ref>

==== FY 2011 Budget ====
The [[Democrat]]ic Congress failed to pass, and President Obama did not sign, a budget for fiscal year 2011, as required by law.

==== FY 2012 Budget====
Obama was roundly criticized for ignoring recommendations of his own Deficit Reduction Commission in his proposed 2012 Budget.<ref>http://www.askheritage.org/where-does-obamas-budget-proposal-fall-short/</ref> Obama's proposals did nothing to address the burgeoning budget deficit responsible for lagging job creation and the persistent [[unemployment]] which has become the hallmark of his time in office.<ref>http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9MOJ3VG0.htm</ref> In response to [[Republican]] counter-proposals, rather than address substantive issues of reform, Obama descended into ''[[ad hominem]]'' attacks against advocates of improving the delivery of government services.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/24/112725/obama-paints-rep-ryan-as-the-gop.html</ref><ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/04/23/the_unhappy_president_109638.html</ref>

Obama's proposed increases in spending, taxes, and debt to historic highs and doubling the [[national debt]] over pre-[[2008 recession]] levels with no significant reforms to underlying problems. Obama's proposal failed to meet his own pledge to cut the deficit in half during his first term.<ref>Barack Obama, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-of-president-barack-obama-address-to-joint-session-of-congress “Address to Joint Session of Congress,”] February 24, 2009. Retreived from whitehouse.gov, April 27, 2011.</ref>

===Obama Care===
:''Main article : '''[[ObamaCare]]'''''
With a monopoly on power in Obama's first two years, the Democratic Congress moved to create a government run insurance program that would put private sector insurers out of business. Obama proposed funding the program with higher taxes "on wealthy Americans". <ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-care26-2009feb26,0,1056744.story</ref> The new law mandates private citizens to purchase health insurance under the threat of legal sanctions for non-compliance.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/02/senate-democrats-trim-cost-health-care/</ref> Critics dubbed the law [[Gestapo care]].

Obama was unconvincing to most Americans. Few saw any advantage in his proposals, and everyone can see the monumental costs. Contrary to his campaign vows for openness and transparency in government, Obama cut closed door back room deals with big drug companies and insurers, and was not upfront with the American people. Polls show a steady decline in support for [[Obamacare]] as the public learned more about it. (By contrast, he had 57% approval on health issues in April 2009).<ref> ''Washington Post'' July 20, 2009</ref> Conservative Democrats in Congress--who call themselves "[[Blue Dog Democrats]]"---were reluctant to sign on to any proposal costing a trillion dollars over the next decade. The controversy lowered Obama's overall approval and was a major factor in the [[2010 Midterm elections]] which ousted the Democratic majority from the House.

===Bailouts===
After spending over a trillion dollars in cash and guarantees (by Bush and Obama combined), the [[bailout]] of the financial system by October 2009 seemed to have rewarded the big banks but failed to stimulate the economy and job creation. Obama started to decline in the polls, as independents and Republicans became increasingly critical. A firestorm erupted in March when it was learned that AIG insurance company, now 80% government owned, was paying $165 million in bonuses to the traders that had caused $60 billion in losses. Geithner was appointed to the Treasury largely on the basis of his work at the New York Fed, where his most important action was to design the bailout of AIG. Under Geithner AIG received $170 billion from the government.
[[Image:Toxic-assets.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Geithner plans to sell toxic assets to Wall Street]]
With major banks on the verge of failure, Treasury Secretary [[Timothy Geithner]] unveiled yet another massive bailout program in mid-February. Trillions would be spent to move toxic assets out of the banks, but few details were provided. The widespread reaction was very negative, and Geithner lost more of his credibility as a problem solver. Geithner finally came back with a plan on March 23 that did not need additional funding or approval by Congress. The Treasury used $100 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), as well as new capital from private investors, in order to generate $500 billion to buy toxic loans and assets. The program could potentially expand to $1 trillion over time. In June some of the major banks started to repay their federal loans.

[[Image:Jobs09q1.jpg|thumb|250px]] [[Image:Job-loss-09.jpg|thumb|250px|US job losses January 1-March 31, 2009]]

The Federal Reserve in June said conditions deteriorated in many regions of the country, with commercial real estate and labor markets in deep trouble. The Fed did not forecast a significant boost in economic activity in 2009. Despite costly government efforts to encourage borrowing, it remained very difficult for consumers and businesses to obtain loans.

The General Motors bailout, which Obama promised would make taxpayers money, resulted in an $11 billion loss;<ref>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/taxpayers-to-lose-at-least-11-billion-on-general-motors-bailout/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OTB+%28Outside+The+Beltway+%7C+OTB%29</ref> however Democratic Congressional seats in the areas affected that recieved the aid, remained Democratic in the [[2010 Midterm elections]] despite the persistent high unemployment among workers who were not directly employed in the auto industry in those same districts.

===Education===
To the angst of liberal supporters, the administration's first proposals for school reform relied heavily on Bush-era ingredients and adds others that make unions gag. They include standardized testing, school accountability, performance pay, and charter schools -- all of which are integral to Obama'a $4.35 billion "Race to the Top" grant competition to spur innovation. Liberals dislike all these new ideas. "It looks like the only strategies they have are charter schools and measurement," protested Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. "That's Bush III."<ref> See [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092403197.html Nick Anderson, "Unions Criticize Obama's School Proposals as 'Bush III'"], ''Washington Post'' Sept. 25, 2009</ref>

Obama and the Democrats successfully killed the Washington D.C. school voucher program which granted school choice to primarily poor African-American and minority families and children.<ref>http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-11/politics/martin.vouchers_1_vouchers-school-choice-democrats?_s=PM:POLITICS</ref> After the 2010 Midterm elections the [[Republican]]s revived the program.<ref>http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2011/03/republicans-care-more-about-poor-children-than-democrats-d-c-vouchers-restored-in-house-vote.html</ref>

===Internet Regulation===
Before the Obama administration began forcing its [[big government]] agenda into all spheres of the economy, the [[Internet]] was open and adaptive because it was free of government regulation.<ref>Conn Carroll. [http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/27/if-the-fcc-had-regulated-the-internet/ If the FCC Had Regulated the Internet], blog.heritage.org, December 27, 2010.</ref> A ''[[Rasmussen Reports]]'' survey found that only 21 percent (21%) of likely U.S. Voters wanted the [[Federal Communications Commission]] (FCC) to regulate the Internet as it does [[radio]] and [[television]]. Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters said they believe that the FCC would use its regulatory authority to promote a political agenda.<ref>The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters nationwide was conducted on December 23, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2010/just_21_want_fcc_to_regulate_internet_most_fear_regulation_would_promote_political_agenda Just 21% Want FCC to Regulate Internet, Most Fear Regulation Would Promote Political Agenda], ''[[Rasmussen Reports]]'', December 28, 2010/</ref> But [[President Obama|President Obama's]] appointed FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, along with three other Democrats on the commission, helped craft a plan to impose so-called "[[net neutrality]]" rules on [[Internet service providers]], by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings.<ref>James Gattuso, “FCC’s Christmas Gift for the Internet: Net Neutrality Regulation,” The Foundry, December 1, 2010, at [http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/01/fcc%e2%80%99s-christmas-gift-for-the-internet-net-neutrality-regulation http://blog.heritage.org/2010/12/01/fcc%e2%80%99s-christmas-gift-for-the-internet-net-neutrality-regulation].</ref><ref>'[[Net neutrality]]' sounds nice, but the [[World Wide Web|Web]] is working fine now. The new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation and create a billable-hours bonanza for lawyers. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395204576023452250748540.html The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom], ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', By Robert M. McDowell, December 19, 2010.</ref><ref>The Federal Communications Commission approved a plan to regulate the [[Internet]] despite warnings that it could strangle industry investment and damage an economy that is still struggling to recover. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/21/fcc-poised-pass-network-neutrality-rules/ FCC Approves Plan to Regulate Internet], [[Fox News|FoxNew.com]], Published December 21, 2010.</ref> In doing so, the agency will circumvent [[Congress]] and disregard a federal court ruling; a federal appeals court in [[Washington D.C.]] previously ruled that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did not authorize the FCC to regulate Internet use, and therefore that the FCC had no statutory authority to do so.<ref>Lachlan Markay. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/12/21/opponents-fccs-new-internet-regulations-vow-swift-recourse Opponents of FCC's New Internet Regulations Vow Swift Recourse], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', December 21, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2010/04/fcc-and-net-neutrality-supporters-lose-case-against-comcast.html F.C.C. (and Net Neutrality Supporters) Lose Case Against Comcast], By Joel Zand on April 6, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/12/Red-Tape-Under-the-Tree-FCC-Plans-Internet-Regulation-for-Christmas Red Tape Under the Tree: FCC Plans Internet Regulation for Christmas], heritage.org, Published on December 17, 2010 by James Gattuso.
*WebMemo On [http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Regulation Regulation], ''[[The Heritage Foundation]]''.</ref>

As the Obama administration moved to implement big government policies by regulating use of the Internet, President Obama put plans in motion to give the [[Commerce Department]] authority to create an Internet ID for all [[Americans]]. The Obama administration wants to create a national "Internet ID" card to expand its goal of a government-controlled system.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/08/report-obama-administration-plans-create-internet-id-americans/ Obama Administration Reportedly Plans to Create Internet ID for All Americans], [[Fox News|FoxNews.com]], Published January 08, 2011.</ref>

==Foreign Policy==

===Guantanamo Bay===

On January 22, 2009 a press release claimed Barack Obama ordered the closing of the [[Guantanamo Bay]] detention camp within the year 2009. <ref>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=barack+obama+guantanamo+bay&aq=4&oq=Barack+Obama+g&aqi=g10</ref> The camp has yet to be closed.

===Libya===
[[File:Obama Nobel Peace Prize winner.jpg|thumb|right|'''Nobel Peace Prize winner'''. An Arab depiction after Obama attacked Libya.]]
:''Main article : [[Libyan uprising 2011]]''
Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] advocated a no-fly policy, President Obama said he wanted it as an option, and Secretary of Defense [[Robert Gates]] warned against it.<ref>''[http://liveweb.web.archive.org/http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gates-clinton-libyan-fly-zone-difficult/story?id=13037200 President Obama Wants Options as Pentagon Issues Warnings About Libyan No-Fly Zone,]'' [[ABC News]], March 3, 2011. Earlier, on February 25, Gates warned that the U.S. should avoid future land wars like those it has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, but should not forget the difficult lessons it has learned from those conflicts.</ref>

Prof. Alan J. Kuperman writing in the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' observed,
{{cquote|President Barack Obama grossly exaggerated the humanitarian threat to justify military action in Libya. The president claimed that intervention was necessary to prevent a “bloodbath’’ in Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city and last rebel stronghold. But [[Human Rights Watch]] has released data on Misurata, the next-biggest city in Libya and scene of protracted fighting, revealing that Moammar Khadafy is not deliberately massacring civilians but rather narrowly targeting the armed rebels who fight against his government. Misurata’s population is roughly 400,000. In nearly two months of war, only 257 people — including combatants — have died there. Of the 949 wounded, only 22 — less than 3 percent — are women…. Nor did Khadafy ever 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>Alan J. Kuperman, [http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions “False Pretense for War in Libya?”], [[Boston Globe]], April 14, 2011.</ref>}}

The Congressional Research Service reports that the legality of President Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan operation]] may depend, at a minimum, on both authorization for the operation and the extent to which the manner of execution of the operation comports with relevant international law. The Charter of the United Nations, in Article 2(4), prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of a member state under most circumstances, and many practitioners and observers have wondered whether President Obama's establishment of a no-fly zone would constitute a violation of this prohibition.<ref>''[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41701.pdf No-Fly Zones: Strategic, Operational, and Legal Considerations for Congress],'' Congressional Research Service, March 18, 2011, p. 6-8 pdf.</ref> In addition to international authorization, the [[War Powers Resolution]] of 1973 states that the President’s powers as Commander in Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities can only be exercised pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. It requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization. The War Powers Act also requires the President to report to Congress any introduction of forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities, Section 4(a)(1); into foreign territory while equipped for combat, Section 4(a)(2); or in numbers which substantially enlarge U.S. forces equipped for combat already in a foreign nation, Section 4(a)(3). Once a report is submitted “or required to be submitted” under Section 4(a)(1), Congress must authorize the use of force within 60 to 90 days or the forces must be withdrawn.<ref>Ibid, p. 9 pdf.</ref>

[[Democrat]]ic Representatives Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), [[Dennis Kucinich]] (Ohio), [[Maxine Waters]] (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), [[Barbara Lee]] (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during a Democratic Caucus meeting.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref> Senator [[Rand Paul]] (Ky.) alleged the actions show "contempt" for Congress, and along with Sen [[Mike Lee]] (Utah) introduced a resolution quoting candidate Obama’s own words when the he told the ''[[Boston Globe]],''
{{cquote|The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gop-senators-obama-s-libya-bombing-showe</ref>}}

===Afghanistan War===
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
The Afghanistan War is the NATO operation in [[Afghanistan]], 2001 to the present, to destroy the [[Taliban]] and prevent the formation of a base for Islamic militants to attack American interests. President Obama has declared it to be the central front in the war on terrorism and has ordered a buildup of American troops to fight a stubborn insurgency led by the Taliban. He has doubled American forces and is supported by most Republicans, but is opposed by many liberal Democrats, who fear another quagmire like Vietnam. [[File:Af-UStroops.jpg|thumb|left|350px]]

Conditions have turned much worse in late summer, as the much heralded national election was marked by widespread fraud and pessimism is spreading. Increasingly the main justification for the war, now 8 years old, is to prop up the shaky regime in neighboring [[Pakistan]]. NATO commander [[Stanley McChrystal]] has requested 30,000-40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. Obama, unused to such responsibility, dithered for three months before approving the urgent request. By early 2010 the US will have over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, triple the number when Obama took office. Conservatives have applauded the buildup.

American policy was increasing set by Defense Secretary [[Robert Gates]], originally appointed by President Bush in 2006 and reappointed by Obama in 2009. Gates fired the commander General David McKiernan in May, 2009, replacing him with McChrystal. Gates insisted on dropping the old strategy of hunting down insurgents and instead adopting a '''counterinsurgency''' strategy that focused on protecting local civilians and training Afghan soldiers and police to take over the job. Gates convinced Obama, who ordered 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan in Dec. 2009, with a deadline of 18 months, at which time a transition to Afghan responsibility would begin. Liberals thought Obama and Gates were making a big mistake--heading into another quagmire like Vietnam. However liberal Democrats in Congress will not try to block Obama's proposals, at least at this point.

Democrats are split not in two but in three: a small number of hawks who agree with his decision; a large number of doves who oppose it; and a sizable group that is uneasy with the Obama surge but willing to loyally support his decision. Most conservatives, on the other hand, see victory in Afghanistan as a vital national goal and approve the new strategy, while voicing objections to the 18 month deadline. Polls in mid-December show Republicans overwhelmingly supported the war, with 71% saying the country was doing the right thing compared to 21% who said it was not. By contrast, Democrats were evenly split, with 47% supporting the war and 46% opposing it.

Each 1000 American soldiers in Afghanistan cost a billion dollars a year; Speaker Pelosi has indicated that there will be no tax surcharge to pay for the operation.

===Iran===
During the 2008 campaign Obama promised direct talks [[Iran]]ian President [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]], a staunch enemy of the United States, who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," <ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20070927213903/http://www.iribnews.ir/Full_en.asp?news_id=200247</ref> and dismissed the [[Holocaust]] as a "myth." <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4529198.stm</ref> President Obama has supported Iran's nuclear program, which some argue is being used to develop weapons-grade material. <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_ok_iran_nukes/2009/04/06/200157.html</ref>

In 2009 Ahmadinejad was reelected to a second term after a controversial and disputed election. Charges of alleged voter fraud from the government resulted in massive protests in Iran and around the world. The government responded by violently suppressing the protesters, killing over 250 of them.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/25/opposition-alters-tactics-to-avoid-protest-deaths/</ref> Conservatives criticized Obama for failing to provide more vocal support for the pro-democracy protesters.

===Iraq===
{{main article|Operation Iraqi Freedom}}
On February 27, 2009 President Obama announced a deadline to withdrawal combat troops from [[Iraq]] by August 2010. However, 35,000 to 50,000 troops known as a "transitional force" to defend "civilian intersts" will remain. In June 2009, U.S. troops began to pull out of Iraq's major cities.<ref>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKrTBxDcg3RzbLdAkUnob12YI4WwD9959L780</ref> Conservatives are generally pleased that Obama has continued the successful Bush policies.

===Bahrain===
[[Image:Obamabow.jpg|thumb|right|250px|President Obama bows before Saudi King Abdullah.]]
Three days after [[Egypt]]ian President [[Hosni Mubarak]] resigned people in the small Gulf state of Bahrain took to the streets in the capital city of Manama. One month into the uprising, [[Saudi Arabia]] sent military and police forces across the border connecting the Saudi mainland to Bahrain. Since then, the protesters, the press and human-rights organizations have suffered increasingly violent repression. Bahrain is home of the [[U.S. Navy]]’s 5th Fleet, tasked with protecting the Strait of Hormuz, the [[Suez Canal]], and supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.<ref>http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php?story=20110414100300387</ref> Press spokesman Jim Carney stated the [[White House]] position, "This is not an invasion of a country."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/14/us-bahrain-usa-invasion-idUSTRE72D6RB20110314</ref>

Nabeel Rajab, president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, stated, "Hundreds of people are in jail for practicing their freedom of expression. People are tortured for expressing their freedom of expression. Thousands of people sacked from their jobs. ... And all that, because one day, a month ago, almost half of the Bahraini population came out in the street demanding [[democracy]] and respect for [[human rights]].”

===Eygpt===
During the Egyptian revolution of 2011, Obama Special Envoy Frank Wisner, Jr., flew to [[Egypt]] to persuade President [[Hosni Mubarak]] to cling to power.<ref>http://www.zerohedge.com/article/obama-special-envoy-cairo-calling-mubarak-stay-uncovered-be-mubarak-payroll</ref>

===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 rifle]]s 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 White House chief of staff [[Rahm Emanuel]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html</ref> Gun dealers have been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.

==Environmental policy==
[[File:Slide 6569 89213 small.jpg|right|300px|thumb|President Obama waited nine days before his first response and photo-op in the Gulf oil spill disaster.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/opinion/01sat1.html</ref>]]
:''Main article : '''''[[Gulf oil spill disaster]]'''

The ''[[New York Times]]'' has reported since January 2009 the [[Obama]] administration has approved at least three huge oil and gas lease sales, 103 seismic blasting projects and 346 oil drilling plans.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html?partner=rss&emc=rss U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits,] Ian Urbina, ''New York Times'', 13 May 2010. Retrieved 28 May 2010.</ref> Documents from the [[Department of Interior]]'s [[Mineral Management Service]] (MMS) show that permission for those projects and plans was granted without getting the permits required under federal law.<ref>''NYT'', ibid.</ref> Federal records show one of the permits issued was for the well drilled by the Deepwater Horizon rig, which exploded on 20 April 2010, killing 11 workers<ref>''NYT,'' ibid.</ref> and resulting in nearly 30 million barrels of [[crude oil]] dumped into the [[Gulf of Mexico]], contaminating shorelines and killing wildlife, and by far the largest environmental disaster in the history of the [[United States]].<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/us/28flow.html Estimates Suggest Spill Is Biggest in U.S. History,] Tom Zeller, Jr., ''New York Times, 27 May 2010.</ref><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://www.truthdig.com/report/item/law_order_corporate_crime_unit_20100518/</ref>

President Obama personally approved 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> and was widely criticized for his slow reaction to the drilling disaster. While authorizing offshore drilling<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> the president stated, "oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced."<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><ref>''[http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenpeaceusa_blog/2010/04/30/president_obama_committed_to_endangering President Obama must reinstate moratorium on offshore drilling,]'' [[Greenpeace]] USA blogs, 30 Apr 2010.</ref><ref>http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/04/28/obama-katrina-spill/</ref>

BP's exploration plan received in the Obama administration's MMS field office on 23 March 2009 states "no mitigation measures other than those required by regulation and BP policy will be employed to avoid, diminish or eliminate potential impacts on environmental resources." It declared any spill would have only "sub-lethal" effects on fish and marine [[mammal]]s but it was "unlikely that an accidental oil spill would occur from the proposed activities."<ref>http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/initial_exploration_plan050410.pdf</ref> BP was granted a “categorical exclusion” by the Obama administration from a detailed environmental impact statement required under [[law]]<ref>[http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.]</ref> according to reports in the ''[[Washington Post]].''<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/04/AR2010050404118.html U.S. exempted BP's Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study,] Juliet Eilperin, ''Washington Post,'' 5 May 2010.</ref>

BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig was inspected by the Obama administration's [[Minerals Management Service]] (MMS) only two weeks before it exploded<ref>White House Press Office, [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/press-briefing-bp-oil-spill-gulf-coast Press Briefing on the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf Coast,] 29 April 2010. Retrieved from whitehouse.gov 12 May 2010.</ref> killing 11 people and dumping 30 million barrels of oil in the Gulf. The rig had been awarded the ''Safety Award for Excellence'' in 2009 by the Obama MMS.<ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=66303 Democratic Leader Hoyer Doesn’t Know Whether Obama Administration was Prepared for Oil Spill,] Matt Cover, CNSNews.com, May 20, 2010.</ref><ref>MMS Thought Deepwater Horizon was Award-Winningly SAFE, The Project on Government Oversight, Exposing Government Corruption, 29 April 2010.</ref>

The Obama [[Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) gave BP the green light to apply its dispersant, Corexit as cosmetic relief to the spill.<ref>[http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/epa-bp-dispersants Why Is the EPA Letting BP Use Dirty Dispersants?], Kate Sheppard, ''Mother Jones'', 19 May 19 2010.</ref> Corexit was found to be 10 to 20 times more [[toxic]] to human and wild life than a dozen other dispersants approved by the EPA.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/business/energy-environment/13greenwire-less-toxic-dispersants-lose-out-in-bp-oil-spil-81183.html Less Toxic Dispersants Lose Out in BP Oil Spill Cleanup,]
Paul Quinlan, ''Greenwire'', May 13, 2010. Retrieved from nytimes.com 25 May 2010.</ref> Corexit is manufactured by Nalco of Naperville, Illinois, a company's whose current leadership includes several executives from BP. "It's a chemical that the oil industry makes to sell to itself, basically," said Richard Charter, a senior policy adviser for Defenders of Wildlife.<ref>''Greenwire'', ibid.</ref> At Congressional hearings investigating the Gulf oil spill disaster, [[Democratic]] Representative Jerrold Nadler of [[New York]] raised the prospect of "thousands and thousands of people getting sick or dying" as a result of the Obama administration's sanctioned use of the dispersant.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/science/earth/28workers.html Worry About Dispersant Rises as Men in Work Crew Complain of Health Problems,] Leslie Kaufman and Elizabeth Rosenthal, ''New York Times'', 27 May 2010.</ref>

===Cozy relationship with oil industry===

As Senator, and while running for president, [[Barack Obama]] has received more money from BP's [[Political Action Committee]] and individuals connected with BP than any other candidate over the past two decades, according to [[Federal Election Commission]] disclosure records.<ref>[http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0505/obama-biggest-recipient-bp-political-action-money-20-years Obama is biggest recipient of BP’s political action cash in the last 20 years,] John Byrne, 5 May 2010. Retrieved from rawstory.com 9 May 2010.</ref><ref>Jake Tapper, Political Punch, [[ABC News]], 5 May 2010. [http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/05/white-house-idea-that-bp-given-special-exemption-because-of-campaign-cash-to-obama-silly-and-ridiculous.html?cid=6a00d8341c4df253ef0134807669a3970c]</ref><ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/04/on-thursday-oil-giant-bp.html</ref>

==Gay Rights==
Gays have complained that Obama has taken no action thus far. His supporters argue he will act when the time is right. A proclamation signed June 1st states <ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/potus-honors-lgbt-pride-month-by-not-supporting-same-sex-marriage-while-cheney-disagrees.html POTUS Honors LGBT Pride Month by Not Supporting Same Sex Marriage, While Cheney Disagrees]</ref>

:Mentioning his administration’s international efforts to decriminalize homosexuality, the President said he would continue to
:''“support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans” -- enhancing hate crimes laws,''
:''supporting [[civil unions]], outlawing :discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing''
:''"[[Don't Ask, Don't Tell]]" policy for [[gays]] and [[lesbians]] in the armed services.''''

{{cquote|
“proud to be the first President to appoint openly [[LGBT]] candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration,”}}
-Barack Obama

==Senior Staff==
Bill Daley replaced [[Rahm Emanuel]] as chief of staff in early 2011; Emanuel retired under a cloud to run for Mayor of Chicago after allegations that favors were promised to Rep. [[Joe Sestak]] in the [[Jobsgate]] scandal; [[Robert Gibbs]] was ousted as press secretary in the wake of the disastrous [[2010 Midterm elections]]; Gregory Craig was dispatched in less than one year as White House counsel after the botched handling of the Guantanamo closing and was replaced by Robert Bauer;<ref>http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1940537,00.html</ref> old Chicago friends [[Valerie Jarrett]] remained while [[David Axelrod]] fell victim the midterm White Hoiuse shake up and returned to Chicago to head up fundraising for Obama's 2012 election bid.

In private White House strategy sessions Dana Milbank of the ''[[Washington Post]]'' reported Emanuel was bitterly opposed the effort to close the Guantanamo Bay prison early, arguing that it wasn't politically feasible. Obama overruled Emanuel. Emanuel fought against the plan to send [[Khalid Sheik Mohammed]] to New York for a trial. Emanuel lost. On health care Emanuel argued for a smaller bill with popular items that could win [[Republican]] support and opposed the public option as a needless distraction. Obama disregarded that strategy and sided with Congressional liberals who hoped to ram a larger, less popular bill through Congress with Democratic votes only. Milbank writes,
{{Cquote|Obama's first year fell apart in large part because he didn't follow his chief of staff's advice on crucial matters...Obama's problem is that his other confidants -- particularly Valerie Jarrett and Robert Gibbs, and, to a lesser extent, David Axelrod -- are part of the Cult of Obama. In love with the president, they believe he is a transformational figure who needn't dirty his hands in politics.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021904298_pf.html</ref><ref>[http://video.foxnews.com/v/4080748/obamas-right-hand-man/?playlist_id=87249]</ref>}}

[[Anita Dunn]] was the White House Communications Office Director until she her [[Maoist]] sympathies became public and was replaced by [[Dan Pfeiffer]].<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_fox_dunn_beck/2009/11/10/284292.html Obama Aide Who Slammed Fox News Resigns, NewsMax.com, November 10, 2009]; [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CypgH32gGVo&feature=related Video of Obama Communications Director Claiming Mao One of Her Favorite Political Philosophers']</ref>

===Jobsgate===
:''Main article:'' [[Jobsgate]]
Jobsgate refers to the scandal where former President [[Bill Clinton]] was asked by someone in the [[White House]] to offer Congressman [[Joe Sestak]] a federal job in exchange for his withdrawal from the [[Democratic]] primary election against incumbent U.S. [[Senator]] [[Arlen Specter]].<ref>Jeffrey Lord. [http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/16/specter-opens-door-on-white-ho Specter Opens Door on White House Felonies], ''The American Spectator'', March 16, 2010.</ref><ref>Tim Shoemaker. [http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=33660 Jobsgate: Obama's Watergate?], ''Campaign For Liberty'', March 18, 2010.</ref> Under [[America|American]] [[law]], it is a federal crime to offer someone a federal position in exchange for favors.<ref name=stonewall>Jeffrey Lord. [http://spectator.org/blog/2010/03/17/gibbs-jobsgate-stonewall-day-2 Gibbs' Jobsgate Stonewall: Day 23], ''The American Spectator'', March 18, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://vlex.com/vid/acceptance-solicitation-obtain-appointive-19190192 Watergate to Jobsgate], ''VOX'', March 17, 2010.</ref> Joe Sestak's allegation that President Clinton carried the message from the White House for a job if he were to drop out of the [[Pennsylvania]] [[2010_Midterm_Elections#Democratic_incumbents|Senate primary]] race against Arlen Specter may be an impeachable crime.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/25/congressman-white-house-job-offer-sestak-impeachable-offense/ Congressman: White House Job Offer to Sestak May Be an 'Impeachable' Offense], FOXNews.com, May 25, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,593482,00.html Rove on Sestak-White House 'Job Offer': Somebody Broke the Law], ''[[Fox News]]'', May 25, 2010.</ref>

==Cabinet==
Obama proceeded rapidly with cabinet choices. Obama has drawn heavily on [[Clinton Administration]] leaders to fill his Cabinet, along with Bush appointees Gates, Jones and Geithner. His national security team (Biden, Clinton, Gates, Jones) all supported the Iraq war, although Obama made opposition to the war central to his campaign. So far no leaders of the left-wing of the Democratic party have been appointed to any major position, which has stunned antiwar and left elements.

A growing failure of leadership emerged in the Treasury department in March, as it proved difficult to assemble a leadership team. Dozens of senior Treasury jobs are empty; apart from the Secretary, the first 3 names were sent to the Senate for confirmation on March 8 and two other top nominees withdrew their names. Secretary Geithner is overwhelmed with multiple major responsibilities without any senior officials in place. He does have about 50 informal aides. The result was poorly thought out proposals that won no support, and lengthy delays in responding to the increasingly serious financial crisis. Analysts debated whether the display of incompetence was due more to Geithner or the White House.

With a worldwide [[swine flu]] epidemic threatening, the Administration finally filled the job of Secretary of Health and Human Services on April 28. The flu epidemic petered out but policy initiative has been lagging because of the long delays in filling top posts. The confusion caused by weak leadership was underscored in November when runaway advisory boards recommended cutting back on health programs for women, such as mammograms, at a time conservatives were warning that medical care would be rationed under the proposed plans.
===Cabinet Scandals===
[[Image:Cabinet09.jpg|thumb|300px]]
Scandal has already tainted the cabinet. [[Bill Richardson]] was nominated for Secretary of Commerce but had to withdraw when he became a party to a criminal investigation. The nominee for Secretary of the Treasury, [[Timothy Geithner]], was confirmed after a humiliating televised session in which he admitted not paying $34,000 in federal income taxes. [[Tom Daschle]] withdrew his nomination as secretary of Health and Human Services because he had avoided $140,000 in federal taxes over a period of years, and paid them only after he had been named to the cabinet.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/us/politics/31daschle.html?ref=us Robert Pear, "Use of Free Car Lands Tom Daschle in Tax Trouble," ''New York Times,'' Jan. 30, 2009] </ref>

Scandal also ruined the career of Nancy Killefer, nominated by President Obama to be the federal government's first chief performance officer. She too had evaded paying her taxes.

It was not a scandal but an embarrassment for Obama on Feb. 12, when New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg, who had agreed to join the cabinet as Secretary of Commerce, dropped out. Gregg cited irreconcilable differences, and observers pointed out that Obama's staff planned to take the 2010 Census out of the Commerce Department's jurisdiction, weakening the secretary and politicizing the census.

In July, [[Steven Rattner]], the czar for the auto industry who lead the Presidential task force that restructured General Motors and Chrysler, was forced to quit when he came under investigation for paying million-dollar bribes to get state business in his previous job. Rattner was to pay $6.2 million in a settlement with the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] for his involvement in a New York State Pension Fund pay-to-play scandal.<ref>http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/101118/business/business_rattner_settles_sec</ref>

===Senate Scandals===

Even more damaging to liberal Democrats were scandals involving the Senate seats of Clinton and Obama himself. In New York Gov. [[David Paterson]] came to office in 2008 after a sex scandal forced the resignation of his predecessor. Paterson damaged himself and his Democratic party by dangling an appointment to Caroline Kennedy, who was unable to make up her mind. He finally rejected her and turned to the most conservative Democrat in the entire Northeast, Rep. [[Kirsten Gillibrand]]. She is a [[Blue Dog Democrat]] known for her defense of gun rights and opposition to the Obama stimulus package.

It was much worse in Illinois, after Gov. [[Rod Blagojevich]] (a Democrat) sought to sell the Obama seat. Obama refused to bargain, so Blagojevich tried to auction it off, and was caught in FBI wiretaps. He was arrested and will face criminal trial in federal court, and was promptly impeached by the state legislature, with all the conservatives and Republicans there unanimous in calling for his ouster. Before he was forced out, Blagojevich named a light-weight replacement, [[Roland Burris]]. Democrats in Washington at first promised they would keep Burris out because of his tainting by the governor's maneuvers; they relented and were forced to seat Burris.

Burris admitted in February that he lied under oath to the Illinois legislature about his contacts with Blagojevich. Calls have been made for a perjury investigation that may lead to Burris's expulsion from the Senate..<ref>Natasha Korecki and Dave McKinney, "Illinois lawmakers mull Burris perjury probe," [http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/02/illinois_lawmakers_mull_burris.html ''Chicago Sun-Times'' Feb. 14, 2009] </ref>

===Important Officials===
{|class=wikitable
!colspan=3|Important Officials
|-
|[[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]]||[[Joseph Biden]]||Confirmed
|-
|[[Chief of Staff]]||[[William Daley]]||Confirmed
|-
|[[Secretary of State]]||[[Hillary Clinton]]||Confirmed
|-
|[[Secretary of the Treasury]]||[[Timothy Geithner]]||Confirmed
|-
|[[Secretary of Energy]]||[[Steven Chu]]|||Confirmed
|-
|[[Secretary of Defense]]||[[Robert Gates]]||Confirmed
|-
|[[United States Attorney General|Attorney General]]||[[Eric Holder]]||Confirmed
|-
|[[Secretary of the Interior]]||[[Ken Salazar]]||Confirmed
|-
|[[Secretary of Commerce]]||[[Gary Locke]]||Confirmed
|-
|[[Secretary of Health and Human Services]]||[[Kathleen Sebelius]]||Confirmed
|-
|[[Secretary of Veterans Affairs]]||[[Eric Shinseki]]||Confirmed
|-
|[[Secretary of Homeland Security]]||[[Janet Napolitano]]||Confirmed
|-
|[[Office of Management and Budget|Budget Director]]||[[Peter Orszag]]||Confirmed
|-
|[[Council of Economic Advisers]]||[[Christina Romer]]||Confirmed
|-
|[[National Economic Council]]||[[Lawrence H. Summers]]||Confirmed
|-
|[[National Security Advisor]]||[[James Jones]]||Confirmed
|-
|[[CIA Director]]||[[Leon Panetta]]|||Confirmed
|}

===Supreme Court===
[[File:Sotomeyr2.jpg|thumb|250px|Sotomayor's parents came from Puerto Rico; her mother was a WAC in the US Army in World War II]]

Obama got an early pick for the Supreme Court when liberal Justice David Souter retired. He quickly names Court of Appeals Judge [[Sonia Sotomayor]] in May 2009. She was born to a poor family of migrants from Puerto Rico, and after attending Princeton and Yale Law School made it to the top through very hard work. She is the first American of Puerto Rican descent named to a high office on the mainland and her nomination marked a watershed in the national recognition and acceptance of all Latinos.

==Czars==
The Obama administrations has more than 30 czars, who will oversee combined budgets totaling more than $1.7 trillion. <ref>[http://glennbeck.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/06/09/rise-of-the-czars/ Rise of the Czars], The Glenn Beck Blog, ''Fox News.com'', June 9th, 2009</ref> <ref>[http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/cavuto-czars-helm-suckers/ Czars at the Helm and We're the Suckers], Neil Cavuto, ''Fox Business.com'', June 05, 2009</ref> <ref>[http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29391/ List of Obama's Czars], GlennBeck.com, August 21, 2009.</ref>

Glenn Beck warns Obama's 'shadow government' is growing in size, power. [http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=5861557&referralPlaylistId=playlist] Glenn Beck has a discussion on Obama circumventing constitutional checks and balances. [http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=5862590&referralPlaylistId=f909db77f0ad31bbfd35cb7e6a04f50204809c04]

[[Van Jones]], a longtime radical organizer, resigned in September 2009 as Green Czar when it was revealed he had endorsed a 9-11 conspiracy theory that claimed, " people within the current (Bush) administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

{|class=wikitable
!colspan=2|Czars
|-
|[[Border Czar]]||[[Alan Bersin]]
|-
|[[Car Czar]]||[[Ron Bloom]]
|-
|[[Cyber Czar]]||[[TBA]]
|-
|[[Drug Czar]]||[[Gil Kerlikowske]]
|-
|[[Economic Czar]]||[[Paul A. Volcker]]
|-
|[[Energy and Environment Czar]]||[[Carol Browner]]<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/</ref>
|-
|[[Government Performance Czar]]||[[Jeffrey Zients]]
|-
|[[Great Lakes Czar]]||[[Cameron Davis]]
|-
|[[Green Czar]]||vacant|-
|-
|[[Health Czar]]||[[Nancy-Ann DeParle]]
|-
|[[Homeland Security Czar]]||[[John Brennan]]
|-
|[[Intelligence Czar]]||[[Dennis Blair]]
|-
|[[Manufacturing Czar]]||[[Ron Bloom]]
|-
|[[Pay Czar]]||[[Kenneth R. Feinberg]]
|-
|[[Regulatory Czar]]||[[Cass R. Sunstein]]
|-
|[[Science Czar]]||[[John Holdren]]
|-
|[[Technology Czar]]||[[Vivek Kundra]]
|-
|[[Urban Affairs Czar]]||[[Adolfo Carrion, Jr.]]
|-
|[[WMD Policy Czar]]||[[Gary Samore]]
|}

==Presidential Actions==
Presidential Actions (Executive Orders, Presidential Memoranda and Proclamations) are listed on the White House website, on the [http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/PresidentialActions/ Presidential Actions] page.

*[[Executive order|Executive Orders]] are listed [[Obama Administration/Executive Orders|here]].
*Presidential Memoranda are listed [[Obama Administration/Presidential Memoranda|here]].
*Proclamations are listed [[Obama Administration/Proclamations|here]].

==112th Congress (2011 - 2013)==
After the drubbing the president's party took in the [[2010 Midterm elections]] and ouster of [[Nancy Pelosi]] as [[Speaker of the House]], Obama solicited former President [[Bill Clinton]] for advice on dealing with the new [[Republican]] majority. President Clinton endorsed extending the "tax cuts for the rich" of former President [[George W. Bush]], which lowered rates for everyone below the level of President Clinton's tax hikes. Obama followed Clinton's counsel and signed on to extending the Republican across the board tax reductions including a 2% "payroll tax holiday", or reduction in the amount of Social Security withholding taxes from workers paychecks.

Longtime Chicago friend and operative [[Rahm Emanuel]] resigned under a cloud of suspicion surrounding the [[jobsgate]] scandal, and was replaced by [[William Daley]]. Many other "Clinton retreads", as the press dubbed them, were also brought back into government. One crtic observed, "Mr. Obama failed to notice that President Bill Clinton saw his strongest period of [[economic growth]] only after his [[Clinton health care plan|health-care takeover]] and [[stimulus bill]]s were defeated, welfare rolls were pared, the capital gains tax was cut, and the budget was balanced."<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703983104576262763594126624.html?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb_h</ref>

==See also ==
*[[Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[Essay: Blow The Nomination]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[Muslim agenda of the Obama administration]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Barack Obama's unlawful acts]]
*[[Raymond Davis Affair]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/01/obama-unveils-national-security-team/ Obama Unveils His National Security Team], Fox News, December 1, 2008

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category: Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:United States Government]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Corruption]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Afghanistan War]]

Talk:High fructose corn syrup

2011-06-10T05:46:27Z

DevonJ:

I am of the opinion that when it comes to HFCS and its relationship to obesity, one should not be as concerned with whether or not their food contains HFCS but rather the density of calories present in their food. This is a conclusion draw from the fact that HFCS is metabolized the same as sucrose and the only substantial difference between a food prepared with HFCS rather than sucrose is that it might have more calories per serving than a food of equivalent sweetness that is made with sucrose. I fell like this conclusion should be shared in the article some how but I'd rather not add my own opinion to the article. If medical literature is found that supports this opinion, should it be added to the article? --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 01:15, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
:[http://blog.cincovidas.com/study-shows-cancer-cells-grow-on-high-fructose-corn-syrup At least one study] seems to show HFCS increase tumor growth. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 01:46, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

Penn and Teller

2011-06-05T15:07:39Z

DevonJ: /* Hate Speech */ copy edit

'''Penn & Teller''' are are a performing duo of [[magic]]ians currently based out of Las Vegas. Penn Jillette is the taller of the two and does all of the talking during their acts and shows, Raymond Teller is almost always completely silent and does the bulk of the on stage conjuring. In addition to their stage show Penn & Teller made several movies in the 80's and 90's and have had multiple television appearances together; They also star in their own television show "Bull****" which focuses on debunking myths and espousing their personal brand of libertarian atheist politics. Teller speaks freely outside of the confines of the act. The pair have appeared on ''[[The West Wing]]'', on which they appeared to make an American flag, wrapped in a copy of the Bill of Rights, disappear in a puff of flame and smoke.

From a conservative perspective, Penn and Teller can be both loved and hated. They have mocked things like [[religion]], the [[war on drugs]], the [[death penalty]], warrantless [[wiretaps]], [[illegal immigration]] opposition and [[circumcision]], but also debunked aspects of [[environmentalism]], [[9/11 conspiracy theories]], and [[Gun Control]] on their show ''Penn & Teller's Bull****'', on Showtime. The duo are both atheists, and both have [[libertarian]] political views. [[Penn Jillette]] is an [[Atheism and obesity|overweight atheist]]. The Penn has verbally announced on their show that they do not at all agree with American conservatives.<ref>http://movies.ign.com/articles/454/454422p2.html</ref>

==Hate Speech==
Penn and Teller have been very outspoken anti-Catholic activists, often openly mocking [[Catholic]] people for their faith. They vilified Mother Teresa for her work with the poor.<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/BrentBozellIII/2005/06/03/penn_and_teller_trash_mother_teresa Penn and Teller trash Mother Teresa] Townhall, June 03, 2005</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Entertainers]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Libertarians]]

Talk:Essay: Abnormality of the atheist religion

2011-06-03T18:21:57Z

DevonJ: /* Abnormality of the atheist religion */

== Typos ==
I don't think I should edit this essay, but I found a few typos in paragraph 3: Universes -> Universe's. than -> then (three times). --[[User:FrederickT2|FrederickT2]] 15:10, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestions and comments ==

===Abnormality of the atheist religion===

'''Except for the view that no God (or gods) exist, there is no creedal formula to atheists views, (it's not a "religion").'''

[[Atheism|Atheists]] are '''infamous''' for acting from positions of higher knowledge, realists who have spent
much time dissecting Christianity in order to '''prop up their non-beliefs'''. They deem the Bible
an outlandish joke perpetuated by '''one crazy man'''. They are looking from the outside in
and I will attempt do the same from a faith point of view on their religion of nothing.

What, exactly is the infamy? The sentences following could be the work of any non-Christian (or non- Jew). 
One doesn't prop up a "non-belief", how would the author "prop up" his non-belief of Islam? Who is the "one crazy man"? Most atheists, (four) that I know have a very good understanding of the Bible and its contents, though they've (obviously) never taken the next logical step to take it into their hearts and receive the free gift of eternal life. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 14:21, 3 June 2011 (EDT) (more later perhaps).

Talk:Essay: Abnormality of the atheist religion

2011-06-03T18:21:29Z

DevonJ: /* Suggestions and comments */ new section

== Typos ==
I don't think I should edit this essay, but I found a few typos in paragraph 3: Universes -> Universe's. than -> then (three times). --[[User:FrederickT2|FrederickT2]] 15:10, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestions and comments ==

===Abnormality of the atheist religion===

'''Except for the view that no God (or gods) exist, there is no creedal formula to atheists views, (it's not a "religion".'''

[[Atheism|Atheists]] are '''infamous''' for acting from positions of higher knowledge, realists who have spent
much time dissecting Christianity in order to '''prop up their non-beliefs'''. They deem the Bible
an outlandish joke perpetuated by '''one crazy man'''. They are looking from the outside in
and I will attempt do the same from a faith point of view on their religion of nothing.

What, exactly is the infamy? The sentences following could be the work of any non-Christian (or non- Jew). 
One doesn't prop up a "non-belief", how would the author "prop up" his non-belief of Islam? Who is the "one crazy man"? Most atheists, (four) that I know have a very good understanding of the Bible and its contents, though they've (obviously) never taken the next logical step to take it into their hearts and receive the free gift of eternal life. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 14:21, 3 June 2011 (EDT) (more later perhaps).

Talk:Essay:Impeach Obama

2011-04-26T22:54:08Z

DevonJ: /* It's NOT? */ You're right, I should do MORE before criticising others

==Discussion==
Seeing as you wrote this essay "to bring about a discussion," I'll take you up on this and engage with you on a few points.
#What precisely are you alleging are Obama's crimes against the constitution which make the usual constitutional measures (election, impeachment) not strong enough? You mention "Justification of the invasion, conduct of the war, treatment of detainees, NSA warrantless surveillence, etc.," but these, as you say, are unconstitutional acts of the Bush administration which Obama has continued despite their unconstitutionality. As you rightly point out about Wikipedia, it's hypocritical to say that Bush was deserving of impeachment for these but Obama is not. But of course, that also means that the reverse is also true, is it not?
#"I strongly believe the President needs to be removed from office by the U.S. Military and tried under the military court system...Am I advocating a military coup? No I am not. The military will not be running America. The only thing the military would do is relieve the President, by the powers invested by the Constitution, of his duties and put others in charge of running the country." Two questions about this. First of all, removal of the president by the military is, by definition, a military coup. Or else, where are you reading in the constitution that the military has the power to remove their commander-in-chief? Second, how is advocating a forceful overthrow of the president ''not'' sedition?
#"As others have mentioned, we will survive Obama's presidency. But the millions of people who put this man in power will be a drain on liberty and Democracy for years to come." I don't understand this statement. Obama was democratically elected. Last November, Republicans in large numbers were democratically elected to the house, and may, if turning out in large enough numbers next November, vote Obama out of office. That's the essence of what you're calling Democracy. Are you really saying that the majority of voters who elected Obama are a drain on democracy? It seems logical to me that the democratic process is alive and well. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:47, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for your interest JDWpianist. You make some valid aurguments that break my points down sensibly, let me try and clarify.

:1) The Wikipedia page is just meaningless. A page with the same bullet points with Obama would, in my opinion, would be meaningless as well. My point, Obama is deserving of such criticism but is protected by the mobocracy. I don't believe those points are against the Constitution but are in fact legitimate criticisms. I believe Obama can be removed from office but the days of impeachment are about over. It is no longer an effective means of removal. Obama's crimes, particularly his lies are well documented and should be enough to warrant removal. His fiscal policy is endangering not only future generations but today's generation and world peace. His actions in Libya, without as much as a single American consulted, has in fact given our blood and treasure to the UN without permission. His willful open border policy has left the nation vulnerable. The list goes on and on, see [[Obama doublespeak]] and [[Barack Obama's unlawful acts]].

:2) I knew I would be called out on this one. Technically, yes I am calling for a military coup. In normal circumstances, the military removes a leader, disbands congress, shreds and restarts a constitution and a Junta becomes the defacto leadership. It's not in the Constitution but the commander-n-chief is the head of the military and the military can relieve commanders. I would like to see the military remove Obama, the second in command becomes the chief executive, Congress stays in place, the Constitution stays intact.

:3) Just as millions put this man in power, millions would oppose his removal. These same people ignore his crimes and are in agreement with soft tyranny of changing America into a socialist state. The breaking of an oath is serious but not to people who will do anything for an election win. These people care not for the country but of themselves and the influence and paybacks they will get from keeping Obama in power is their priority. The election of 2008 was fraud ridden. These leeches of the state are an army of anti-Americans that won't disappear with a new leader. Did fraud equal the six million vote threshold of victory? This bad situation we find ourselves in and will likely be rectified with more elections and Democracy. He may have been democratically elected but it was a sham like no other. The election was a victory for thugs and their friends. The lies, the sheer number of lies surpasses any politician promises that are often made. Obama lied his way to victory. That is not a Democratic victory, that is a victory for fraud and deceit. I feel the discussion needs to be centered on what line cannot be crossed and what to do if it has been crossed. Impeachment will never work, that means Obama can do what he wishes without fear of removal. When he loses in 2012, and he will lose, there is not an ounce of trust left for Obama. He can start a war with Israel after November 2012 and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Unless America devises a strategy to deal with this man, we are held hostage to the power he possesses.

::I am just offering my opinions of course, right or wrong, you be the judge. Thanks for reading and you Obama apologists, thanks for criticizing. Hopefully this page helps grow Conservapedia!!! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:12, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::You've made it quite clear why you believe that Obama is an awful president, that he's broken the law, conducted unwarranted military actions, and that he's taking the country off a cliff financially, points on which reasonable people can agree or disagree, but if I may offer a critical observation of your analysis, I haven't seen so far that you've made a convincing case for why a military coup is the only way. You have to imagine that whatever you may believe about the crimes of the Obama administration, you'd have to convince not only most of the public (whom you seem to mistrust), but more importantly the entire military that you are correct. The way I see it, there are two questions left, one depending on the other.
:::#The first question, which you've hinted at an answer for is, can a removal of the president by the army ever be construed as a constitutionally-justified action? You do say that "the military can relieve commanders," but this seems to me quite dubious, as I've never heard the argument put forth that a high-ranking member of the armed forces can be relieved by a lower-ranking member; that's technically known as mutiny or sedition, I believe. This is of course not to say that sedition or mutiny is never justified. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I might suggest that you advocate taking extra-constitutional measures to preserve the constitution from a president you see as destroying it. Would you characterize it this way? This is however a black-or-white question; either something is allowed by the constitution or it is not. Let's call a spade a spade: if you really think that Obama's crimes endanger the constitution, you are indeed advocating extra-constitutional overthrow for pious reasons, and should be unflinching about it. That leads to the second, more philosophical question:
:::#What exactly is the line at which a president's actions become so heinous as to warrant going outside the constitutional protocol to remove them? It would seem to me that most people would set that bar very high, military members included. My personal standard would be if the president took unprecedented actions to destroy the checks and balances set up by the constitution. There is an honest case to be made that in the past 50 years the power of the other two branches has slowly eroded -- Obama surely did not begin the Imperial Presidency, as I often hear it called -- but I'm talking about steps such as immediately dissolving the Congress, dismissing the supreme court, declaring martial law without cause. Things which unambiguously consolidate all of the power in the president's chair. It's fair to argue that Obama has gone far beyond what the reasonable person would consider a justified use of presidential power, and even far beyond presidents before him who were perceived this way, but you have to remember that you've got a lot of convincing to do if this were ever to become reality.
:::I can perhaps put the question to you this way. How would you go about convincing the most skeptical general that an act of sedition is morally justified? How would you convince the public? What would you do about the portion of the public which as opposed to your plan? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 11:16, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

===It's NOT?===
Per JPatt's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AEssay%3AImpeach_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=862070&oldid=861982 reply above]:"'''It's not in the Constitution but the commander-n-chief is the head of the military and the military can relieve commanders.'''". I refer you, sir, to Article two, Section two of the document
{{Cquote|'''Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments'''

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...}}

If sir isn't able to parse out the plain English of the Constitution's text, ''per se,'' why should a reader be persuaded by his ''interpretation'' of said document, let alone by going further, to negate the thing in order to '''''save'' the republic'''? [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 12:52, 24 April 2011 (EDT)
:The discussion was not in regards to IF the constitution says the prez is commander-n-chief but if the constitution says the prez can be removed. Snarkyness will not win you friends here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:06, 24 April 2011 (EDT)
::Ah, I see you point now. It's not a very clear sentence, written, as it is, in the passive tense.
::Yes, barring the Constitutional process of impeachment to remove a sitting President, everything else would be extra-constitutional, (and probably illegal).
::As for winning friends here, I'll gladly be the enemy of a self-professed seditionist. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 19:55, 25 April 2011 (EDT)
:::Stand by your man Obama, lol. Next you'll tell me you didn't vote for him. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:25, 25 April 2011 (EDT)
::::What are you talking about? I'm not defending Obama, I'm questioning ''you'' both on your inability to write a coherent sentence ''and'' (more importantly) the cavalier way you jettison conservative principles in order to get your own way '''''now'''''.
::::Your psychic abilities are fair-to-middling: No, I did not vote for Obama in 2008. I won't be voting for him in 2012 either.
::::I won't be voting ''at all'' until primary season of 2014, which is when I will reach the age of majority. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 13:41, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
:::::Again I was right, you didn't vote for Obama. My contradictory conservative principles, this coming from a liberal. Oh please tell me how you're not a liberal as well. I noticed how great you are with sentence formation and pointing out others faults but funny, no articles can be attributed to you. Maybe you should just troll along, know it all. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:03, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
::::::Point taken: I ''should'' be more productive, soon. I am neither liberal nor conservative (at this point) since I don't really follow politics as such. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 18:54, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

=='The military removes Obama ... the constitution stays in place'==

I have grave doubts about your thinking here. There is no provision in the US constitution for forcible removal of a president by the military. Once an action that is in breach of the constitution is taken and accepted the constitution no longer governs the country. Instead, it will become a case of "whoever the military wants" governs the country. This is not a step I can recommend for any country to take, having seen first hand the breakdown in civil law that was the result of the military coup in Fiji.

I strongly urge you to consider the long term implications of a move to forcibly remove a president from office. The US consitution has survived over two hundred years, but will not survive what you are advocating. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 19:23, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:I have concerns that the Constitution is already in trouble thanks to Obama. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

If the military removed Obama forcibly, that would be a ''coup d'etat'' in every sense of the word. Such an action should not be tolerated. The only legal acts which are authorized to remove Obama - and any other president - are Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, provided he has committed those offenses requiring impeachment; or a voting out of office by the general public during a normal election process. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:16, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

:I can agree with that statement Karajou. What if Obama decides to no longer follow the Constitution, like he did with DOMA? I bet he would say it's old document no longer relative to today. We could expect impeachment hearings but the socialist Democrats would agree with him and impeachment would fail. At what point does he cross the line? When will America say enough is enough, he's killing the country every chance he gets? It's between Barack and a hard place.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:40, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
::If he refuses to follow the Constitution, then I would agree that is grounds for impeachment. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:24, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

== Why?? ==

Apart from the issue of having a military coup in America, the problem with this essay in my opinion is that it doesn't present reasons why Obama should be impeached. The current reasoning appears to be that he has continued Bush's policies. Without specific examples of things Obama has done to warrant removal from office, this essay is just an anti-Obama rant. {{unsigned|BenDylan}}
: Remember to sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 21:34, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
::Unless you live in la la land with your TV tuned to the liberal media, I don't have to go into description of what Obama has done that deserve his removal. In fact, I am curious to see the accomplishments Obama will campaign on. Yes, it is a rant. Yes, it is only an opinion.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== A dose of reality ==
The plain facts are Obama will continue to be Commander in Chief & President for the next one and a half years -- barring 20 Democratic Sernators turning on him. Even then, the GOP House got burned last time on this and has no compuntion to tile public opinion again. Also note, Michelle Obama did not serve on the House Judiciary Committee as Hillary did, so there's no notion of payback for promoting oneself by stepping on somebody elses neck.

What is more frightening, IMHO, more than Obama's inexperiece and imcompetence, is ths slavish and cultic mentality of his devotees (an ever shrinking minority, thank God). For that cause alone he needs to be defeatd and rejected at the polls as the false messiah his follows set him up to be. Worshipping a man, and pinning all one's hopes on a man, or looking to a man for salvation, is a ''grievious'' sin for any nation in God's site. The dustbin of history is littered with nations that have been led captive for this sin. Obama is not the first and only incompetent pretender to occupy the office. But seriously, we as a nation have more important things to worry about than the fate of one man's career, or the fate of the Demoicratic Party. We have much more important concerns, in spite of thier reluctance to address these problems. Let's get on with the business of being citizens. The nation will survive. The people will survive. We're here for the long haul. Incompetent idiots are but only for a moment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:16, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:I agree Rob. As I mentioned in the essay "Fat chance, I know." He will make it to the 2012 elections without removal, there is no doubt about it. America is held captive because whatever he says or does, he fears no repercussions to losing his job outside of an election. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== Holy hyperbole, Batman. ==

I don't mean to be impolite, but isn't this kind of ridiculous? I have no love for Obama; as a strict libertarian, I disagree with him on almost everything, social and fiscal. But this is a democracy. And it is a democracy even when your candidate loses. If you really believe this, you will have to go into more detail than "Oh, you know how he's destroying the Constitution, I don't need to say any more". You talk about him like he is an iron-fisted dictator, but was Caligula ever hampered because he couldn't reach cloture in the Senate? 

I looked over your article [[Barack Obama's unlawful acts]], and for such a grievous call to action, you seem to have done painfully little research. For instance, you say the Obama bailout of AIG violated the Constitution - yet, with casual retrospection, everyone should know that the AIG bailout happened in Sept. 2008, under President Bush. If this was truly a terrible violation of the Constitution, why not argue for trying President Bush in a military tribunal? If you think he is really destroying the Constitution, you should be able to provide a list of incontrovertible, non-interpretable offenses. 

I hate to rant, but it pains me to see someone so willing to throw away democracy at a whim. In Nov. 2012, vote for the Republican candidate; this is how our systems, has always worked, and will always work. But until Obama starts disbanding the Congress or executing judges, I think suggesting an Africa-style military coup is profoundly absurd. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 21:42, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

:Boy Wonder, are you saying I am wrong? Well I guess there is a first for everything. I wear profoundly absurd as a badge of honor. There is always Hope for a Change of leadership before it's too late. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:41, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== An idea that is taking shape ==
I just read a NewsMax article on a military coup over Obama. However, the page was taken down but saved for all by the liberals at TPM. [http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co.php] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:55, 21 April 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, Media Matters has piece on it from Sept 2009. [http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909290042] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 21 April 2011 (EDT)
::Here's one from 2011 that lays out Constitutional conditions. [http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/constitutional-options-for-removing-obama/] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:37, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

Pauline Epistles

2011-04-26T22:49:57Z

DevonJ: /* Romans */ link fix

The '''Pauline Epistles''' refers to those books of the [[New Testament]] that have traditionally been ascribed to the apostle Paul: [[Romans]]

==Apostle Paul's Life==

Paul was born in Tarsus, a city in the province of Cilicus (in present day eastern Turkey) to Hebrew parents.
He was born a Roman citizen. He was a strict pharisee. He had at least one sister who had one son who lived in Jerusalem. Paul was probably born about 1 A.D.

Paul was early trained in the scriptures and in Hebrew tradition. He was taught the art of tent making. At 13 or 15 years of age, he went to Jerusalem to study at the school of [[Gamaliel]]. At the end of three years he returned to Tarsus and acted as Rabbi (Acts 18:3, 22:3).

Paul returned to Jerusalem and witnessed Stephen’s death. He then became the arch persecutor of the infant Church. On his way to Damascus he was converted, then he was led by the hand to Damascus where Ananias prayed for him. He was sanctified and his sight returned (Acts 9:23).

Paul preached at Damascus without success (Acts 9:20). He then went to Arabia three years (Gal. 1:17). He then returned to Damascus (Gal. 1:17). He then visited Jerusalem and he returned eventually to Tarsus (Acts 22:17-18).

After a time [[Barnabas]] went to Tarsus, looked up Paul and brought him back to Antioch in Syria (Acts 11:25-26). They worked together for a short time (Acts 11:26).
*First missionary tour (Acts 13:2-14:26).
*Second missionary tour (Acts 15:40-18:22).
*Third missionary tour (Acts 18:23-21:8).

Paul visited Jerusalem (Acts 21:17). There he was apprehended, which required his defending himself (Acts 21:7-22:21). He was taken to Caesarea (Acts 23:23-33). He defended himself before Felix (Acts 24:10-21). He was two years in imprisonment there (Acts 24:27). Paul finally appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:10).

Paul journeyed to Rome (Acts 27). He was shipwrecked and landed on Melita (Acts 28:1-10).

Paul preached in Rome (Acts 28:30-31). Apparently he was released after two years. He was free for about one to three years, after which he was again arrested. He was then slain by a sword thrust (II Tim. 4:6-8).

Paul spoke Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew in his home as a boy. He used the Greek Septuagint in study. He could also read Latin.

He entered [[homeschool]] at age four and studied Hebrew law at age ten. He studied the Michna (the sayings of the wise with regard to the Law). At age thirteen or fifteen he went to Jerusalem to learn from the chief instructor, Gamaliel.

After three years he probably returned to Tarsus. In 37 A.D., or when he was thirty-six years of age, Stephen was stoned.

==Writings==

===[[Epistle to the Romans| Romans]]===

Paul wrote the book of Romans in the home of Gaius of Corinth (57 A.D.). It was written in Greek by the scribe Tertius, and it was carried to Rome by Phebe, who was a worker in the church.
Rome was the metropolis of the world. Laymen returned to Rome from Pentecost and migrated to Rome from elsewhere and established the church.

Paul did not want to build on the foundation of other Apostles, none of whom had been to Rome. He gave to the group of Roman churches a solid and doctrinal and ethical foundation.

Paul’s line of thought is expressed in the following verses: Rom. 1:16; 3:22-23; 5:1, 7:14, 21, 24; 8:1-2; 12:2, 9, 10; 14:17-18.

====Introduction, Rom. 1:1-16====

Paul was a slave of Jesus Christ, called by Him to be an Apostle to preach the gospel of Christ, which had been foretold by the Prophets. This Christ was proved to be the Son of God by the Resurrection. Through the grace of this Christ you at Rome are saved and called to be saints (Rom. 1:1-7).

Paul thanked God for them and for their faith. He stated that he had prayed constantly for them and desired to see them and impart to them sanctification, or establishing grace. Being a Jew and going to a church largely Gentile, he declared that he was indebted and debtor to all. The Gospel was nothing to be ashamed of anywhere (provided it was presented correctly), as it was the power of God to save both Jew and Greek by faith (1:8-17).

====The doctrinal area, 1:18-11:36====

The doctrines of the righteousness of God, regeneration by faith, and entire sanctification and spiritual establishment (1:18-8:39).

#The wrath of God rests on the Godless. God’s nature and God’s truth have been revealed through created things, but the ungodly and unrighteous have refused to recognize this (1:18-21a).
#The heathen became vain and conceited and senseless. Their hearts were hardened and they made gods in the image of man at his worst. They even worshiped beasts and birds, into which image ". . . they changed the glory of the incorruptible God . . ." (1:21b-23).
#God gave them up to their degraded lust, and to their vile immoralities. They exchanged the truth for a lie and became of a reprobate mind. They turned the light down, and that light became darkness, and the darkness was great (1:24-32).
#The Jew condemned the Greek for doing such things, but the Jew did the same, apparently under cover (2:1-4).
#Wrath, indignation, tribulation and anguish. For the day of wrath is being stored up for those that doeth evil. To the Jew first and also to the Greek, for there is no respecter of persons with God (2:5-11).
#Those who have violated the light of conscience, intuition, and nature, are to be judged accordingly. And those who have violated written revelation will be judged accordingly (2:12-24).
#The Jew thought himself a teacher of the Gentiles, but he himself violated the precepts he taught the Gentile. The Jew rested in the fact that he was a Jew (had the Law) and was circumcised. But Paul said that the Jew was no better than the Gentile (2:25-29).
#The Jew had been entrusted with the oracles of God and some had profited thereby, but the vast majority had not. Hence, the Jew as a nation is no better than the Gentile. All are under sin and are alike condemned by the Law (3:1-20).
#The righteousness of God is manifested in Christ and is apprehended by faith and faith alone. This is the sole remedy for sin, and the remedy is available to all. Glorifying in the Law or in works is excluded. It is by the Law of faith that men touch God (3:21-31).
#Abraham himself was not justified by works, but by faith in Christ. He was justified before the Law was given or any of those things pertaining to it was given. Those who believe in Christ, Jew or Gentile, are children and are heirs of the faithful Abraham and heirs with him (4:1-25).
#We are justified by the blood of Christ through faith in Him and are thus saved from wrath. Through faith in Christ we also have access to this second state or work of grace (5:9-11).
#Sin entered by Adam, the father of Jew and Gentile alike. All were regarded as sinners by that one act of sin, but not after the similitude of Adam’s sin. That is, personal guilt rested on Adam as a result of that act, but personal guilt does not rest on us for that act. Children are born sinful and dead spiritually, but are not born as transgressors, since the Law has not been broken by them. The gift of eternal life was placed within the reach of all by the last Adam. Physical death is to be destroyed for all by the last Adam (5:12-21).
#Being saved, the Old Man now becomes a problem. He is to be crucified (a symbol of death). Thus each is dead to the other. The self is to die as he died. On our part, this is preceded by a consecration like unto a baptism unto death. This is God’s plan of salvation. It is up to us to accept this plan (6:1-11).
#When made free from sin, the result is sanctification, or heart-holiness (evangelical perfection of heart is not Adamic or Edenic perfection), and the end is eternal life.
#An illustration is then drawn from marriage. A woman is bound by law to her husband, but when he is dead she is free from that law and may marry another. Thus, when we are free from the law of sin we become servants of Christ (7:1-6).
#Ethically, sin is a destructive force. "I am carnal, sold under sin." It turns the good that we do into evil as the selfish carnal self demands consideration. The principle of sin within ruins the possibility of unselfish service and thus brings us under condemnation (7:14-19).
#Ethically, Paul called out for deliverance from that destroying body of death, which is like unto a decaying corpse (7:24).
#The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, that is, the operation of the Holy Spirit, made Paul free from the body of sin and death. His cry is expressed in 7:24 and is answered in 8:1-2.
#If we live after the flesh we shall die, but if we live after the Spirit we shall live (holiness or death; on to Canaan or back to Egypt). The Spirit also bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God and that we are heirs of God with Christ (8:12-17).
#All creation is groaning to be delivered from the curse of sin and we groan for the redemption of our bodies (8:18-25).
#The Holy Spirit helps our infirmities and enables us to pray as we ought and makes intercession for us (8:26-28). Romans 8:28 is a much-quoted verse:'''"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."'''
#Rom. 8:29-39 is used as a Calvinist stronghold regarding the doctrine of predestination. Paul does not teach it in this or any other area. People are elected and foreordained to glory provided they meet certain conditions. They must will to meet these conditions. Then God will do the rest. Nothing outside of ourselves can separate us from the love of Christ; only we ourselves can do this.

Thus Paul established the fact that both Jew and Gentile are lost, that each has turned down the light. The Jew has turned down the greater light.

All are sinners. Then, by faith in Christ, Jew and Gentile alike may be saved. In the sixth chapter of Romans the carnal nature is dealt with doctrinally. Then in the seventh chapter it is dealt with ethically. In the eighth chapter the experience of entire sanctification is presented as a present possession.

The present position of the Jewish people with regard to the Gentile and the children of God. The plan of God is not considered (chapters 9-11).

#Paul expresses deep regret for the present exclusion of the Hebrew people from the inheritance and the promise (9:1-5; Ex. 32:32).
#Israel rejected Christ and was set aside for a time (Matt. 23:37-39; Isa. 53). Their house or office was to be destitute as far as they were concerned. God had a right to set them aside, for a time. He had set Ishmael and Esau aside. They acted a certain way, and God had chosen Isaac and Jacob. The rejection and choice had nothing to do with personal salvation (9:6-24).
#The Gentiles are given the room and office of witness until the Hebrews awaken. For the promise of God made to the Fathers still belong to the Hebrew people (9:4). Israel is yet to come into her own (9:25-29).
#The Gentiles occupied the witness in office because they attained faith in Christ. The Jews tried to obtain righteousness by the Law and failed. They were therefore rejected for a time (9:30, 33).
#By Israel’s refusal to believe in Christ, she is responsible for her own rejection. But this rejection is not total or final for the nation of Israel (10:1-ll:ll).
#When the Jews fell, God turned to the Gentiles (ll:ll). Thus the rejection of the Jews resulted in the salvation of the Gentiles. The salvation of the latter will ultimately provoke the Jews to jealousy and they will return to God through Christ (11:12-14).
#The Gentiles had better take warning. If God spared not the natural branch (the Jews), neither would he spare the grafted branch (the Gentiles).
#Israel shall again become God’s witnessing body and be saved as a nation (first as individuals and then as a nation) and again become the light of the world. Hence, God’s promises to the Jews are yet to be fulfilled (11:16-36).

The practical or ethical or institutional area (12:1-14:23); followed by a doxology (16:25-27.

#The whole plan of salvation and summary (12:1-2). Partial sanctification and entire sanctification. A holy life lived day by day. The two verses correspond to the burnt offering and includes all offerings (the meal offering, the peace offering, the sin offering, and the trespass offering).
#Exhortations to various Christians, personal duties (12:3-21).
##Exhortations to humility (12:3-5).
##Christian duties and relations to be discharged and observed with love, diligence, hospitality, and sympathy (12:6-16).
##Enemies are to be forgiven from the heart, and good treatment is to be given those who hurt us (12:17-21).
#Exhortations to obey civil magistrates and to holy conduct as preparation for death (13:1-14).
##The powers of government are ordained of God for the protection of the good and the punishment of the evil (13:1-5).
##Tribute and honor must be paid to whom such are due. We are to meet all the Christian claims that others have on us and thus fulfill the law of Christ (13:6-10).
##Life is short and fleeting. Death is certain. Governments are on their way out and hence we should not be overly concerned about them. Rather, we should keep ready for the future (13:11-14).
##With regard to eating, observing days, etc., let each be fully persuaded in his own mind. Apparently some had too scrupulous conscience in these matters (14:1-14).
##Be kind and considerate to those who have an overly sensitive conscience, else you will destroy him for whom Christ died (15-23).
##Here was the original position of the concluding doxology of 16:15, "Now unto him . . .".

The supplementary section (15:1-16:24).

#A further enforcement of Christian considerations to those who are weak in the Faith (15:1-13).
##Paul then gives an account of himself and of his desire to visit Spain after visiting the Roman Christians, which we think he probably never did (15:14-29).
##Paul then requested prayer that he might be delivered from the Judaisers who were opposing him and that he might be permitted to go to Rome (15:30-33).
##Greetings are then sent to Christians at Rome, with greetings from Corinth (16:1-23).
##Great principles that Paul lays down in Romans:
##The Gospel of Christ; the Cross.
##The Jew and Gentile are alike: sinners in God’s sight.
##The only approach to God is faith in Christ, for Jew or Gentile. (a) Faith in Christ goes back to Eden. (b) Brings regeneration for Jew or Gentile.
##The theology of the Old Man in the heart, chaps. 5 and 6.
##The ethical activity of the Old Man in the heart of the regenerated, chap. 7.
##Entire sanctification by faith in Christ (8:2-3).
##Regenerated and made Jewish children of Abraham.
##What about Jewish promise?
##Ethics.
#Romans 16:24 contains the closing, or second, benediction of this supplementary section.

Pauline Epistles

2011-04-26T22:48:50Z

DevonJ: /* Apostle Paul's Life */

The '''Pauline Epistles''' refers to those books of the [[New Testament]] that have traditionally been ascribed to the apostle Paul: [[Romans]]

==Apostle Paul's Life==

Paul was born in Tarsus, a city in the province of Cilicus (in present day eastern Turkey) to Hebrew parents.
He was born a Roman citizen. He was a strict pharisee. He had at least one sister who had one son who lived in Jerusalem. Paul was probably born about 1 A.D.

Paul was early trained in the scriptures and in Hebrew tradition. He was taught the art of tent making. At 13 or 15 years of age, he went to Jerusalem to study at the school of [[Gamaliel]]. At the end of three years he returned to Tarsus and acted as Rabbi (Acts 18:3, 22:3).

Paul returned to Jerusalem and witnessed Stephen’s death. He then became the arch persecutor of the infant Church. On his way to Damascus he was converted, then he was led by the hand to Damascus where Ananias prayed for him. He was sanctified and his sight returned (Acts 9:23).

Paul preached at Damascus without success (Acts 9:20). He then went to Arabia three years (Gal. 1:17). He then returned to Damascus (Gal. 1:17). He then visited Jerusalem and he returned eventually to Tarsus (Acts 22:17-18).

After a time [[Barnabas]] went to Tarsus, looked up Paul and brought him back to Antioch in Syria (Acts 11:25-26). They worked together for a short time (Acts 11:26).
*First missionary tour (Acts 13:2-14:26).
*Second missionary tour (Acts 15:40-18:22).
*Third missionary tour (Acts 18:23-21:8).

Paul visited Jerusalem (Acts 21:17). There he was apprehended, which required his defending himself (Acts 21:7-22:21). He was taken to Caesarea (Acts 23:23-33). He defended himself before Felix (Acts 24:10-21). He was two years in imprisonment there (Acts 24:27). Paul finally appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:10).

Paul journeyed to Rome (Acts 27). He was shipwrecked and landed on Melita (Acts 28:1-10).

Paul preached in Rome (Acts 28:30-31). Apparently he was released after two years. He was free for about one to three years, after which he was again arrested. He was then slain by a sword thrust (II Tim. 4:6-8).

Paul spoke Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew in his home as a boy. He used the Greek Septuagint in study. He could also read Latin.

He entered [[homeschool]] at age four and studied Hebrew law at age ten. He studied the Michna (the sayings of the wise with regard to the Law). At age thirteen or fifteen he went to Jerusalem to learn from the chief instructor, Gamaliel.

After three years he probably returned to Tarsus. In 37 A.D., or when he was thirty-six years of age, Stephen was stoned.

==Writings==

===[[Epistle of Romans| Romans]]===

Paul wrote the book of Romans in the home of Gaius of Corinth (57 A.D.). It was written in Greek by the scribe Tertius, and it was carried to Rome by Phebe, who was a worker in the church.
Rome was the metropolis of the world. Laymen returned to Rome from Pentecost and migrated to Rome from elsewhere and established the church.

Paul did not want to build on the foundation of other Apostles, none of whom had been to Rome. He gave to the group of Roman churches a solid and doctrinal and ethical foundation.

Paul’s line of thought is expressed in the following verses: Rom. 1:16; 3:22-23; 5:1, 7:14, 21, 24; 8:1-2; 12:2, 9, 10; 14:17-18.

====Introduction, Rom. 1:1-16====

Paul was a slave of Jesus Christ, called by Him to be an Apostle to preach the gospel of Christ, which had been foretold by the Prophets. This Christ was proved to be the Son of God by the Resurrection. Through the grace of this Christ you at Rome are saved and called to be saints (Rom. 1:1-7).

Paul thanked God for them and for their faith. He stated that he had prayed constantly for them and desired to see them and impart to them sanctification, or establishing grace. Being a Jew and going to a church largely Gentile, he declared that he was indebted and debtor to all. The Gospel was nothing to be ashamed of anywhere (provided it was presented correctly), as it was the power of God to save both Jew and Greek by faith (1:8-17).

====The doctrinal area, 1:18-11:36====

The doctrines of the righteousness of God, regeneration by faith, and entire sanctification and spiritual establishment (1:18-8:39).

#The wrath of God rests on the Godless. God’s nature and God’s truth have been revealed through created things, but the ungodly and unrighteous have refused to recognize this (1:18-21a).
#The heathen became vain and conceited and senseless. Their hearts were hardened and they made gods in the image of man at his worst. They even worshiped beasts and birds, into which image ". . . they changed the glory of the incorruptible God . . ." (1:21b-23).
#God gave them up to their degraded lust, and to their vile immoralities. They exchanged the truth for a lie and became of a reprobate mind. They turned the light down, and that light became darkness, and the darkness was great (1:24-32).
#The Jew condemned the Greek for doing such things, but the Jew did the same, apparently under cover (2:1-4).
#Wrath, indignation, tribulation and anguish. For the day of wrath is being stored up for those that doeth evil. To the Jew first and also to the Greek, for there is no respecter of persons with God (2:5-11).
#Those who have violated the light of conscience, intuition, and nature, are to be judged accordingly. And those who have violated written revelation will be judged accordingly (2:12-24).
#The Jew thought himself a teacher of the Gentiles, but he himself violated the precepts he taught the Gentile. The Jew rested in the fact that he was a Jew (had the Law) and was circumcised. But Paul said that the Jew was no better than the Gentile (2:25-29).
#The Jew had been entrusted with the oracles of God and some had profited thereby, but the vast majority had not. Hence, the Jew as a nation is no better than the Gentile. All are under sin and are alike condemned by the Law (3:1-20).
#The righteousness of God is manifested in Christ and is apprehended by faith and faith alone. This is the sole remedy for sin, and the remedy is available to all. Glorifying in the Law or in works is excluded. It is by the Law of faith that men touch God (3:21-31).
#Abraham himself was not justified by works, but by faith in Christ. He was justified before the Law was given or any of those things pertaining to it was given. Those who believe in Christ, Jew or Gentile, are children and are heirs of the faithful Abraham and heirs with him (4:1-25).
#We are justified by the blood of Christ through faith in Him and are thus saved from wrath. Through faith in Christ we also have access to this second state or work of grace (5:9-11).
#Sin entered by Adam, the father of Jew and Gentile alike. All were regarded as sinners by that one act of sin, but not after the similitude of Adam’s sin. That is, personal guilt rested on Adam as a result of that act, but personal guilt does not rest on us for that act. Children are born sinful and dead spiritually, but are not born as transgressors, since the Law has not been broken by them. The gift of eternal life was placed within the reach of all by the last Adam. Physical death is to be destroyed for all by the last Adam (5:12-21).
#Being saved, the Old Man now becomes a problem. He is to be crucified (a symbol of death). Thus each is dead to the other. The self is to die as he died. On our part, this is preceded by a consecration like unto a baptism unto death. This is God’s plan of salvation. It is up to us to accept this plan (6:1-11).
#When made free from sin, the result is sanctification, or heart-holiness (evangelical perfection of heart is not Adamic or Edenic perfection), and the end is eternal life.
#An illustration is then drawn from marriage. A woman is bound by law to her husband, but when he is dead she is free from that law and may marry another. Thus, when we are free from the law of sin we become servants of Christ (7:1-6).
#Ethically, sin is a destructive force. "I am carnal, sold under sin." It turns the good that we do into evil as the selfish carnal self demands consideration. The principle of sin within ruins the possibility of unselfish service and thus brings us under condemnation (7:14-19).
#Ethically, Paul called out for deliverance from that destroying body of death, which is like unto a decaying corpse (7:24).
#The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, that is, the operation of the Holy Spirit, made Paul free from the body of sin and death. His cry is expressed in 7:24 and is answered in 8:1-2.
#If we live after the flesh we shall die, but if we live after the Spirit we shall live (holiness or death; on to Canaan or back to Egypt). The Spirit also bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God and that we are heirs of God with Christ (8:12-17).
#All creation is groaning to be delivered from the curse of sin and we groan for the redemption of our bodies (8:18-25).
#The Holy Spirit helps our infirmities and enables us to pray as we ought and makes intercession for us (8:26-28). Romans 8:28 is a much-quoted verse:'''"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."'''
#Rom. 8:29-39 is used as a Calvinist stronghold regarding the doctrine of predestination. Paul does not teach it in this or any other area. People are elected and foreordained to glory provided they meet certain conditions. They must will to meet these conditions. Then God will do the rest. Nothing outside of ourselves can separate us from the love of Christ; only we ourselves can do this.

Thus Paul established the fact that both Jew and Gentile are lost, that each has turned down the light. The Jew has turned down the greater light.

All are sinners. Then, by faith in Christ, Jew and Gentile alike may be saved. In the sixth chapter of Romans the carnal nature is dealt with doctrinally. Then in the seventh chapter it is dealt with ethically. In the eighth chapter the experience of entire sanctification is presented as a present possession.

The present position of the Jewish people with regard to the Gentile and the children of God. The plan of God is not considered (chapters 9-11).

#Paul expresses deep regret for the present exclusion of the Hebrew people from the inheritance and the promise (9:1-5; Ex. 32:32).
#Israel rejected Christ and was set aside for a time (Matt. 23:37-39; Isa. 53). Their house or office was to be destitute as far as they were concerned. God had a right to set them aside, for a time. He had set Ishmael and Esau aside. They acted a certain way, and God had chosen Isaac and Jacob. The rejection and choice had nothing to do with personal salvation (9:6-24).
#The Gentiles are given the room and office of witness until the Hebrews awaken. For the promise of God made to the Fathers still belong to the Hebrew people (9:4). Israel is yet to come into her own (9:25-29).
#The Gentiles occupied the witness in office because they attained faith in Christ. The Jews tried to obtain righteousness by the Law and failed. They were therefore rejected for a time (9:30, 33).
#By Israel’s refusal to believe in Christ, she is responsible for her own rejection. But this rejection is not total or final for the nation of Israel (10:1-ll:ll).
#When the Jews fell, God turned to the Gentiles (ll:ll). Thus the rejection of the Jews resulted in the salvation of the Gentiles. The salvation of the latter will ultimately provoke the Jews to jealousy and they will return to God through Christ (11:12-14).
#The Gentiles had better take warning. If God spared not the natural branch (the Jews), neither would he spare the grafted branch (the Gentiles).
#Israel shall again become God’s witnessing body and be saved as a nation (first as individuals and then as a nation) and again become the light of the world. Hence, God’s promises to the Jews are yet to be fulfilled (11:16-36).

The practical or ethical or institutional area (12:1-14:23); followed by a doxology (16:25-27.

#The whole plan of salvation and summary (12:1-2). Partial sanctification and entire sanctification. A holy life lived day by day. The two verses correspond to the burnt offering and includes all offerings (the meal offering, the peace offering, the sin offering, and the trespass offering).
#Exhortations to various Christians, personal duties (12:3-21).
##Exhortations to humility (12:3-5).
##Christian duties and relations to be discharged and observed with love, diligence, hospitality, and sympathy (12:6-16).
##Enemies are to be forgiven from the heart, and good treatment is to be given those who hurt us (12:17-21).
#Exhortations to obey civil magistrates and to holy conduct as preparation for death (13:1-14).
##The powers of government are ordained of God for the protection of the good and the punishment of the evil (13:1-5).
##Tribute and honor must be paid to whom such are due. We are to meet all the Christian claims that others have on us and thus fulfill the law of Christ (13:6-10).
##Life is short and fleeting. Death is certain. Governments are on their way out and hence we should not be overly concerned about them. Rather, we should keep ready for the future (13:11-14).
##With regard to eating, observing days, etc., let each be fully persuaded in his own mind. Apparently some had too scrupulous conscience in these matters (14:1-14).
##Be kind and considerate to those who have an overly sensitive conscience, else you will destroy him for whom Christ died (15-23).
##Here was the original position of the concluding doxology of 16:15, "Now unto him . . .".

The supplementary section (15:1-16:24).

#A further enforcement of Christian considerations to those who are weak in the Faith (15:1-13).
##Paul then gives an account of himself and of his desire to visit Spain after visiting the Roman Christians, which we think he probably never did (15:14-29).
##Paul then requested prayer that he might be delivered from the Judaisers who were opposing him and that he might be permitted to go to Rome (15:30-33).
##Greetings are then sent to Christians at Rome, with greetings from Corinth (16:1-23).
##Great principles that Paul lays down in Romans:
##The Gospel of Christ; the Cross.
##The Jew and Gentile are alike: sinners in God’s sight.
##The only approach to God is faith in Christ, for Jew or Gentile. (a) Faith in Christ goes back to Eden. (b) Brings regeneration for Jew or Gentile.
##The theology of the Old Man in the heart, chaps. 5 and 6.
##The ethical activity of the Old Man in the heart of the regenerated, chap. 7.
##Entire sanctification by faith in Christ (8:2-3).
##Regenerated and made Jewish children of Abraham.
##What about Jewish promise?
##Ethics.
#Romans 16:24 contains the closing, or second, benediction of this supplementary section.

Pauline Epistles

2011-04-26T22:47:56Z

DevonJ: A beginning

The '''Pauline Epistles''' refers to those books of the [[New Testament]] that have traditionally been ascribed to the apostle Paul: [[Romans]]

==Apostle Paul's Life==

Paul was born in Tarsus, a city in the province of Cilicus (in present day eastern Turkey) to Hebrew parents.
He was born a Roman citizen. He was a strict pharisee. He had at least one sister who had one son who lived in Jerusalem. Paul was probably born about 1 A.D.

Paul was early trained in the scriptures and in Hebrew tradition. He was taught the art of tent making. At 13 or 15 years of age, he went to Jerusalem to study at the school of [[Gamaliel]]. At the end of three years he returned to Tarsus and acted as Rabbi (Acts 18:3, 22:3).

Paul returned to Jerusalem and witnessed Stephen’s death. He then became the arch persecutor of the infant Church. On his way to Damascus he was converted, then he was led by the hand to Damascus where Ananias prayed for him. He was sanctified and his sight returned (Acts 9:23).

Paul preached at Damascus without success (Acts 9:20). He then went to Arabia three years (Gal. 1:17). He then returned to Damascus (Gal. 1:17). He then visited Jerusalem and he returned eventually to Tarsus (Acts 22:17-18).

After a time [[Barnabas]] went to Tarsus, looked up Paul and brought him back to Antioch in Syria (Acts 11:25-26). They worked together for a short time (Acts 11:26).
First missionary tour (Acts 13:2-14:26).
Second missionary tour (Acts 15:40-18:22).
Third missionary tour (Acts 18:23-21:8).
Paul visited Jerusalem (Acts 21:17). There he was apprehended, which required his defending himself (Acts 21:7-22:21). He was taken to Caesarea (Acts 23:23-33). He defended himself before Felix (Acts 24:10-21). He was two years in imprisonment there (Acts 24:27). Paul finally appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:10).

Paul journeyed to Rome (Acts 27). He was shipwrecked and landed on Melita (Acts 28:1-10).

Paul preached in Rome (Acts 28:30-31). Apparently he was released after two years. He was free for about one to three years, after which he was again arrested. He was then slain by a sword thrust (II Tim. 4:6-8).

Paul spoke Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew in his home as a boy. He used the Greek Septuagint in study. He could also read Latin.

He entered [[homeschool]] at age four and studied Hebrew law at age ten. He studied the Michna (the sayings of the wise with regard to the Law). At age thirteen or fifteen he went to Jerusalem to learn from the chief instructor, Gamaliel.

After three years he probably returned to Tarsus. In 37 A.D., or when he was thirty-six years of age, Stephen was stoned.

==Writings==

===[[Epistle of Romans| Romans]]===

Paul wrote the book of Romans in the home of Gaius of Corinth (57 A.D.). It was written in Greek by the scribe Tertius, and it was carried to Rome by Phebe, who was a worker in the church.
Rome was the metropolis of the world. Laymen returned to Rome from Pentecost and migrated to Rome from elsewhere and established the church.

Paul did not want to build on the foundation of other Apostles, none of whom had been to Rome. He gave to the group of Roman churches a solid and doctrinal and ethical foundation.

Paul’s line of thought is expressed in the following verses: Rom. 1:16; 3:22-23; 5:1, 7:14, 21, 24; 8:1-2; 12:2, 9, 10; 14:17-18.

====Introduction, Rom. 1:1-16====

Paul was a slave of Jesus Christ, called by Him to be an Apostle to preach the gospel of Christ, which had been foretold by the Prophets. This Christ was proved to be the Son of God by the Resurrection. Through the grace of this Christ you at Rome are saved and called to be saints (Rom. 1:1-7).

Paul thanked God for them and for their faith. He stated that he had prayed constantly for them and desired to see them and impart to them sanctification, or establishing grace. Being a Jew and going to a church largely Gentile, he declared that he was indebted and debtor to all. The Gospel was nothing to be ashamed of anywhere (provided it was presented correctly), as it was the power of God to save both Jew and Greek by faith (1:8-17).

====The doctrinal area, 1:18-11:36====

The doctrines of the righteousness of God, regeneration by faith, and entire sanctification and spiritual establishment (1:18-8:39).

#The wrath of God rests on the Godless. God’s nature and God’s truth have been revealed through created things, but the ungodly and unrighteous have refused to recognize this (1:18-21a).
#The heathen became vain and conceited and senseless. Their hearts were hardened and they made gods in the image of man at his worst. They even worshiped beasts and birds, into which image ". . . they changed the glory of the incorruptible God . . ." (1:21b-23).
#God gave them up to their degraded lust, and to their vile immoralities. They exchanged the truth for a lie and became of a reprobate mind. They turned the light down, and that light became darkness, and the darkness was great (1:24-32).
#The Jew condemned the Greek for doing such things, but the Jew did the same, apparently under cover (2:1-4).
#Wrath, indignation, tribulation and anguish. For the day of wrath is being stored up for those that doeth evil. To the Jew first and also to the Greek, for there is no respecter of persons with God (2:5-11).
#Those who have violated the light of conscience, intuition, and nature, are to be judged accordingly. And those who have violated written revelation will be judged accordingly (2:12-24).
#The Jew thought himself a teacher of the Gentiles, but he himself violated the precepts he taught the Gentile. The Jew rested in the fact that he was a Jew (had the Law) and was circumcised. But Paul said that the Jew was no better than the Gentile (2:25-29).
#The Jew had been entrusted with the oracles of God and some had profited thereby, but the vast majority had not. Hence, the Jew as a nation is no better than the Gentile. All are under sin and are alike condemned by the Law (3:1-20).
#The righteousness of God is manifested in Christ and is apprehended by faith and faith alone. This is the sole remedy for sin, and the remedy is available to all. Glorifying in the Law or in works is excluded. It is by the Law of faith that men touch God (3:21-31).
#Abraham himself was not justified by works, but by faith in Christ. He was justified before the Law was given or any of those things pertaining to it was given. Those who believe in Christ, Jew or Gentile, are children and are heirs of the faithful Abraham and heirs with him (4:1-25).
#We are justified by the blood of Christ through faith in Him and are thus saved from wrath. Through faith in Christ we also have access to this second state or work of grace (5:9-11).
#Sin entered by Adam, the father of Jew and Gentile alike. All were regarded as sinners by that one act of sin, but not after the similitude of Adam’s sin. That is, personal guilt rested on Adam as a result of that act, but personal guilt does not rest on us for that act. Children are born sinful and dead spiritually, but are not born as transgressors, since the Law has not been broken by them. The gift of eternal life was placed within the reach of all by the last Adam. Physical death is to be destroyed for all by the last Adam (5:12-21).
#Being saved, the Old Man now becomes a problem. He is to be crucified (a symbol of death). Thus each is dead to the other. The self is to die as he died. On our part, this is preceded by a consecration like unto a baptism unto death. This is God’s plan of salvation. It is up to us to accept this plan (6:1-11).
#When made free from sin, the result is sanctification, or heart-holiness (evangelical perfection of heart is not Adamic or Edenic perfection), and the end is eternal life.
#An illustration is then drawn from marriage. A woman is bound by law to her husband, but when he is dead she is free from that law and may marry another. Thus, when we are free from the law of sin we become servants of Christ (7:1-6).
#Ethically, sin is a destructive force. "I am carnal, sold under sin." It turns the good that we do into evil as the selfish carnal self demands consideration. The principle of sin within ruins the possibility of unselfish service and thus brings us under condemnation (7:14-19).
#Ethically, Paul called out for deliverance from that destroying body of death, which is like unto a decaying corpse (7:24).
#The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, that is, the operation of the Holy Spirit, made Paul free from the body of sin and death. His cry is expressed in 7:24 and is answered in 8:1-2.
#If we live after the flesh we shall die, but if we live after the Spirit we shall live (holiness or death; on to Canaan or back to Egypt). The Spirit also bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God and that we are heirs of God with Christ (8:12-17).
#All creation is groaning to be delivered from the curse of sin and we groan for the redemption of our bodies (8:18-25).
#The Holy Spirit helps our infirmities and enables us to pray as we ought and makes intercession for us (8:26-28). Romans 8:28 is a much-quoted verse:'''"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."'''
#Rom. 8:29-39 is used as a Calvinist stronghold regarding the doctrine of predestination. Paul does not teach it in this or any other area. People are elected and foreordained to glory provided they meet certain conditions. They must will to meet these conditions. Then God will do the rest. Nothing outside of ourselves can separate us from the love of Christ; only we ourselves can do this.

Thus Paul established the fact that both Jew and Gentile are lost, that each has turned down the light. The Jew has turned down the greater light.

All are sinners. Then, by faith in Christ, Jew and Gentile alike may be saved. In the sixth chapter of Romans the carnal nature is dealt with doctrinally. Then in the seventh chapter it is dealt with ethically. In the eighth chapter the experience of entire sanctification is presented as a present possession.

The present position of the Jewish people with regard to the Gentile and the children of God. The plan of God is not considered (chapters 9-11).

#Paul expresses deep regret for the present exclusion of the Hebrew people from the inheritance and the promise (9:1-5; Ex. 32:32).
#Israel rejected Christ and was set aside for a time (Matt. 23:37-39; Isa. 53). Their house or office was to be destitute as far as they were concerned. God had a right to set them aside, for a time. He had set Ishmael and Esau aside. They acted a certain way, and God had chosen Isaac and Jacob. The rejection and choice had nothing to do with personal salvation (9:6-24).
#The Gentiles are given the room and office of witness until the Hebrews awaken. For the promise of God made to the Fathers still belong to the Hebrew people (9:4). Israel is yet to come into her own (9:25-29).
#The Gentiles occupied the witness in office because they attained faith in Christ. The Jews tried to obtain righteousness by the Law and failed. They were therefore rejected for a time (9:30, 33).
#By Israel’s refusal to believe in Christ, she is responsible for her own rejection. But this rejection is not total or final for the nation of Israel (10:1-ll:ll).
#When the Jews fell, God turned to the Gentiles (ll:ll). Thus the rejection of the Jews resulted in the salvation of the Gentiles. The salvation of the latter will ultimately provoke the Jews to jealousy and they will return to God through Christ (11:12-14).
#The Gentiles had better take warning. If God spared not the natural branch (the Jews), neither would he spare the grafted branch (the Gentiles).
#Israel shall again become God’s witnessing body and be saved as a nation (first as individuals and then as a nation) and again become the light of the world. Hence, God’s promises to the Jews are yet to be fulfilled (11:16-36).

The practical or ethical or institutional area (12:1-14:23); followed by a doxology (16:25-27.

#The whole plan of salvation and summary (12:1-2). Partial sanctification and entire sanctification. A holy life lived day by day. The two verses correspond to the burnt offering and includes all offerings (the meal offering, the peace offering, the sin offering, and the trespass offering).
#Exhortations to various Christians, personal duties (12:3-21).
##Exhortations to humility (12:3-5).
##Christian duties and relations to be discharged and observed with love, diligence, hospitality, and sympathy (12:6-16).
##Enemies are to be forgiven from the heart, and good treatment is to be given those who hurt us (12:17-21).
#Exhortations to obey civil magistrates and to holy conduct as preparation for death (13:1-14).
##The powers of government are ordained of God for the protection of the good and the punishment of the evil (13:1-5).
##Tribute and honor must be paid to whom such are due. We are to meet all the Christian claims that others have on us and thus fulfill the law of Christ (13:6-10).
##Life is short and fleeting. Death is certain. Governments are on their way out and hence we should not be overly concerned about them. Rather, we should keep ready for the future (13:11-14).
##With regard to eating, observing days, etc., let each be fully persuaded in his own mind. Apparently some had too scrupulous conscience in these matters (14:1-14).
##Be kind and considerate to those who have an overly sensitive conscience, else you will destroy him for whom Christ died (15-23).
##Here was the original position of the concluding doxology of 16:15, "Now unto him . . .".

The supplementary section (15:1-16:24).

#A further enforcement of Christian considerations to those who are weak in the Faith (15:1-13).
##Paul then gives an account of himself and of his desire to visit Spain after visiting the Roman Christians, which we think he probably never did (15:14-29).
##Paul then requested prayer that he might be delivered from the Judaisers who were opposing him and that he might be permitted to go to Rome (15:30-33).
##Greetings are then sent to Christians at Rome, with greetings from Corinth (16:1-23).
##Great principles that Paul lays down in Romans:
##The Gospel of Christ; the Cross.
##The Jew and Gentile are alike: sinners in God’s sight.
##The only approach to God is faith in Christ, for Jew or Gentile. (a) Faith in Christ goes back to Eden. (b) Brings regeneration for Jew or Gentile.
##The theology of the Old Man in the heart, chaps. 5 and 6.
##The ethical activity of the Old Man in the heart of the regenerated, chap. 7.
##Entire sanctification by faith in Christ (8:2-3).
##Regenerated and made Jewish children of Abraham.
##What about Jewish promise?
##Ethics.
#Romans 16:24 contains the closing, or second, benediction of this supplementary section.

Talk:Essay:Impeach Obama

2011-04-26T17:41:48Z

DevonJ: /* It's NOT? */

==Discussion==
Seeing as you wrote this essay "to bring about a discussion," I'll take you up on this and engage with you on a few points.
#What precisely are you alleging are Obama's crimes against the constitution which make the usual constitutional measures (election, impeachment) not strong enough? You mention "Justification of the invasion, conduct of the war, treatment of detainees, NSA warrantless surveillence, etc.," but these, as you say, are unconstitutional acts of the Bush administration which Obama has continued despite their unconstitutionality. As you rightly point out about Wikipedia, it's hypocritical to say that Bush was deserving of impeachment for these but Obama is not. But of course, that also means that the reverse is also true, is it not?
#"I strongly believe the President needs to be removed from office by the U.S. Military and tried under the military court system...Am I advocating a military coup? No I am not. The military will not be running America. The only thing the military would do is relieve the President, by the powers invested by the Constitution, of his duties and put others in charge of running the country." Two questions about this. First of all, removal of the president by the military is, by definition, a military coup. Or else, where are you reading in the constitution that the military has the power to remove their commander-in-chief? Second, how is advocating a forceful overthrow of the president ''not'' sedition?
#"As others have mentioned, we will survive Obama's presidency. But the millions of people who put this man in power will be a drain on liberty and Democracy for years to come." I don't understand this statement. Obama was democratically elected. Last November, Republicans in large numbers were democratically elected to the house, and may, if turning out in large enough numbers next November, vote Obama out of office. That's the essence of what you're calling Democracy. Are you really saying that the majority of voters who elected Obama are a drain on democracy? It seems logical to me that the democratic process is alive and well. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:47, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for your interest JDWpianist. You make some valid aurguments that break my points down sensibly, let me try and clarify.

:1) The Wikipedia page is just meaningless. A page with the same bullet points with Obama would, in my opinion, would be meaningless as well. My point, Obama is deserving of such criticism but is protected by the mobocracy. I don't believe those points are against the Constitution but are in fact legitimate criticisms. I believe Obama can be removed from office but the days of impeachment are about over. It is no longer an effective means of removal. Obama's crimes, particularly his lies are well documented and should be enough to warrant removal. His fiscal policy is endangering not only future generations but today's generation and world peace. His actions in Libya, without as much as a single American consulted, has in fact given our blood and treasure to the UN without permission. His willful open border policy has left the nation vulnerable. The list goes on and on, see [[Obama doublespeak]] and [[Barack Obama's unlawful acts]].

:2) I knew I would be called out on this one. Technically, yes I am calling for a military coup. In normal circumstances, the military removes a leader, disbands congress, shreds and restarts a constitution and a Junta becomes the defacto leadership. It's not in the Constitution but the commander-n-chief is the head of the military and the military can relieve commanders. I would like to see the military remove Obama, the second in command becomes the chief executive, Congress stays in place, the Constitution stays intact.

:3) Just as millions put this man in power, millions would oppose his removal. These same people ignore his crimes and are in agreement with soft tyranny of changing America into a socialist state. The breaking of an oath is serious but not to people who will do anything for an election win. These people care not for the country but of themselves and the influence and paybacks they will get from keeping Obama in power is their priority. The election of 2008 was fraud ridden. These leeches of the state are an army of anti-Americans that won't disappear with a new leader. Did fraud equal the six million vote threshold of victory? This bad situation we find ourselves in and will likely be rectified with more elections and Democracy. He may have been democratically elected but it was a sham like no other. The election was a victory for thugs and their friends. The lies, the sheer number of lies surpasses any politician promises that are often made. Obama lied his way to victory. That is not a Democratic victory, that is a victory for fraud and deceit. I feel the discussion needs to be centered on what line cannot be crossed and what to do if it has been crossed. Impeachment will never work, that means Obama can do what he wishes without fear of removal. When he loses in 2012, and he will lose, there is not an ounce of trust left for Obama. He can start a war with Israel after November 2012 and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Unless America devises a strategy to deal with this man, we are held hostage to the power he possesses.

::I am just offering my opinions of course, right or wrong, you be the judge. Thanks for reading and you Obama apologists, thanks for criticizing. Hopefully this page helps grow Conservapedia!!! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:12, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::You've made it quite clear why you believe that Obama is an awful president, that he's broken the law, conducted unwarranted military actions, and that he's taking the country off a cliff financially, points on which reasonable people can agree or disagree, but if I may offer a critical observation of your analysis, I haven't seen so far that you've made a convincing case for why a military coup is the only way. You have to imagine that whatever you may believe about the crimes of the Obama administration, you'd have to convince not only most of the public (whom you seem to mistrust), but more importantly the entire military that you are correct. The way I see it, there are two questions left, one depending on the other.
:::#The first question, which you've hinted at an answer for is, can a removal of the president by the army ever be construed as a constitutionally-justified action? You do say that "the military can relieve commanders," but this seems to me quite dubious, as I've never heard the argument put forth that a high-ranking member of the armed forces can be relieved by a lower-ranking member; that's technically known as mutiny or sedition, I believe. This is of course not to say that sedition or mutiny is never justified. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I might suggest that you advocate taking extra-constitutional measures to preserve the constitution from a president you see as destroying it. Would you characterize it this way? This is however a black-or-white question; either something is allowed by the constitution or it is not. Let's call a spade a spade: if you really think that Obama's crimes endanger the constitution, you are indeed advocating extra-constitutional overthrow for pious reasons, and should be unflinching about it. That leads to the second, more philosophical question:
:::#What exactly is the line at which a president's actions become so heinous as to warrant going outside the constitutional protocol to remove them? It would seem to me that most people would set that bar very high, military members included. My personal standard would be if the president took unprecedented actions to destroy the checks and balances set up by the constitution. There is an honest case to be made that in the past 50 years the power of the other two branches has slowly eroded -- Obama surely did not begin the Imperial Presidency, as I often hear it called -- but I'm talking about steps such as immediately dissolving the Congress, dismissing the supreme court, declaring martial law without cause. Things which unambiguously consolidate all of the power in the president's chair. It's fair to argue that Obama has gone far beyond what the reasonable person would consider a justified use of presidential power, and even far beyond presidents before him who were perceived this way, but you have to remember that you've got a lot of convincing to do if this were ever to become reality.
:::I can perhaps put the question to you this way. How would you go about convincing the most skeptical general that an act of sedition is morally justified? How would you convince the public? What would you do about the portion of the public which as opposed to your plan? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 11:16, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

===It's NOT?===
Per JPatt's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AEssay%3AImpeach_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=862070&oldid=861982 reply above]:"'''It's not in the Constitution but the commander-n-chief is the head of the military and the military can relieve commanders.'''". I refer you, sir, to Article two, Section two of the document
{{Cquote|'''Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments'''

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...}}

If sir isn't able to parse out the plain English of the Constitution's text, ''per se,'' why should a reader be persuaded by his ''interpretation'' of said document, let alone by going further, to negate the thing in order to '''''save'' the republic'''? [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 12:52, 24 April 2011 (EDT)
:The discussion was not in regards to IF the constitution says the prez is commander-n-chief but if the constitution says the prez can be removed. Snarkyness will not win you friends here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:06, 24 April 2011 (EDT)
::Ah, I see you point now. It's not a very clear sentence, written, as it is, in the passive tense.
::Yes, barring the Constitutional process of impeachment to remove a sitting President, everything else would be extra-constitutional, (and probably illegal).
::As for winning friends here, I'll gladly be the enemy of a self-professed seditionist. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 19:55, 25 April 2011 (EDT)
:::Stand by your man Obama, lol. Next you'll tell me you didn't vote for him. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:25, 25 April 2011 (EDT)
::::What are you talking about? I'm not defending Obama, I'm questioning ''you'' both on your inability to write a coherent sentence ''and'' (more importantly) the cavalier way you jettison conservative principles in order to get your own way '''''now'''''.
::::Your psychic abilities are fair-to-middling: No, I did not vote for Obama in 2008. I won't be voting for him in 2012 either.
::::I won't be voting ''at all'' until primary season of 2014, which is when I will reach the age of majority. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 13:41, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

=='The military removes Obama ... the constitution stays in place'==

I have grave doubts about your thinking here. There is no provision in the US constitution for forcible removal of a president by the military. Once an action that is in breach of the constitution is taken and accepted the constitution no longer governs the country. Instead, it will become a case of "whoever the military wants" governs the country. This is not a step I can recommend for any country to take, having seen first hand the breakdown in civil law that was the result of the military coup in Fiji.

I strongly urge you to consider the long term implications of a move to forcibly remove a president from office. The US consitution has survived over two hundred years, but will not survive what you are advocating. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 19:23, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:I have concerns that the Constitution is already in trouble thanks to Obama. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== Why?? ==

Apart from the issue of having a military coup in America, the problem with this essay in my opinion is that it doesn't present reasons why Obama should be impeached. The current reasoning appears to be that he has continued Bush's policies. Without specific examples of things Obama has done to warrant removal from office, this essay is just an anti-Obama rant. {{unsigned|BenDylan}}
: Remember to sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 21:34, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
::Unless you live in la la land with your TV tuned to the liberal media, I don't have to go into description of what Obama has done that deserve his removal. In fact, I am curious to see the accomplishments Obama will campaign on. Yes, it is a rant. Yes, it is only an opinion.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== A dose of reality ==
The plain facts are Obama will continue to be Commander in Chief & President for the next one and a half years -- barring 20 Democratic Sernators turning on him. Even then, the GOP House got burned last time on this and has no compuntion to tile public opinion again. Also note, Michelle Obama did not serve on the House Judiciary Committee as Hillary did, so there's no notion of payback for promoting oneself by stepping on somebody elses neck.

What is more frightening, IMHO, more than Obama's inexperiece and imcompetence, is ths slavish and cultic mentality of his devotees (an ever shrinking minority, thank God). For that cause alone he needs to be defeatd and rejected at the polls as the false messiah his follows set him up to be. Worshipping a man, and pinning all one's hopes on a man, or looking to a man for salvation, is a ''grievious'' sin for any nation in God's site. The dustbin of history is littered with nations that have been led captive for this sin. Obama is not the first and only incompetent pretender to occupy the office. But seriously, we as a nation have more important things to worry about than the fate of one man's career, or the fate of the Demoicratic Party. We have much more important concerns, in spite of thier reluctance to address these problems. Let's get on with the business of being citizens. The nation will survive. The people will survive. We're here for the long haul. Incompetent idiots are but only for a moment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:16, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:I agree Rob. As I mentioned in the essay "Fat chance, I know." He will make it to the 2012 elections without removal, there is no doubt about it. America is held captive because whatever he says or does, he fears no repercussions to losing his job outside of an election. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== Holy hyperbole, Batman. ==

I don't mean to be impolite, but isn't this kind of ridiculous? I have no love for Obama; as a strict libertarian, I disagree with him on almost everything, social and fiscal. But this is a democracy. And it is a democracy even when your candidate loses. If you really believe this, you will have to go into more detail than "Oh, you know how he's destroying the Constitution, I don't need to say any more". You talk about him like he is an iron-fisted dictator, but was Caligula ever hampered because he couldn't reach cloture in the Senate? 

I looked over your article [[Barack Obama's unlawful acts]], and for such a grievous call to action, you seem to have done painfully little research. For instance, you say the Obama bailout of AIG violated the Constitution - yet, with casual retrospection, everyone should know that the AIG bailout happened in Sept. 2008, under President Bush. If this was truly a terrible violation of the Constitution, why not argue for trying President Bush in a military tribunal? If you think he is really destroying the Constitution, you should be able to provide a list of incontrovertible, non-interpretable offenses. 

I hate to rant, but it pains me to see someone so willing to throw away democracy at a whim. In Nov. 2012, vote for the Republican candidate; this is how our systems, has always worked, and will always work. But until Obama starts disbanding the Congress or executing judges, I think suggesting an Africa-style military coup is profoundly absurd. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 21:42, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

:Boy Wonder, are you saying I am wrong? Well I guess there is a first for everything. I wear profoundly absurd as a badge of honor. There is always Hope for a Change of leadership before it's too late. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:41, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== An idea that is taking shape ==
I just read a NewsMax article on a military coup over Obama. However, the page was taken down but saved for all by the liberals at TPM. [http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co.php] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:55, 21 April 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, Media Matters has piece on it from Sept 2009. [http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909290042] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 21 April 2011 (EDT)
::Here's one from 2011 that lays out Constitutional conditions. [http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/constitutional-options-for-removing-obama/] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:37, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Impeach Obama

2011-04-25T23:56:03Z

DevonJ: /* It's NOT? */ ,

==Discussion==
Seeing as you wrote this essay "to bring about a discussion," I'll take you up on this and engage with you on a few points.
#What precisely are you alleging are Obama's crimes against the constitution which make the usual constitutional measures (election, impeachment) not strong enough? You mention "Justification of the invasion, conduct of the war, treatment of detainees, NSA warrantless surveillence, etc.," but these, as you say, are unconstitutional acts of the Bush administration which Obama has continued despite their unconstitutionality. As you rightly point out about Wikipedia, it's hypocritical to say that Bush was deserving of impeachment for these but Obama is not. But of course, that also means that the reverse is also true, is it not?
#"I strongly believe the President needs to be removed from office by the U.S. Military and tried under the military court system...Am I advocating a military coup? No I am not. The military will not be running America. The only thing the military would do is relieve the President, by the powers invested by the Constitution, of his duties and put others in charge of running the country." Two questions about this. First of all, removal of the president by the military is, by definition, a military coup. Or else, where are you reading in the constitution that the military has the power to remove their commander-in-chief? Second, how is advocating a forceful overthrow of the president ''not'' sedition?
#"As others have mentioned, we will survive Obama's presidency. But the millions of people who put this man in power will be a drain on liberty and Democracy for years to come." I don't understand this statement. Obama was democratically elected. Last November, Republicans in large numbers were democratically elected to the house, and may, if turning out in large enough numbers next November, vote Obama out of office. That's the essence of what you're calling Democracy. Are you really saying that the majority of voters who elected Obama are a drain on democracy? It seems logical to me that the democratic process is alive and well. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:47, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for your interest JDWpianist. You make some valid aurguments that break my points down sensibly, let me try and clarify.

:1) The Wikipedia page is just meaningless. A page with the same bullet points with Obama would, in my opinion, would be meaningless as well. My point, Obama is deserving of such criticism but is protected by the mobocracy. I don't believe those points are against the Constitution but are in fact legitimate criticisms. I believe Obama can be removed from office but the days of impeachment are about over. It is no longer an effective means of removal. Obama's crimes, particularly his lies are well documented and should be enough to warrant removal. His fiscal policy is endangering not only future generations but today's generation and world peace. His actions in Libya, without as much as a single American consulted, has in fact given our blood and treasure to the UN without permission. His willful open border policy has left the nation vulnerable. The list goes on and on, see [[Obama doublespeak]] and [[Barack Obama's unlawful acts]].

:2) I knew I would be called out on this one. Technically, yes I am calling for a military coup. In normal circumstances, the military removes a leader, disbands congress, shreds and restarts a constitution and a Junta becomes the defacto leadership. It's not in the Constitution but the commander-n-chief is the head of the military and the military can relieve commanders. I would like to see the military remove Obama, the second in command becomes the chief executive, Congress stays in place, the Constitution stays intact.

:3) Just as millions put this man in power, millions would oppose his removal. These same people ignore his crimes and are in agreement with soft tyranny of changing America into a socialist state. The breaking of an oath is serious but not to people who will do anything for an election win. These people care not for the country but of themselves and the influence and paybacks they will get from keeping Obama in power is their priority. The election of 2008 was fraud ridden. These leeches of the state are an army of anti-Americans that won't disappear with a new leader. Did fraud equal the six million vote threshold of victory? This bad situation we find ourselves in and will likely be rectified with more elections and Democracy. He may have been democratically elected but it was a sham like no other. The election was a victory for thugs and their friends. The lies, the sheer number of lies surpasses any politician promises that are often made. Obama lied his way to victory. That is not a Democratic victory, that is a victory for fraud and deceit. I feel the discussion needs to be centered on what line cannot be crossed and what to do if it has been crossed. Impeachment will never work, that means Obama can do what he wishes without fear of removal. When he loses in 2012, and he will lose, there is not an ounce of trust left for Obama. He can start a war with Israel after November 2012 and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Unless America devises a strategy to deal with this man, we are held hostage to the power he possesses.

::I am just offering my opinions of course, right or wrong, you be the judge. Thanks for reading and you Obama apologists, thanks for criticizing. Hopefully this page helps grow Conservapedia!!! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:12, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::You've made it quite clear why you believe that Obama is an awful president, that he's broken the law, conducted unwarranted military actions, and that he's taking the country off a cliff financially, points on which reasonable people can agree or disagree, but if I may offer a critical observation of your analysis, I haven't seen so far that you've made a convincing case for why a military coup is the only way. You have to imagine that whatever you may believe about the crimes of the Obama administration, you'd have to convince not only most of the public (whom you seem to mistrust), but more importantly the entire military that you are correct. The way I see it, there are two questions left, one depending on the other.
:::#The first question, which you've hinted at an answer for is, can a removal of the president by the army ever be construed as a constitutionally-justified action? You do say that "the military can relieve commanders," but this seems to me quite dubious, as I've never heard the argument put forth that a high-ranking member of the armed forces can be relieved by a lower-ranking member; that's technically known as mutiny or sedition, I believe. This is of course not to say that sedition or mutiny is never justified. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I might suggest that you advocate taking extra-constitutional measures to preserve the constitution from a president you see as destroying it. Would you characterize it this way? This is however a black-or-white question; either something is allowed by the constitution or it is not. Let's call a spade a spade: if you really think that Obama's crimes endanger the constitution, you are indeed advocating extra-constitutional overthrow for pious reasons, and should be unflinching about it. That leads to the second, more philosophical question:
:::#What exactly is the line at which a president's actions become so heinous as to warrant going outside the constitutional protocol to remove them? It would seem to me that most people would set that bar very high, military members included. My personal standard would be if the president took unprecedented actions to destroy the checks and balances set up by the constitution. There is an honest case to be made that in the past 50 years the power of the other two branches has slowly eroded -- Obama surely did not begin the Imperial Presidency, as I often hear it called -- but I'm talking about steps such as immediately dissolving the Congress, dismissing the supreme court, declaring martial law without cause. Things which unambiguously consolidate all of the power in the president's chair. It's fair to argue that Obama has gone far beyond what the reasonable person would consider a justified use of presidential power, and even far beyond presidents before him who were perceived this way, but you have to remember that you've got a lot of convincing to do if this were ever to become reality.
:::I can perhaps put the question to you this way. How would you go about convincing the most skeptical general that an act of sedition is morally justified? How would you convince the public? What would you do about the portion of the public which as opposed to your plan? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 11:16, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

===It's NOT?===
Per JPatt's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AEssay%3AImpeach_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=862070&oldid=861982 reply above]:"'''It's not in the Constitution but the commander-n-chief is the head of the military and the military can relieve commanders.'''". I refer you, sir, to Article two, Section two of the document
{{Cquote|'''Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments'''

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...}}

If sir isn't able to parse out the plain English of the Constitution's text, ''per se,'' why should a reader be persuaded by his ''interpretation'' of said document, let alone by going further, to negate the thing in order to '''''save'' the republic'''? [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 12:52, 24 April 2011 (EDT)
:The discussion was not in regards to IF the constitution says the prez is commander-n-chief but if the constitution says the prez can be removed. Snarkyness will not win you friends here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:06, 24 April 2011 (EDT)
::Ah, I see you point now. It's not a very clear sentence, written, as it is, in the passive tense.
::Yes, barring the Constitutional process of impeachment to remove a sitting President, everything else would be extra-constitutional, (and probably illegal).
::As for winning friends here, I'll gladly be the enemy of a self-professed seditionist. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 19:55, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

=='The military removes Obama ... the constitution stays in place'==

I have grave doubts about your thinking here. There is no provision in the US constitution for forcible removal of a president by the military. Once an action that is in breach of the constitution is taken and accepted the constitution no longer governs the country. Instead, it will become a case of "whoever the military wants" governs the country. This is not a step I can recommend for any country to take, having seen first hand the breakdown in civil law that was the result of the military coup in Fiji.

I strongly urge you to consider the long term implications of a move to forcibly remove a president from office. The US consitution has survived over two hundred years, but will not survive what you are advocating. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 19:23, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:I have concerns that the Constitution is already in trouble thanks to Obama. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== Why?? ==

Apart from the issue of having a military coup in America, the problem with this essay in my opinion is that it doesn't present reasons why Obama should be impeached. The current reasoning appears to be that he has continued Bush's policies. Without specific examples of things Obama has done to warrant removal from office, this essay is just an anti-Obama rant. {{unsigned|BenDylan}}
: Remember to sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 21:34, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
::Unless you live in la la land with your TV tuned to the liberal media, I don't have to go into description of what Obama has done that deserve his removal. In fact, I am curious to see the accomplishments Obama will campaign on. Yes, it is a rant. Yes, it is only an opinion.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== A dose of reality ==
The plain facts are Obama will continue to be Commander in Chief & President for the next one and a half years -- barring 20 Democratic Sernators turning on him. Even then, the GOP House got burned last time on this and has no compuntion to tile public opinion again. Also note, Michelle Obama did not serve on the House Judiciary Committee as Hillary did, so there's no notion of payback for promoting oneself by stepping on somebody elses neck.

What is more frightening, IMHO, more than Obama's inexperiece and imcompetence, is ths slavish and cultic mentality of his devotees (an ever shrinking minority, thank God). For that cause alone he needs to be defeatd and rejected at the polls as the false messiah his follows set him up to be. Worshipping a man, and pinning all one's hopes on a man, or looking to a man for salvation, is a ''grievious'' sin for any nation in God's site. The dustbin of history is littered with nations that have been led captive for this sin. Obama is not the first and only incompetent pretender to occupy the office. But seriously, we as a nation have more important things to worry about than the fate of one man's career, or the fate of the Demoicratic Party. We have much more important concerns, in spite of thier reluctance to address these problems. Let's get on with the business of being citizens. The nation will survive. The people will survive. We're here for the long haul. Incompetent idiots are but only for a moment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:16, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:I agree Rob. As I mentioned in the essay "Fat chance, I know." He will make it to the 2012 elections without removal, there is no doubt about it. America is held captive because whatever he says or does, he fears no repercussions to losing his job outside of an election. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== Holy hyperbole, Batman. ==

I don't mean to be impolite, but isn't this kind of ridiculous? I have no love for Obama; as a strict libertarian, I disagree with him on almost everything, social and fiscal. But this is a democracy. And it is a democracy even when your candidate loses. If you really believe this, you will have to go into more detail than "Oh, you know how he's destroying the Constitution, I don't need to say any more". You talk about him like he is an iron-fisted dictator, but was Caligula ever hampered because he couldn't reach cloture in the Senate? 

I looked over your article [[Barack Obama's unlawful acts]], and for such a grievous call to action, you seem to have done painfully little research. For instance, you say the Obama bailout of AIG violated the Constitution - yet, with casual retrospection, everyone should know that the AIG bailout happened in Sept. 2008, under President Bush. If this was truly a terrible violation of the Constitution, why not argue for trying President Bush in a military tribunal? If you think he is really destroying the Constitution, you should be able to provide a list of incontrovertible, non-interpretable offenses. 

I hate to rant, but it pains me to see someone so willing to throw away democracy at a whim. In Nov. 2012, vote for the Republican candidate; this is how our systems, has always worked, and will always work. But until Obama starts disbanding the Congress or executing judges, I think suggesting an Africa-style military coup is profoundly absurd. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 21:42, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

:Boy Wonder, are you saying I am wrong? Well I guess there is a first for everything. I wear profoundly absurd as a badge of honor. There is always Hope for a Change of leadership before it's too late. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:41, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== An idea that is taking shape ==
I just read a NewsMax article on a military coup over Obama. However, the page was taken down but saved for all by the liberals at TPM. [http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co.php] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:55, 21 April 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, Media Matters has piece on it from Sept 2009. [http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909290042] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 21 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Impeach Obama

2011-04-25T23:55:29Z

DevonJ: /* It's NOT? */ It's not conservative if you violate conservative principles!

==Discussion==
Seeing as you wrote this essay "to bring about a discussion," I'll take you up on this and engage with you on a few points.
#What precisely are you alleging are Obama's crimes against the constitution which make the usual constitutional measures (election, impeachment) not strong enough? You mention "Justification of the invasion, conduct of the war, treatment of detainees, NSA warrantless surveillence, etc.," but these, as you say, are unconstitutional acts of the Bush administration which Obama has continued despite their unconstitutionality. As you rightly point out about Wikipedia, it's hypocritical to say that Bush was deserving of impeachment for these but Obama is not. But of course, that also means that the reverse is also true, is it not?
#"I strongly believe the President needs to be removed from office by the U.S. Military and tried under the military court system...Am I advocating a military coup? No I am not. The military will not be running America. The only thing the military would do is relieve the President, by the powers invested by the Constitution, of his duties and put others in charge of running the country." Two questions about this. First of all, removal of the president by the military is, by definition, a military coup. Or else, where are you reading in the constitution that the military has the power to remove their commander-in-chief? Second, how is advocating a forceful overthrow of the president ''not'' sedition?
#"As others have mentioned, we will survive Obama's presidency. But the millions of people who put this man in power will be a drain on liberty and Democracy for years to come." I don't understand this statement. Obama was democratically elected. Last November, Republicans in large numbers were democratically elected to the house, and may, if turning out in large enough numbers next November, vote Obama out of office. That's the essence of what you're calling Democracy. Are you really saying that the majority of voters who elected Obama are a drain on democracy? It seems logical to me that the democratic process is alive and well. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:47, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for your interest JDWpianist. You make some valid aurguments that break my points down sensibly, let me try and clarify.

:1) The Wikipedia page is just meaningless. A page with the same bullet points with Obama would, in my opinion, would be meaningless as well. My point, Obama is deserving of such criticism but is protected by the mobocracy. I don't believe those points are against the Constitution but are in fact legitimate criticisms. I believe Obama can be removed from office but the days of impeachment are about over. It is no longer an effective means of removal. Obama's crimes, particularly his lies are well documented and should be enough to warrant removal. His fiscal policy is endangering not only future generations but today's generation and world peace. His actions in Libya, without as much as a single American consulted, has in fact given our blood and treasure to the UN without permission. His willful open border policy has left the nation vulnerable. The list goes on and on, see [[Obama doublespeak]] and [[Barack Obama's unlawful acts]].

:2) I knew I would be called out on this one. Technically, yes I am calling for a military coup. In normal circumstances, the military removes a leader, disbands congress, shreds and restarts a constitution and a Junta becomes the defacto leadership. It's not in the Constitution but the commander-n-chief is the head of the military and the military can relieve commanders. I would like to see the military remove Obama, the second in command becomes the chief executive, Congress stays in place, the Constitution stays intact.

:3) Just as millions put this man in power, millions would oppose his removal. These same people ignore his crimes and are in agreement with soft tyranny of changing America into a socialist state. The breaking of an oath is serious but not to people who will do anything for an election win. These people care not for the country but of themselves and the influence and paybacks they will get from keeping Obama in power is their priority. The election of 2008 was fraud ridden. These leeches of the state are an army of anti-Americans that won't disappear with a new leader. Did fraud equal the six million vote threshold of victory? This bad situation we find ourselves in and will likely be rectified with more elections and Democracy. He may have been democratically elected but it was a sham like no other. The election was a victory for thugs and their friends. The lies, the sheer number of lies surpasses any politician promises that are often made. Obama lied his way to victory. That is not a Democratic victory, that is a victory for fraud and deceit. I feel the discussion needs to be centered on what line cannot be crossed and what to do if it has been crossed. Impeachment will never work, that means Obama can do what he wishes without fear of removal. When he loses in 2012, and he will lose, there is not an ounce of trust left for Obama. He can start a war with Israel after November 2012 and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Unless America devises a strategy to deal with this man, we are held hostage to the power he possesses.

::I am just offering my opinions of course, right or wrong, you be the judge. Thanks for reading and you Obama apologists, thanks for criticizing. Hopefully this page helps grow Conservapedia!!! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:12, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::You've made it quite clear why you believe that Obama is an awful president, that he's broken the law, conducted unwarranted military actions, and that he's taking the country off a cliff financially, points on which reasonable people can agree or disagree, but if I may offer a critical observation of your analysis, I haven't seen so far that you've made a convincing case for why a military coup is the only way. You have to imagine that whatever you may believe about the crimes of the Obama administration, you'd have to convince not only most of the public (whom you seem to mistrust), but more importantly the entire military that you are correct. The way I see it, there are two questions left, one depending on the other.
:::#The first question, which you've hinted at an answer for is, can a removal of the president by the army ever be construed as a constitutionally-justified action? You do say that "the military can relieve commanders," but this seems to me quite dubious, as I've never heard the argument put forth that a high-ranking member of the armed forces can be relieved by a lower-ranking member; that's technically known as mutiny or sedition, I believe. This is of course not to say that sedition or mutiny is never justified. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I might suggest that you advocate taking extra-constitutional measures to preserve the constitution from a president you see as destroying it. Would you characterize it this way? This is however a black-or-white question; either something is allowed by the constitution or it is not. Let's call a spade a spade: if you really think that Obama's crimes endanger the constitution, you are indeed advocating extra-constitutional overthrow for pious reasons, and should be unflinching about it. That leads to the second, more philosophical question:
:::#What exactly is the line at which a president's actions become so heinous as to warrant going outside the constitutional protocol to remove them? It would seem to me that most people would set that bar very high, military members included. My personal standard would be if the president took unprecedented actions to destroy the checks and balances set up by the constitution. There is an honest case to be made that in the past 50 years the power of the other two branches has slowly eroded -- Obama surely did not begin the Imperial Presidency, as I often hear it called -- but I'm talking about steps such as immediately dissolving the Congress, dismissing the supreme court, declaring martial law without cause. Things which unambiguously consolidate all of the power in the president's chair. It's fair to argue that Obama has gone far beyond what the reasonable person would consider a justified use of presidential power, and even far beyond presidents before him who were perceived this way, but you have to remember that you've got a lot of convincing to do if this were ever to become reality.
:::I can perhaps put the question to you this way. How would you go about convincing the most skeptical general that an act of sedition is morally justified? How would you convince the public? What would you do about the portion of the public which as opposed to your plan? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 11:16, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

===It's NOT?===
Per JPatt's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AEssay%3AImpeach_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=862070&oldid=861982 reply above]:"'''It's not in the Constitution but the commander-n-chief is the head of the military and the military can relieve commanders.'''". I refer you, sir, to Article two, Section two of the document
{{Cquote|'''Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments'''

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...}}

If sir isn't able to parse out the plain English of the Constitution's text, ''per se,'' why should a reader be persuaded by his ''interpretation'' of said document, let alone by going further, to negate the thing in order to '''''save'' the republic'''? [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 12:52, 24 April 2011 (EDT)
:The discussion was not in regards to IF the constitution says the prez is commander-n-chief but if the constitution says the prez can be removed. Snarkyness will not win you friends here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:06, 24 April 2011 (EDT)
::Ah, I see you point now. It's not a very clear sentence written, as it is, in the passive tense.
::Yes, barring the Constitutional process of impeachment to remove a sitting President, everything else would be extra-constitutional, (and probably illegal).
::As for winning friends here, I'll gladly be the enemy of a self-professed seditionist. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 19:55, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

=='The military removes Obama ... the constitution stays in place'==

I have grave doubts about your thinking here. There is no provision in the US constitution for forcible removal of a president by the military. Once an action that is in breach of the constitution is taken and accepted the constitution no longer governs the country. Instead, it will become a case of "whoever the military wants" governs the country. This is not a step I can recommend for any country to take, having seen first hand the breakdown in civil law that was the result of the military coup in Fiji.

I strongly urge you to consider the long term implications of a move to forcibly remove a president from office. The US consitution has survived over two hundred years, but will not survive what you are advocating. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 19:23, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:I have concerns that the Constitution is already in trouble thanks to Obama. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== Why?? ==

Apart from the issue of having a military coup in America, the problem with this essay in my opinion is that it doesn't present reasons why Obama should be impeached. The current reasoning appears to be that he has continued Bush's policies. Without specific examples of things Obama has done to warrant removal from office, this essay is just an anti-Obama rant. {{unsigned|BenDylan}}
: Remember to sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 21:34, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
::Unless you live in la la land with your TV tuned to the liberal media, I don't have to go into description of what Obama has done that deserve his removal. In fact, I am curious to see the accomplishments Obama will campaign on. Yes, it is a rant. Yes, it is only an opinion.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== A dose of reality ==
The plain facts are Obama will continue to be Commander in Chief & President for the next one and a half years -- barring 20 Democratic Sernators turning on him. Even then, the GOP House got burned last time on this and has no compuntion to tile public opinion again. Also note, Michelle Obama did not serve on the House Judiciary Committee as Hillary did, so there's no notion of payback for promoting oneself by stepping on somebody elses neck.

What is more frightening, IMHO, more than Obama's inexperiece and imcompetence, is ths slavish and cultic mentality of his devotees (an ever shrinking minority, thank God). For that cause alone he needs to be defeatd and rejected at the polls as the false messiah his follows set him up to be. Worshipping a man, and pinning all one's hopes on a man, or looking to a man for salvation, is a ''grievious'' sin for any nation in God's site. The dustbin of history is littered with nations that have been led captive for this sin. Obama is not the first and only incompetent pretender to occupy the office. But seriously, we as a nation have more important things to worry about than the fate of one man's career, or the fate of the Demoicratic Party. We have much more important concerns, in spite of thier reluctance to address these problems. Let's get on with the business of being citizens. The nation will survive. The people will survive. We're here for the long haul. Incompetent idiots are but only for a moment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:16, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:I agree Rob. As I mentioned in the essay "Fat chance, I know." He will make it to the 2012 elections without removal, there is no doubt about it. America is held captive because whatever he says or does, he fears no repercussions to losing his job outside of an election. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== Holy hyperbole, Batman. ==

I don't mean to be impolite, but isn't this kind of ridiculous? I have no love for Obama; as a strict libertarian, I disagree with him on almost everything, social and fiscal. But this is a democracy. And it is a democracy even when your candidate loses. If you really believe this, you will have to go into more detail than "Oh, you know how he's destroying the Constitution, I don't need to say any more". You talk about him like he is an iron-fisted dictator, but was Caligula ever hampered because he couldn't reach cloture in the Senate? 

I looked over your article [[Barack Obama's unlawful acts]], and for such a grievous call to action, you seem to have done painfully little research. For instance, you say the Obama bailout of AIG violated the Constitution - yet, with casual retrospection, everyone should know that the AIG bailout happened in Sept. 2008, under President Bush. If this was truly a terrible violation of the Constitution, why not argue for trying President Bush in a military tribunal? If you think he is really destroying the Constitution, you should be able to provide a list of incontrovertible, non-interpretable offenses. 

I hate to rant, but it pains me to see someone so willing to throw away democracy at a whim. In Nov. 2012, vote for the Republican candidate; this is how our systems, has always worked, and will always work. But until Obama starts disbanding the Congress or executing judges, I think suggesting an Africa-style military coup is profoundly absurd. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 21:42, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

:Boy Wonder, are you saying I am wrong? Well I guess there is a first for everything. I wear profoundly absurd as a badge of honor. There is always Hope for a Change of leadership before it's too late. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:41, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== An idea that is taking shape ==
I just read a NewsMax article on a military coup over Obama. However, the page was taken down but saved for all by the liberals at TPM. [http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co.php] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:55, 21 April 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, Media Matters has piece on it from Sept 2009. [http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909290042] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 21 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Impeach Obama

2011-04-24T18:11:48Z

DevonJ: /* It's NOT? */

==Discussion==
Seeing as you wrote this essay "to bring about a discussion," I'll take you up on this and engage with you on a few points.
#What precisely are you alleging are Obama's crimes against the constitution which make the usual constitutional measures (election, impeachment) not strong enough? You mention "Justification of the invasion, conduct of the war, treatment of detainees, NSA warrantless surveillence, etc.," but these, as you say, are unconstitutional acts of the Bush administration which Obama has continued despite their unconstitutionality. As you rightly point out about Wikipedia, it's hypocritical to say that Bush was deserving of impeachment for these but Obama is not. But of course, that also means that the reverse is also true, is it not?
#"I strongly believe the President needs to be removed from office by the U.S. Military and tried under the military court system...Am I advocating a military coup? No I am not. The military will not be running America. The only thing the military would do is relieve the President, by the powers invested by the Constitution, of his duties and put others in charge of running the country." Two questions about this. First of all, removal of the president by the military is, by definition, a military coup. Or else, where are you reading in the constitution that the military has the power to remove their commander-in-chief? Second, how is advocating a forceful overthrow of the president ''not'' sedition?
#"As others have mentioned, we will survive Obama's presidency. But the millions of people who put this man in power will be a drain on liberty and Democracy for years to come." I don't understand this statement. Obama was democratically elected. Last November, Republicans in large numbers were democratically elected to the house, and may, if turning out in large enough numbers next November, vote Obama out of office. That's the essence of what you're calling Democracy. Are you really saying that the majority of voters who elected Obama are a drain on democracy? It seems logical to me that the democratic process is alive and well. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:47, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for your interest JDWpianist. You make some valid aurguments that break my points down sensibly, let me try and clarify.

:1) The Wikipedia page is just meaningless. A page with the same bullet points with Obama would, in my opinion, would be meaningless as well. My point, Obama is deserving of such criticism but is protected by the mobocracy. I don't believe those points are against the Constitution but are in fact legitimate criticisms. I believe Obama can be removed from office but the days of impeachment are about over. It is no longer an effective means of removal. Obama's crimes, particularly his lies are well documented and should be enough to warrant removal. His fiscal policy is endangering not only future generations but today's generation and world peace. His actions in Libya, without as much as a single American consulted, has in fact given our blood and treasure to the UN without permission. His willful open border policy has left the nation vulnerable. The list goes on and on, see [[Obama doublespeak]] and [[Barack Obama's unlawful acts]].

:2) I knew I would be called out on this one. Technically, yes I am calling for a military coup. In normal circumstances, the military removes a leader, disbands congress, shreds and restarts a constitution and a Junta becomes the defacto leadership. It's not in the Constitution but the commander-n-chief is the head of the military and the military can relieve commanders. I would like to see the military remove Obama, the second in command becomes the chief executive, Congress stays in place, the Constitution stays intact.

:3) Just as millions put this man in power, millions would oppose his removal. These same people ignore his crimes and are in agreement with soft tyranny of changing America into a socialist state. The breaking of an oath is serious but not to people who will do anything for an election win. These people care not for the country but of themselves and the influence and paybacks they will get from keeping Obama in power is their priority. The election of 2008 was fraud ridden. These leeches of the state are an army of anti-Americans that won't disappear with a new leader. Did fraud equal the six million vote threshold of victory? This bad situation we find ourselves in and will likely be rectified with more elections and Democracy. He may have been democratically elected but it was a sham like no other. The election was a victory for thugs and their friends. The lies, the sheer number of lies surpasses any politician promises that are often made. Obama lied his way to victory. That is not a Democratic victory, that is a victory for fraud and deceit. I feel the discussion needs to be centered on what line cannot be crossed and what to do if it has been crossed. Impeachment will never work, that means Obama can do what he wishes without fear of removal. When he loses in 2012, and he will lose, there is not an ounce of trust left for Obama. He can start a war with Israel after November 2012 and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Unless America devises a strategy to deal with this man, we are held hostage to the power he possesses.

::I am just offering my opinions of course, right or wrong, you be the judge. Thanks for reading and you Obama apologists, thanks for criticizing. Hopefully this page helps grow Conservapedia!!! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:12, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::You've made it quite clear why you believe that Obama is an awful president, that he's broken the law, conducted unwarranted military actions, and that he's taking the country off a cliff financially, points on which reasonable people can agree or disagree, but if I may offer a critical observation of your analysis, I haven't seen so far that you've made a convincing case for why a military coup is the only way. You have to imagine that whatever you may believe about the crimes of the Obama administration, you'd have to convince not only most of the public (whom you seem to mistrust), but more importantly the entire military that you are correct. The way I see it, there are two questions left, one depending on the other.
:::#The first question, which you've hinted at an answer for is, can a removal of the president by the army ever be construed as a constitutionally-justified action? You do say that "the military can relieve commanders," but this seems to me quite dubious, as I've never heard the argument put forth that a high-ranking member of the armed forces can be relieved by a lower-ranking member; that's technically known as mutiny or sedition, I believe. This is of course not to say that sedition or mutiny is never justified. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I might suggest that you advocate taking extra-constitutional measures to preserve the constitution from a president you see as destroying it. Would you characterize it this way? This is however a black-or-white question; either something is allowed by the constitution or it is not. Let's call a spade a spade: if you really think that Obama's crimes endanger the constitution, you are indeed advocating extra-constitutional overthrow for pious reasons, and should be unflinching about it. That leads to the second, more philosophical question:
:::#What exactly is the line at which a president's actions become so heinous as to warrant going outside the constitutional protocol to remove them? It would seem to me that most people would set that bar very high, military members included. My personal standard would be if the president took unprecedented actions to destroy the checks and balances set up by the constitution. There is an honest case to be made that in the past 50 years the power of the other two branches has slowly eroded -- Obama surely did not begin the Imperial Presidency, as I often hear it called -- but I'm talking about steps such as immediately dissolving the Congress, dismissing the supreme court, declaring martial law without cause. Things which unambiguously consolidate all of the power in the president's chair. It's fair to argue that Obama has gone far beyond what the reasonable person would consider a justified use of presidential power, and even far beyond presidents before him who were perceived this way, but you have to remember that you've got a lot of convincing to do if this were ever to become reality.
:::I can perhaps put the question to you this way. How would you go about convincing the most skeptical general that an act of sedition is morally justified? How would you convince the public? What would you do about the portion of the public which as opposed to your plan? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 11:16, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

===It's NOT?===
Per JPatt's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AEssay%3AImpeach_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=862070&oldid=861982 reply above]:"'''It's not in the Constitution but the commander-n-chief is the head of the military ...'''". I refer you, sir, to Article two, Section two of the document
{{Cquote|'''Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments'''

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...}}

If sir isn't able to parse out the plain English of the Constitution's text, ''per se,'' why should a reader be persuaded by his ''interpretation'' of said document, let alone by going further, to negate the thing in order to '''''save'' the republic'''? [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 12:52, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

=='The military removes Obama ... the constitution stays in place'==

I have grave doubts about your thinking here. There is no provision in the US constitution for forcible removal of a president by the military. Once an action that is in breach of the constitution is taken and accepted the constitution no longer governs the country. Instead, it will become a case of "whoever the military wants" governs the country. This is not a step I can recommend for any country to take, having seen first hand the breakdown in civil law that was the result of the military coup in Fiji.

I strongly urge you to consider the long term implications of a move to forcibly remove a president from office. The US consitution has survived over two hundred years, but will not survive what you are advocating. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 19:23, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:I have concerns that the Constitution is already in trouble thanks to Obama. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== Why?? ==

Apart from the issue of having a military coup in America, the problem with this essay in my opinion is that it doesn't present reasons why Obama should be impeached. The current reasoning appears to be that he has continued Bush's policies. Without specific examples of things Obama has done to warrant removal from office, this essay is just an anti-Obama rant. {{unsigned|BenDylan}}
: Remember to sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 21:34, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
::Unless you live in la la land with your TV tuned to the liberal media, I don't have to go into description of what Obama has done that deserve his removal. In fact, I am curious to see the accomplishments Obama will campaign on. Yes, it is a rant. Yes, it is only an opinion.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== A dose of reality ==
The plain facts are Obama will continue to be Commander in Chief & President for the next one and a half years -- barring 20 Democratic Sernators turning on him. Even then, the GOP House got burned last time on this and has no compuntion to tile public opinion again. Also note, Michelle Obama did not serve on the House Judiciary Committee as Hillary did, so there's no notion of payback for promoting oneself by stepping on somebody elses neck.

What is more frightening, IMHO, more than Obama's inexperiece and imcompetence, is ths slavish and cultic mentality of his devotees (an ever shrinking minority, thank God). For that cause alone he needs to be defeatd and rejected at the polls as the false messiah his follows set him up to be. Worshipping a man, and pinning all one's hopes on a man, or looking to a man for salvation, is a ''grievious'' sin for any nation in God's site. The dustbin of history is littered with nations that have been led captive for this sin. Obama is not the first and only incompetent pretender to occupy the office. But seriously, we as a nation have more important things to worry about than the fate of one man's career, or the fate of the Demoicratic Party. We have much more important concerns, in spite of thier reluctance to address these problems. Let's get on with the business of being citizens. The nation will survive. The people will survive. We're here for the long haul. Incompetent idiots are but only for a moment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:16, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:I agree Rob. As I mentioned in the essay "Fat chance, I know." He will make it to the 2012 elections without removal, there is no doubt about it. America is held captive because whatever he says or does, he fears no repercussions to losing his job outside of an election. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== Holy hyperbole, Batman. ==

I don't mean to be impolite, but isn't this kind of ridiculous? I have no love for Obama; as a strict libertarian, I disagree with him on almost everything, social and fiscal. But this is a democracy. And it is a democracy even when your candidate loses. If you really believe this, you will have to go into more detail than "Oh, you know how he's destroying the Constitution, I don't need to say any more". You talk about him like he is an iron-fisted dictator, but was Caligula ever hampered because he couldn't reach cloture in the Senate? 

I looked over your article [[Barack Obama's unlawful acts]], and for such a grievous call to action, you seem to have done painfully little research. For instance, you say the Obama bailout of AIG violated the Constitution - yet, with casual retrospection, everyone should know that the AIG bailout happened in Sept. 2008, under President Bush. If this was truly a terrible violation of the Constitution, why not argue for trying President Bush in a military tribunal? If you think he is really destroying the Constitution, you should be able to provide a list of incontrovertible, non-interpretable offenses. 

I hate to rant, but it pains me to see someone so willing to throw away democracy at a whim. In Nov. 2012, vote for the Republican candidate; this is how our systems, has always worked, and will always work. But until Obama starts disbanding the Congress or executing judges, I think suggesting an Africa-style military coup is profoundly absurd. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 21:42, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

:Boy Wonder, are you saying I am wrong? Well I guess there is a first for everything. I wear profoundly absurd as a badge of honor. There is always Hope for a Change of leadership before it's too late. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:41, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== An idea that is taking shape ==
I just read a NewsMax article on a military coup over Obama. However, the page was taken down but saved for all by the liberals at TPM. [http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co.php] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:55, 21 April 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, Media Matters has piece on it from Sept 2009. [http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909290042] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 21 April 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Impeach Obama

2011-04-24T16:52:07Z

DevonJ: /* Discussion */ Happy Easter!

==Discussion==
Seeing as you wrote this essay "to bring about a discussion," I'll take you up on this and engage with you on a few points.
#What precisely are you alleging are Obama's crimes against the constitution which make the usual constitutional measures (election, impeachment) not strong enough? You mention "Justification of the invasion, conduct of the war, treatment of detainees, NSA warrantless surveillence, etc.," but these, as you say, are unconstitutional acts of the Bush administration which Obama has continued despite their unconstitutionality. As you rightly point out about Wikipedia, it's hypocritical to say that Bush was deserving of impeachment for these but Obama is not. But of course, that also means that the reverse is also true, is it not?
#"I strongly believe the President needs to be removed from office by the U.S. Military and tried under the military court system...Am I advocating a military coup? No I am not. The military will not be running America. The only thing the military would do is relieve the President, by the powers invested by the Constitution, of his duties and put others in charge of running the country." Two questions about this. First of all, removal of the president by the military is, by definition, a military coup. Or else, where are you reading in the constitution that the military has the power to remove their commander-in-chief? Second, how is advocating a forceful overthrow of the president ''not'' sedition?
#"As others have mentioned, we will survive Obama's presidency. But the millions of people who put this man in power will be a drain on liberty and Democracy for years to come." I don't understand this statement. Obama was democratically elected. Last November, Republicans in large numbers were democratically elected to the house, and may, if turning out in large enough numbers next November, vote Obama out of office. That's the essence of what you're calling Democracy. Are you really saying that the majority of voters who elected Obama are a drain on democracy? It seems logical to me that the democratic process is alive and well. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:47, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks for your interest JDWpianist. You make some valid aurguments that break my points down sensibly, let me try and clarify.

:1) The Wikipedia page is just meaningless. A page with the same bullet points with Obama would, in my opinion, would be meaningless as well. My point, Obama is deserving of such criticism but is protected by the mobocracy. I don't believe those points are against the Constitution but are in fact legitimate criticisms. I believe Obama can be removed from office but the days of impeachment are about over. It is no longer an effective means of removal. Obama's crimes, particularly his lies are well documented and should be enough to warrant removal. His fiscal policy is endangering not only future generations but today's generation and world peace. His actions in Libya, without as much as a single American consulted, has in fact given our blood and treasure to the UN without permission. His willful open border policy has left the nation vulnerable. The list goes on and on, see [[Obama doublespeak]] and [[Barack Obama's unlawful acts]].

:2) I knew I would be called out on this one. Technically, yes I am calling for a military coup. In normal circumstances, the military removes a leader, disbands congress, shreds and restarts a constitution and a Junta becomes the defacto leadership. It's not in the Constitution but the commander-n-chief is the head of the military and the military can relieve commanders. I would like to see the military remove Obama, the second in command becomes the chief executive, Congress stays in place, the Constitution stays intact.

:3) Just as millions put this man in power, millions would oppose his removal. These same people ignore his crimes and are in agreement with soft tyranny of changing America into a socialist state. The breaking of an oath is serious but not to people who will do anything for an election win. These people care not for the country but of themselves and the influence and paybacks they will get from keeping Obama in power is their priority. The election of 2008 was fraud ridden. These leeches of the state are an army of anti-Americans that won't disappear with a new leader. Did fraud equal the six million vote threshold of victory? This bad situation we find ourselves in and will likely be rectified with more elections and Democracy. He may have been democratically elected but it was a sham like no other. The election was a victory for thugs and their friends. The lies, the sheer number of lies surpasses any politician promises that are often made. Obama lied his way to victory. That is not a Democratic victory, that is a victory for fraud and deceit. I feel the discussion needs to be centered on what line cannot be crossed and what to do if it has been crossed. Impeachment will never work, that means Obama can do what he wishes without fear of removal. When he loses in 2012, and he will lose, there is not an ounce of trust left for Obama. He can start a war with Israel after November 2012 and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Unless America devises a strategy to deal with this man, we are held hostage to the power he possesses.

::I am just offering my opinions of course, right or wrong, you be the judge. Thanks for reading and you Obama apologists, thanks for criticizing. Hopefully this page helps grow Conservapedia!!! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:12, 16 April 2011 (EDT)

:::You've made it quite clear why you believe that Obama is an awful president, that he's broken the law, conducted unwarranted military actions, and that he's taking the country off a cliff financially, points on which reasonable people can agree or disagree, but if I may offer a critical observation of your analysis, I haven't seen so far that you've made a convincing case for why a military coup is the only way. You have to imagine that whatever you may believe about the crimes of the Obama administration, you'd have to convince not only most of the public (whom you seem to mistrust), but more importantly the entire military that you are correct. The way I see it, there are two questions left, one depending on the other.
:::#The first question, which you've hinted at an answer for is, can a removal of the president by the army ever be construed as a constitutionally-justified action? You do say that "the military can relieve commanders," but this seems to me quite dubious, as I've never heard the argument put forth that a high-ranking member of the armed forces can be relieved by a lower-ranking member; that's technically known as mutiny or sedition, I believe. This is of course not to say that sedition or mutiny is never justified. If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I might suggest that you advocate taking extra-constitutional measures to preserve the constitution from a president you see as destroying it. Would you characterize it this way? This is however a black-or-white question; either something is allowed by the constitution or it is not. Let's call a spade a spade: if you really think that Obama's crimes endanger the constitution, you are indeed advocating extra-constitutional overthrow for pious reasons, and should be unflinching about it. That leads to the second, more philosophical question:
:::#What exactly is the line at which a president's actions become so heinous as to warrant going outside the constitutional protocol to remove them? It would seem to me that most people would set that bar very high, military members included. My personal standard would be if the president took unprecedented actions to destroy the checks and balances set up by the constitution. There is an honest case to be made that in the past 50 years the power of the other two branches has slowly eroded -- Obama surely did not begin the Imperial Presidency, as I often hear it called -- but I'm talking about steps such as immediately dissolving the Congress, dismissing the supreme court, declaring martial law without cause. Things which unambiguously consolidate all of the power in the president's chair. It's fair to argue that Obama has gone far beyond what the reasonable person would consider a justified use of presidential power, and even far beyond presidents before him who were perceived this way, but you have to remember that you've got a lot of convincing to do if this were ever to become reality.
:::I can perhaps put the question to you this way. How would you go about convincing the most skeptical general that an act of sedition is morally justified? How would you convince the public? What would you do about the portion of the public which as opposed to your plan? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 11:16, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

===It's NOT?===
::Per JPatt's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AEssay%3AImpeach_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=862070&oldid=861982 reply above]:"'''It's not in the Constitution but the commander-n-chief is the head of the military ...'''". I refer you, sir, to Article two, Section two of the document
{{Cquote|'''Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments'''

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...}}

If sir isn't able to parse out the plain English of the Constitution's text, ''per se,'' why should a reader be persuaded by his ''interpretation'' of said document, let alone by going further, to negate the thing in order to '''''save'' the republic'''? [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 12:52, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

=='The military removes Obama ... the constitution stays in place'==

I have grave doubts about your thinking here. There is no provision in the US constitution for forcible removal of a president by the military. Once an action that is in breach of the constitution is taken and accepted the constitution no longer governs the country. Instead, it will become a case of "whoever the military wants" governs the country. This is not a step I can recommend for any country to take, having seen first hand the breakdown in civil law that was the result of the military coup in Fiji.

I strongly urge you to consider the long term implications of a move to forcibly remove a president from office. The US consitution has survived over two hundred years, but will not survive what you are advocating. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 19:23, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:I have concerns that the Constitution is already in trouble thanks to Obama. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== Why?? ==

Apart from the issue of having a military coup in America, the problem with this essay in my opinion is that it doesn't present reasons why Obama should be impeached. The current reasoning appears to be that he has continued Bush's policies. Without specific examples of things Obama has done to warrant removal from office, this essay is just an anti-Obama rant. {{unsigned|BenDylan}}
: Remember to sign your comments with <nowiki> ~~~~ </nowiki> [[User:TonyB|TonyB]] 21:34, 17 April 2011 (EDT)
::Unless you live in la la land with your TV tuned to the liberal media, I don't have to go into description of what Obama has done that deserve his removal. In fact, I am curious to see the accomplishments Obama will campaign on. Yes, it is a rant. Yes, it is only an opinion.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== A dose of reality ==
The plain facts are Obama will continue to be Commander in Chief & President for the next one and a half years -- barring 20 Democratic Sernators turning on him. Even then, the GOP House got burned last time on this and has no compuntion to tile public opinion again. Also note, Michelle Obama did not serve on the House Judiciary Committee as Hillary did, so there's no notion of payback for promoting oneself by stepping on somebody elses neck.

What is more frightening, IMHO, more than Obama's inexperiece and imcompetence, is ths slavish and cultic mentality of his devotees (an ever shrinking minority, thank God). For that cause alone he needs to be defeatd and rejected at the polls as the false messiah his follows set him up to be. Worshipping a man, and pinning all one's hopes on a man, or looking to a man for salvation, is a ''grievious'' sin for any nation in God's site. The dustbin of history is littered with nations that have been led captive for this sin. Obama is not the first and only incompetent pretender to occupy the office. But seriously, we as a nation have more important things to worry about than the fate of one man's career, or the fate of the Demoicratic Party. We have much more important concerns, in spite of thier reluctance to address these problems. Let's get on with the business of being citizens. The nation will survive. The people will survive. We're here for the long haul. Incompetent idiots are but only for a moment. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:16, 17 April 2011 (EDT)

:I agree Rob. As I mentioned in the essay "Fat chance, I know." He will make it to the 2012 elections without removal, there is no doubt about it. America is held captive because whatever he says or does, he fears no repercussions to losing his job outside of an election. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:45, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== Holy hyperbole, Batman. ==

I don't mean to be impolite, but isn't this kind of ridiculous? I have no love for Obama; as a strict libertarian, I disagree with him on almost everything, social and fiscal. But this is a democracy. And it is a democracy even when your candidate loses. If you really believe this, you will have to go into more detail than "Oh, you know how he's destroying the Constitution, I don't need to say any more". You talk about him like he is an iron-fisted dictator, but was Caligula ever hampered because he couldn't reach cloture in the Senate? 

I looked over your article [[Barack Obama's unlawful acts]], and for such a grievous call to action, you seem to have done painfully little research. For instance, you say the Obama bailout of AIG violated the Constitution - yet, with casual retrospection, everyone should know that the AIG bailout happened in Sept. 2008, under President Bush. If this was truly a terrible violation of the Constitution, why not argue for trying President Bush in a military tribunal? If you think he is really destroying the Constitution, you should be able to provide a list of incontrovertible, non-interpretable offenses. 

I hate to rant, but it pains me to see someone so willing to throw away democracy at a whim. In Nov. 2012, vote for the Republican candidate; this is how our systems, has always worked, and will always work. But until Obama starts disbanding the Congress or executing judges, I think suggesting an Africa-style military coup is profoundly absurd. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 21:42, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

:Boy Wonder, are you saying I am wrong? Well I guess there is a first for everything. I wear profoundly absurd as a badge of honor. There is always Hope for a Change of leadership before it's too late. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:41, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

== An idea that is taking shape ==
I just read a NewsMax article on a military coup over Obama. However, the page was taken down but saved for all by the liberals at TPM. [http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co.php] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:55, 21 April 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, Media Matters has piece on it from Sept 2009. [http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909290042] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:59, 21 April 2011 (EDT)

Affirmative Action

2011-03-31T18:51:08Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 859617 by Karajou (talk)Grammatically correct, or isn't that important?

'''Affirmative action''' means giving someone a preference or advantage based on the color of his skin, or gender, to reverse the effects of [[discrimination]] and often for political motivation. [[Quotas]] are an extreme form of '''affirmative action'''. All [[liberal]]s whine about how bad [[racial profiling]] is, which is no different than Affirmative Action.

The original concept of affirmative action, when introduced by the [[President Johnson|Johnson]] administration, was that it is desirable to not merely act on non-discrimination passively (i.e., saying "this job is open to any applicant", but then making no efforts to find minority applicants), but should also be done actively, by taking definite actions to find applicants from minorities.

This would be, in its way, admirable. However, in current use, affirmative action goes beyond this, often mandating the use of quotas for setting aside jobs or a portion of college entrance positions for each minority (including also some so-called minorities that are actually majorities).

* The worst feature of such programs is that they are presented to the public as if they were "equal opportunity" programs when they are patently aimed at "equal outcomes" regardless of the merits and abilities of job applicants. [http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/frauds1.htm]

In effect, this means selecting applicants by the color of their skin, precisely what the original concept of non-discrimination forbids. This is sometimes called "reverse discrimination," although this term is rather contradictory - discrimination remains discrimination.

''[[Regents v. Bakke]]'' effectively outlawed [[quotas]] but allowed affirmative action as long as there are considerations other than race. This is sometimes called reverse discrimination.

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote:
{{cquote|Many whites have become increasingly scornful of black demands, and vehemently reject racial preferences. Most blacks, by contrast, support affirmative action as indispensable to fighting the enduring effects of white racism.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/endofrac.htm The End of Racism: The White Man's Burden by Dinesh D'Souza]</ref>}}

[[John H. McWhorter]] wrote:
{{cquote|For most black Americans, the rapid increase of the black middle class, of [[interracial relationship]]s and [[interracial marriage|marriages]], and of blacks in prestigious positions has no bearing on the real state of [[black America]]. Further, they believe, whites’ inability to grasp the unmistakable reality of [[oppression]] is itself proof of [[racism]], while blacks who question that reality are self-deluded. [http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_whats_holding_blacks.html]}}

On August 28, 2007 the United States Commission on Civil Rights released a report that determined that affirmative action can be harmful to minority law school students because students admitted through affirmative action programs are more likely to be unprepared and are thus being set up for failure.<ref>[http://www.usccr.gov/press/2007/AALS82807.pdf U.S. Civil Rights Commission Warns That Affirmative Action Might Harm Minority Law Students]</ref>

==See Also==
* [[Affirmative Action President]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Affirmative Action]]

Talk:Secularized Language

2011-03-27T02:50:49Z

DevonJ: /* Founders/Extremists--> Is that even a thing? */

I'd like to organize these into categories - not divided up, maybe - with secularized expressions at the top (e.g., Thank God => thank goodness). Terms indicating a total shift of concept like Bible Study => fundamentalism might come later. Everyone okay with this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:43, 22 February 2011 (EST)

: Sounds good to me! How about giving it a try and let's see how it looks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:32, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::To be fair, many more conservative Christians (my mother, for example), use some of the so-called "secular expressions" because they take a strict line on taking the Lord's name in vain. She would, for example, rather not say "Thank God" unless she was quite literally thanking the deity. Indeed, I believe that is how the "thank goodness" construction originally evolved. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:57, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::That might well be, Jdixon--certainly, it's laudable to take seriously the commandment not to take the Lord's name in vain--but I don't think very many Christians would see a heartfelt "Thank God!" as inappropriate in many circumstances. Thus, while your mother's conscientiousness is admirable, I don't think such conscientiousness is a sufficient explanation for the systematic removal of religious language from the public square. Certainly, I think that some people choose "Thank goodness" out of a concern for propriety, but I think many more choose it out of a desire to avoid giving offense, or simply because it's what they're most used to hearing. Perhaps a section on differing reasons for using these terms could be included in the article; after all, this is supposed to be an examination of the issue. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:34, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== Washington's Birthday/President's Day ==

While this is a case of P.C., it's not a case of secularized language. Last I checked, George Washington was not a sacred personage. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 13:47, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:Washington was a prominent Christian whose habit of praying and appealing to God for assistance is well-known. He was a kind of saint, and the downplaying of his (indisputable) significance is due to his Christianity. If he had been an atheist then you'd see the opposite effect.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::What kind of a saint was George Washington? --[[User:JohannesZ|JohannesZ]] 15:52, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::The kind that wins wars. There have been other examples. Have you ever heard of [[Joan of Arc]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:02, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::Canonized in 1920, right? When did the Church recognize Washington as a saint? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:17, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::@Andy: Aye. She still needed miracles credited to her. [http://www.stjoan-center.com/novelapp/joaap04.html] --[[User:JohannesZ|JohannesZ]] 16:20, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::::I don't think all Christian churches have the same rules.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:23, 22 February 2011 (EST)
::::::Undoubtedly. So which churches DO recognize Washington as a saint or other type of sacred being? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:26, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::::: Perhaps the church of Satan does, or perhaps atheists simply dislike Washington. Wouldn't that be enough to explain the misnaming of the holiday as described in the entry?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:31, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:::::::::I'm pretty sure that The Church of Satan does not acknowledge George Washington as divine. If there's any evidence -- a tract from an angry atheist decrying a celebration of the Christian Washington and demanding a holiday that accommodates the Presidents that were not Christians, I've yet to find one. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:37, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Marty, bias doesn't work that way. You're not likely to find such an angry tract about ''any'' of the items on the list.

::::::::::Atheistic bias, like other forms of bias, seeks to downplay and minimize Christianity. Washington was a leading, accomplished Christian. Lincoln far less so, other presidents even lesser still, and the office of president not Christian at all. An atheistic bias pushes language from the Christian recognition to the more atheistic substitute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::I agree with Andy here; the greater the Christianity of an historical figure, the more the atheistic revisionists will try to downplay his significance. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 18:24, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::: How can President's Day even be considered remotely secularized as it was never a religiously themed event to begin with? The reason we have President's Day is due to the hesitation and the unwillingness of conservatives in the southeast to celebrate Lincoln's birthday as vilified he was as in infringing on "state's rights," and removing their "Peculiar institution." This contrasts to other locations in the country who celebrated both Washington's birthday and Lincoln's birthday in two different events. Furthermore, the Federal Government was disinterested in granting two Monday's off for federal employees, so came the compromise of celebrating a day between Lincoln's and Washington's birthday.[[User:JustinU|JustinU]] 21:46, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::::::::::: Lincoln never had a stature comparable to Washington, and it's not merely because southerners disliked Lincoln. The attempt to equate Lincoln to Washington as a joint federal holiday was a farce and never got off the ground.

::::::::::::: But atheists downplay Washington just as they downplay other accomplished Christians. It's irrelevant whether the holiday was ever "religiously themed." A day honoring a prominent Christian has been diluted and even misnamed. It's the same secularization seen in replacing "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:27, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::::::::::::: Mr. Aschlafly, I am unsure if you are purposefully misapplying my point so that your argument appears to be stronger, but I feel that your point is less than successively argued. In fact, the reason that Lincoln is trumpeted as being one of the greatest Presidents to have ever had the honor of holding the office is because, pointedly, history holds him comparable to George Washington in regards to leadership and vision for the country. I am also at ends with your rather presuming statement of Washington's Christianity, considering the well documented Enlightenment-era beliefs he held associated with his principles as a Freemason, a largely deist organization.[[User:JustinU|JustinU]] 00:44, 23 February 2011 (EST)
:::::::::::::::JustinU, it is well documented in Washington's own writings as well as the writings of those who knew him that he was a committed Christian within the Episcopalian Church. The "deist" allegation is from the late-20th century only. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:57, 23 February 2011 (EST)
[[Image:Clog-dancer.gif|thumbnail|right|150px|Maybe we should have a annual parade for St. George Washington like we do for St. Patrick. :)]]
:::The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia correctly declares and supports the doctrine that every true Christian believer is a saint.[http://eastonsbibledictionary.com/saints.htm] The [[Apostle Paul]] wrote: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the <big>'''saints'''</big> which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." (Ephesians 1: 1-6) Washington appears to have been a true Christian.[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html] Therefore, George Washington was a saint. Maybe we should have a annual parade for St. George Washington like we do for St. Patrick. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:33, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== A few questions ==

A few of the words here don't really seem to fit in the list.
For example:
*'''Resurrection Sunday''' -> '''Easter'''
::"Easter" does have pagan origins, but the Pope says "Easter Sunday", not "Resurrection Sunday" - see[http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/liturgico_en/easter.html] and [http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/calendar/ns_liturgy_calendar_en.html#APRIL_2011]. In fact, a Google search of the Vatican website doesn't find "Resurrection Sunday" at all, except a few times with commas in between.

*'''Washington's Birthday''' -> '''President's Day'''
::It's not secularization as far as I can tell. And President's Day honors Lincoln as well. Silly political correctness, maybe. Secularization, no.

*'''Pagan''' -> '''Secular'''
::Pagan usually refers to belief in multiple gods, while secular refers to something separate from religion (e.g. the Turkish government is secular because there is no state religion).

*'''God bless you''' -> '''Gesundheit'''
::Gesundheit is what Germans have always said after a sneeze. Many European countries have the same kind of response. Nobody ever says "God bless you" in German. "Gesundheit" is as old as "God bless you", and the people who say it got the idea from German-Americans.

[[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 14:18, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:Pagan definition: one who has little or no religion. Secular definition: not overtly or specifically religious. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:31, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::Merriam-Webster Online: [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pagan?show=0&t=1298483529 Pagan] [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular Secular]
::The first definition for "pagan" is ''a follower of a polytheistic religion'' - notice "polytheistic religion". Secular is ''not overtly or specifically religious''. There's a difference, and in order to claim that "secular" is a redefinition of "pagan" you have to completely ignore the ''first'' definition of "pagan". There's probably another word that could be used as the precursor of "secular" (Atheist?), but it's not "pagan". [[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 12:58, 23 February 2011 (EST)
:::To clarify: I '''do''' think that the word "secular" and maybe "pagan" belong on this list, but not together. Maybe "atheist" -> "secular" and "pagan" -> "Wiccan" or such? [[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 18:28, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== The Saint's Days ==
* Valentine's Day is no longer officially the feast day for St. Valentine, which definitely explains on some level why the "St" has been dropped from the name. February 14th is now the feast day for Cyril and Methodius, this changed in 1969 under Pope Paul the V, I think.

*Paddy for St. Patrick's Day makes logical sense in that Paddy is a celtic diminutive for Padrig, which is Anglicized to Patrick. I've never actually heard it as Paddy's Day, I've always heard it as "St. Paddy's Day"

*Resurrection Sunday has been called Easter since at the very least the AD 600s. St. Bede's ''Ecclesiastical History of the English People'' written in the early 700s refers to it as Easter, although he does admit it is tied to the Pagan festival of Eostre he still uses the term Easter. I don't think it is logical to use Easter as an example of modern society trying to erase Christian influence from daily life, I think it is simply a continuation of a name that is well over 1,000 years old.

just my thoughts, good luck.--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 19:13, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:Interesting comments, but they don't contradict the observation of bias. Practicing Catholics are a small minority in the United States and Western Europe, so the relevance of the Church's changing of the feast day for St. Valentine hardly seems dispositive. As to your second point, the "logical sense" is very strained in denying credit where it is due. As to your third point, Christians refer to Easter as Resurrection Sunday to this day, just fewer of them. And there was bias in 600 A.D. too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:13, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::I too have never heard paddy's day, it is always proceeded by the "St.". While catholics may be a minority in the west one exception to that is Ireland (the only country in the EU with out abortion) and I think the secular consciousness still associates Ireland with Catholicism. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 21:50, 22 February 2011 (EST)

: I agree that the actual Saint's days have been marginalized, and that the meaning of the holidays hold almost no religious meaning anymore. Irish-Americans celebrate St. Patrick's Day not as a saint's feast but as a day to meaninglessly celebrate their Irish-ness and dye rivers green and over-indulge in drinking alcohol, and Valentine's Day is a day to celebrate love and has very little to do with the old saint's feast.
: However, I stand firm on my third point, I find it highly unlikely that '''Saint Bede''', venerated in both the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, who is also considered a '''Doctor of the Church''' to be biased towards an unchristian term. In the 700s Bede refers to it as Easter and it has been called Easter by the English people and English speakers since at least then. For well over 1,000 years the majority of devout English Christians have called it Easter, and thus its use cannot be a modern attempt to try to obscure Christian origins.--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 23:22, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::I agree that the use of Easter is not a ''modern'' secularization, but I still wonder whether its use was influenced by pagan tendencies in the first millennium. I have no quarrel with Saint Bede but am not sure he named it. He may well have been an expert about God but that does not make one an expert about bias. Quite the contrary: Jesus said the people of [[faith]] do not quickly recognize the tricks of the worldly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 22 February 2011 (EST)

A small correction about one of my role models. Bede is not a saint although, as IScott pointed out, he is a Doctor of the Church. His tomb, in Durham Cathedral, is worth a visit! [[User:Rafael|Rafael]]

:Thanks for correcting that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:05, 1 March 2011 (EST)

::I don't mean to be harsh, but you are mistaken Rafael, Bede is a Saint. He is often refered to as just "the venerable" but he is a Saint so I can see where you might be confused. He is venerated in the Anglican Communion as well as the Roman Catholic Church. Even Conservapedia's own entry on [[Bede]] has an icon that says "St. Bede." Furthermore a google search of Saint Bede shows that there are a variety of churches named in his honor, in Williamsburg, VA there is a Catholic Church called St. Bede's Catholic Church, as well as an Anglican Church of St. Bede in Scarborough, ON, Canada, and a variety of churches and Parish schools in England. In the Episcopal Church Bede's feast day is May 25th. Bede is very much a Saint. Hope that clears up the Sainthood of Bede!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 16:42, 2 March 2011 (EST)

== Perversion diversity ==

As I understand it this is a list of words that are backward compatible to former religious meanings. We could stop saying Happy Holidays as a society and say Merry Christmas. I'd hate to think of what bigots we would appear to be if we started calling diversity perversion. "Have a lot of people off all different races, creeds, and colors working at your company, you are perverted!" or "A black man marrying a white woman, that's a perverted couple!" Since I doubt that anyone here thinks that way (and if they do maybe they should find somewhere else to be) then I think that should be pulled from the list for now. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:01, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:'Diversity' is a word used often by liberals and others who push the [[homosexual agenda]], claiming that ongoing [[homosexualization]] is in the name of diversity. As a conservative and one who reads the Bible daily, I find same-sex marriage perverse, yet liberals such as yourself would refer to such things as diverse. Hence, your non-sequiturs aside, I feel the entry should remain. [[User:PeterUker|PeterUker]] 20:10, 22 February 2011 (EST)
::A) You didn't address my point
::B) Perversion isn't a religious word any more than right and wrong. Are math teachers helping to keep Christianity vibrant and alive by assigning problems which are later graded as right and wrong?
::C) How ever often you claim to read the bible doesn't really matter here. This is the internet, anyone can claim to read the bible. however much they want. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:32, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:::I'd have to weigh in with [[User:AlaskanEconomy|AE]] on this. Although, specifically, "diversity" is ''becoming'' a by-word, diversity is an [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diversity old word] and refers to more than ''just'' homosexualization, by keeping it as is '''gives''' those advocates legitimacy and (in the end) we end up losing a serviceable word. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 21:06, 22 February 2011 (EST)

::::We could make several categories of terms which have normal vs. liberal counterparts. Not all such pairs are examples of secularization. Some merely reflect the liberal worldview. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:57, 22 February 2011 (EST)

:::::Diversity is more an example of liberals distorting the meaning of a word, the way I see it. I wouldn't call the original meaning of "diversity" an example of perversion, but advocates of the homosexual agenda ''try'' to make it into a different word. [[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 18:40, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Dead/Passed ==

I'm not quite sure this fits. While "passed" or "passed on" is certainly a euphemism for "dead," surely it carries with it the connotation of passing on to God's judgment? It seems to me like, if anything, "dead" is the more atheist-friendly term, since they're fond of claiming that once you're dead, you're dead. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:52, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:You seem to be correct, perish->dead maybe? Do what you feel is right.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:57, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== Use of Christian Language in non-Religious Context ==

Based on the introduction to this page, the list is supposed to contain Christian expressions that have been replaced by secular expressions. But some examples are Christian expressions that are being used in non-Religious context. (Examples on this page include "Saintly"/"Well-behaved" and "Angelic"/"Pretty." Other examples I thought of are "Oh my God!" instead of "Oh no!" and calling something "divine" instead of "delicious" or "in excellent taste.") Maybe this page can have one list of Christian expressions that are being replaced with different secular terms, and one list that contains Christian expressions that have been inappropriately adopted by the secular crowd for non-religious use. Does this make sense? Or do you think this all belongs in the same list? --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 12:25, 24 February 2011 (EST)

== Gesundheit means "God Bless you!" in German==
Gesundheit litterally translates to "God Bless you!" in German. I don't think there is any malice or Secularized Language in this phrase. I think it was just a custom started by German-American Immigrants that caught on. As a descendant of German-American immigrants I feel obliged to point this out. Thank you, --[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 14:30, 24 February 2011 (EST)
:As a speaker of German, I can tell you that Gesundheit means "Health". Gott segne dich! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:03, 24 February 2011 (EST)
:Sorry to disagree with you, Davidkon, but "geshundheit" means "good health" as this entry[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gesundheit] states. The German word for God is "Gott", and this word is not part of gesundheit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:07, 24 February 2011 (EST)

== Changes ==

I made a start at the categories Ed suggested, and organized the terms alphabetically within each category. I did remove the example of "Jesus!" to "Gee whiz!", as I really think that's primarily a case of people trying not to use the Lord's name in a profane fashion. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:10, 26 February 2011 (EST)

: Your improvements are superb. But I didn't know that "Gee whiz" was a secularization of "Jesus"! I'd be inclined to leave that in for informative purposes, even though you're reason for deleting it is probably. Perhaps with a footnote?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:19, 26 February 2011 (EST)

:: I can certainly see your point as far as the informative value, and this isn't, after all, just supposed to be an article about language that was secularized for malicious reasons. It seems like we really do need a section exploring possible reasons for the secularization of language, and the ways in which even benign motives can contribute to the trend. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:20, 26 February 2011 (EST)

:::Hmm...that being the case, should similar euphemistic alterations like "Jeepers Creepers" be added in, too? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:23, 26 February 2011 (EST)

:::: You win. Let's keep that junk out. :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:45, 26 February 2011 (EST)

== Government ==

Hello,
I was wondering wondering what the rational of "State -> Government", along with "Govern -> Rule". I don't particularly see how either is Christian or secular, and beyond that, it seems like these to contradict each other. Just wanting to hear some thoughts. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 18:52, 26 February 2011 (EST)

:Seems straightforward: the more atheistic one is, the more he views government as the church, and officials in government as rulers. In contrast, the term "state" includes the people (e.g., "State of Rhode Island"), and governing connotes an element of service rather than purely ruling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 26 February 2011 (EST)

== Christmas/Xmas ==

I would like to point out that the English letter X looks exactly like the Greek letter Chi, which is the first letter of 'Christ' in Greek. That is the origin of 'Xmas' and it is not an attempt to take Christ out. I submit that 'Xmas' should be removed from this list.
--[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 11:51, 2 March 2011 (EST)

:That's a slippery slope: referring the "X" to "Christ". Let's keep it in for now.

:Eventually, we can expand this topic, branching out to all sorts of language differences between conservatives and liberals. The religious-secular division is just one such difference.

:By the way, I'd prefer you to use your real name (unless Andy has given you specific permission to use a pseudonym). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:50, 2 March 2011 (EST)

::The transliteration of Christ in Greek is Χριστός, for what it is worth.
::I thought the point of the article was how we all talk about the same things but that the sacredness has been removed by substituting a synonym to remove the holiness of the original words.
::I suppose, conversely, one could make the point that LORD is a "secularized" version of the tetragrammaton. This was done for the reason that YHWH was too sacred to be uttered. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 17:37, 2 March 2011 (EST)

== "Notes" section ==

I added a "notes" section for things myself and others in the Talk page have pointed out. Let me know what you think. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:50, 2 March 2011 (EST)

== Shrove Tuesday/Mardi Gras ==

"Mardi Gras" is the '''''only''''' way to say "Shrove Tuesday" in French. Shrove Tuesday is a specific English tradition of a confessional before Lent. In French culture, the last day before Lent is ''Mardi Gras'', '''''never''''' a French translation of "Shrove Tuesday". The Vatican liturgical calendar doesn't even include the day before Ash Wednesday. [http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/calendar/ns_liturgy_calendar_en.html#MARCH_2011] [[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 15:04, 9 March 2011 (EST)

== Fighting Secularized Language ==

Would it be appropriate to comb through Conservapedia articles for instances of secularized language on this list, and change them to reflect the correct words? I haven't been active in a while, and I thought such a project might be a good re-introduction to the community.
--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 19:43, 13 March 2011 (EDT)

:That's a great idea!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:23, 13 March 2011 (EDT)

::Thanks! I'm on it. One question; is there any way to edit page titles? For example, the 'birth control' pill should really be called the 'abortion' pill; I think that's both fighting secular language and much more accurate, anyways (not that there's any chance of secular thought being mistaken as logical!).--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 22:58, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
:::If doing so would require more user rights than I have, I could also compile a list for a moderator to look at when they're not busy. I'm running into quite a few; '[[Halloween]]' should be renamed 'Hallowed Eve,' for example.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 23:10, 16 March 2011 (EDT)
::::Will I'm reverting you on quite a few pages - I think you're going too far in a lot of cases, for example, in an article called "Atheist vs. Secular" you replaced "secular" with "pagan" (see [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheist_vs_Secular&diff=857269&oldid=854632 here]). I also particularly disagree with your edits [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hurricane_Katrina&curid=4875&diff=857294&oldid=832249 here], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Falsifiable&diff=857293&oldid=849936 here], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alcoholics_Anonymous&curid=29600&diff=857297&oldid=685921 here] ... well pretty much of all of them. I'm likewise going to accuse you of parody. If Andy disagrees with my reverts I will obviously cease, but until he approves your edits I plan on reverting you on-sight.
::::Also you'll notice that this entry makes very clear that birth control is not always used to mean "abortion" - it's only noting that abortionist might use the phrase birth control so that they don't have to say "abortion" - so your changes there are also disingenuous.
::::Furthermore, and lastly, the notion that only "pagan liberals" use the secularized version of these words is laughable. Through secularization the words have entered into (indeed, sometimes replacing the old words) modern vernacular. If you're to suggest that everyone who uses the term "Easter" is a pagan liberal ([http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Resurrection_Sunday&action=historysubmit&diff=857285&oldid=844239 as you did here]) - then you're suggesting the majority of the United States is pagan liberals, which is simply not the case '''at all'''. --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:59, 16 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::User is blocked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:44, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

== Removing "Paddy's Day" ==

As Aschlafly said, "atheists have been unable to secularize the name of the holiday by omitting 'Saint'." [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 10:01, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

:The difference between [[St. Patrick's Day]] and [[Valentine's Day]] is that the former is to honor a [[saint]] (and [[patriot]]), while the latter about exchanging romantic cards and is no longer related in the public mind with the original [[Saint Valentine]].

:I don't expect the secularists to achieve the same success with [[Christmas]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:13, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

== Christmas, and Islamic terorism ==

I may be totally off base here, but isn't "Christmas" technically an example of secularized language, as it is an abbreviation of "Christ's Mass"? It looks like an attempt to remove the "mass" aspect of Christmas. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 01:31, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
:Also, I'm not sure that Islamic terrorism (or any terrorism, for that matter) and man-made disasters can be automatically conflated while excluding other terrorism. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing, an example of domestic (and not Islamic) terrorism, certainly wouldn't fall under the commonly accepted definition of "man made disaster". While it is certainly a disaster, made by man (and not God), then wouldn't all terrorism necessarily fall under this definition? [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 13:07, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

== Patriot --> Extremist ==

Given that the first use of the word dates to 1577 and speaks more to love of country than to love of God, isn't it already a "secularized" word to begin with? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 17:28, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
: I didn't think about it like that. What do you think God & Country --> Extremist would do better?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:49, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
::I'm trying to parse out what you're thinking here: "One example would be West Palm Beach mayor Lois Frankel (D) is running against Allen West in 2012. His campaign is to label West as an extremist. Harry Reid is known to call patriots extremists." Okay, Frankel is calling West an extremist. Not knowing much about West, I have no real informed opinion on the matter, but that's entirely in the realm of the secular (ie, everyday party politics) to begin with. Where is the sacred/religious/holy aspect of West's or Frankel's position that is being elided with a secularizing discourse? And then you bring in Reid, and his use of the term "extremist" as a way to talk about his political opponents; again, this is business as usual for politicians, and I don't see any secularizing agenda here. The point of "secularizing language" is just that -- to secularize, ie, to draw our attention away from, or obscure, those elements of our history/experience/culture which speak to the domain of the sacred. Party politics is already secular by nature. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 18:05, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
:::West's points are a respect for God, love for the Constitution, America is exceptional, family is important, discipline and honor. The people attacking him are the extremists. They are the ones calling themselves righteous by calling him extremist. They support the control of people, not freedom. They support breaking the Constitution to implement their radical agenda. They don't respect God by pushing moral depravity and deaths of children in the womb. I understand that politics is secularized already, maybe a bad example. However, you can remove the politics and still find patriot --> extremist. The DHS targeting the people who loves this country as extremist. They [say] they don't look at it from a partisan point of view, only by threat level. So they themselves have removed politics from their decision and decided patriots are a threat aka extremist. I'd like to hear from others first before deciding to remove. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:19, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
:::::By trying to frame "patriotism" as something that is by nature sacred, it becomes impossible to conceive of a love of country that isn't rooted in love of God. The two aren't mutually exclusive--try telling as much to the 25 million Soviets, at least a portion of whom were doctrinaire communists, who died in the Great Patriotic War. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 18:33, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

== Founders/Extremists--> Is that even a thing? ==

Are there seriously people out there who aren't so fringe as to be completely unremarkable that are trying in a concerted manner to paint the Founding Fathers as a group of extremists? And how exactly would that be "secularizing language" ie trying to obscure a fundamentally religious phenomenon by using discourse as a means by which to hide the religious roots/origins/nature of a term? [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 19:03, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
:But the founders ''were'' extremists!
:The group of people we call the founding fathers could have worked many other ways to right the wrongs they saw perpetrated against English citizens in America, yet they choose complete and utter dissolution of the bonds to the Mother country, revolution. (If revolution isn't extreme then perhaps we need a new conservative word?) [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 22:50, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

Ash Wednesday

2011-03-09T02:09:56Z

DevonJ: spelling

[[Image:Palm Cross.jpg|right|Palm Cross.]]
'''Ash Wednesday''' is the first day of [[Lent]]. Ash Wednesday derives its name from the practice of placing ashes on the foreheads of adherents as a sign of mourning and [[repentance]] to [[God]]. The ashes used are typically gathered after the palms or Palm Crosses from the previous year's [[Palm Sunday]] are burned.<ref name="Description">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=QQpXwIt3ihAC&pg=PA25&dq=ash+wednesday&hl=en&ei=OdV2TfXYHcyArQH4oNCHCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=ash%20wednesday&f=false| title = Preaching the Calendar: Celebrating Holidays and Holy Days |publisher = [[Westminster John Knox Press]]|quote=We are wise, therefore to explain, whether in the course of the homily or in the church bulletin or newsletter, something of the meaning of the day: of ashes as an ancient symbol of loss and repentance; of the historic words spoken during the imposition of the ashes, "Remember that thou art dust, and to dust thou shalt return"; of the practice in many religious communions of using ashes made from the palms of the previous year's Palm Sunday; and, of course, that the imposition of ashes is a sign of mourning and repentance.|author=Ellsworth Kalas|accessdate = 08 March 2011}}</ref> This practice is common in most of [[Christendom]], being celebrated by [[Catholic]]s, [[Lutheran]]s, [[Methodist]]s, [[Presbyterian]]s, and [[Anglican Church|Anglicans]].<ref name="Denominations 1">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=oTtcFiGbW2kC&pg=PA98&dq=lent+lutheran+catholic+methodist&hl=en&ei=4NF2Tf3LLsL_rAGmtoBf&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=lent%20lutheran%20catholic%20methodist&f=false| title = Comparative Religion For Dummies|author=William P. Lazarus, Mark Sullivan|publisher = [[For Dummies]]|quote=This is the day Lent begins. Christians go to church to pray and have a cross drawn in ashes on their foreheads. The ashes drawn on ancient tradition represent repentance before God. The holiday is part of Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, and Episcopalian liturgies, among others.|accessdate = 08 March 2011}}</ref><ref name="Denominations 2">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=u2ZV_f4uZUEC&pg=PA137&dq=lent+lutheran+catholic+methodist&hl=en&ei=4NF2Tf3LLsL_rAGmtoBf&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=lent%20lutheran%20catholic%20methodist&f=false| title = An Ecofeminist Perspective on Ash Wednesday and Lent|publisher = Peter Lang|quote=In the twentieth century, the imposition of ashes became part of the liturgical experience of not only Roman Catholics, but Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans as well.|author=Sylvia A. Sweeney|accessdate = 08 March 2011}}</ref>

Either of the following phrases are said when ashes are placed on the participant's forehead:

* "Remember that you are dust, and to dust you will return."
* "Turn away from sin and be faithful to the gospel."

 
[[Image:Ash wednesday.jpg]]

==Origins==

Ash Wednesday has been practiced since at least 1091, and there is evidence of similar rites as early as the sixth century AD.

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See Also==
* [[Fat Tuesday]]
* [[Genesis]] [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:19&version=31 3:19]
* [[Lent]]

==External links==
* [http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0204.asp American Catholic - History of Ash Wednesday]
* [http://www.history.com/minisites/easter/viewPage?pageId=685 History of Easter] From the History Channel.

[[Category:Observances]]

Talk:Secularized Language

2011-03-02T22:37:44Z

DevonJ: /* Christmas/Xmas */

Secularized Language

2011-03-01T20:20:24Z

DevonJ: Added headers to facilitate editing + another one

While [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|the development of conservative words grows by doubling each century]], those with an [[antichristian]] and [[anti-American]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s, have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views. Such [[deceit]]ful tactics are a prime example of [[Liberal redefinition]] and other [[Liberal tools]].

=='''Calendar Terms'''==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original expression
!Secularized version
|-
|B.C./A.D.
|B.C.E./[[C.E.]]
|-
|Christmas
|Xmas
|-
|Christmas Holy Day
|Winter Break
|-
|Easter Holy Day
|Spring Break
|-
|Godspeed
|Be good
|-
|Hallowed Eve
|Halloween
|-
|Holy Day
|Holiday
|-
|Independence Day
|The Fourth of July
|-
|Merry Christmas
|Happy Holidays
|-
|Resurrection Sunday
|Easter
|-
|Saint Patrick's Day
|Paddy's Day
|-
|[[Saint Valentine's Day]]
|Valentine's Day
|-
|Shrove Tuesday
|Fat Tuesday
|-
|Thanksgiving
|Turkey Day
|-
|The Reverend Martin Luther King Day
|MLK Day
|-
|Washington's Birthday
|President's Day
|-
|}

=='''Expressions and Colloquialisms'''==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original expression
!Secularized version
|-
|God be with you
|Good luck
|-
|God bless you
|Gesundheit
|-
|Jesus!
|Gee whiz!
|-
|One nation under God
|One nation
|-
|Praise the Lord
|Praise be
|-
|Thank God!
|Thank Goodness!
|-
|Thank heavens
|Thank goodness
|-
|Thank the Lord
|Give thanks
|-
|}

=='''General Examples'''==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original expression
!Secularized version
|-
|Abomination
|Mistake
|-
|Abortion
|Birth control
|-
|Act of God
|Natural disaster
|-
|Adultery
|Cheating
|-
|Adultery
|Fooling around
|-
|Angelic
|Pretty
|-
|Anti-Christian bigotry
|[[Separation of church and state]]
|-
|Anti-life
|Pro-choice
|-
|Bible study
|Fundamentalism
|-
|Blasphemy
|Secular opinion
|-
|Blessed
|Lucky
|-
|Chosen lifestyle
|Innate characteristic
|-
|Christchurch
|New Zealand city [http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-22/world/new.zealand.earthquake_1_prime-minister-john-key-new-zealand-quake?_s=PM:WORLD]
|-
|Contraception
|Protection
|-
|Covetousness
|Inequality
|-
|Creation
|Abiogenesis
|-
|Curse
|Bad luck
|-
|Diabolical
|Dishonest/Underhanded
|-
|Drunkard
|[[Alcoholic]]
|-
|Father
|Old man
|-
|Fertile
|Breeder
|-
|God
|A higher power
|-
|God-fearing
|Intolerant
|-
|God-given
|Natural
|-
|Golden Rule
|Altruism
|-
|Govern
|Rule
|-
|Harlot
|Sex worker
|-
|[[Hell]] (or Heaven)
|Afterlife
|-
|Heathen
|Multicultural
|-
|Heresy
|Scientific theory
|-
|Heretic
|Crackpot
|-
|Holy matrimony
|Civil union
|-
|Homosexual
|Gay
|-
|Homosexuality
|Lifestyle choice
|-
|Husband or wife
|Significant other/life partner
|-
|Immoral
|Personal choice
|-
|Islamic Terrorism
|Man-made disaster
|-
|Living in sin
|Shacking up/cohabitation
|-
|Miraculous
|Amazing
|-
|Mother
|Parent
|-
|Nature
|[[Social construct]]
|-
|Pagan
|Secular
|-
|Perversion
|Diversity
|-
|Possessed
|Crazy
|-
|Possessed
|Influenced
|-
|Pray
|Plead
|-
|prayer/blessing
|moment of silence
|-
|Pro-abortion
|Pro-choice
|-
|Providence
|Lucky break
|-
|Rebuke
|Hate speech
|-
|Reckoning
|Accountability
|-
|Religion
|Spirituality
|-
|Righteous
|Law-abiding
|-
|Sacred
|Respected
|-
|Saintly
|Well-behaved
|-
|Sin
|Crime
|-
|Sin
|Lifestyle Choice
|-
|Sodomite (generally)
|Gay; LGBT
|-
|Sodomite (in antiquity)
|Male shrine prostitute
|-
|Sodomy
|Relations
|-
|Solemn
|Dignified
|-
|Son/Daughter
|Offspring
|-
|Soul
|Spirit
|-
|The State
|The Government
|-
|Unborn baby
|Fetus
|-
|Wicked
|Antisocial
|-
|Wicked
|Naughty
|-
|Witchcraft
|Wicca
|-
|With child
|Pregnant
|-
|}

==See Also==
*[[Politically correct]]
*[[Liberal creep]]
*[[Opposition to Christianity]]
* Contrast with [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Language]]

Secularized Language

2011-02-27T20:52:25Z

DevonJ:

While [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|the development of conservative words grows by doubling each century]], those with an [[antichristian]] and [[anti-American]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s, have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views. Such [[deceit]]ful tactics are a prime example of [[Liberal redefinition]] and other [[Liberal tools]].

'''Calendar Terms'''
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original expression
!Secularized version
|-
|B.C./A.D.
|B.C.E./[[C.E.]]
|-
|Christmas
|Xmas
|-
|Christmas Holy Day
|Winter Break
|-
|Easter Holy Day
|Spring Break
|-
|Godspeed
|Be good
|-
|Hallowed Eve
|Halloween
|-
|Holy Day
|Holiday
|-
|Independence Day
|The Fourth of July
|-
|Merry Christmas
|Happy Holidays
|-
|Resurrection Sunday
|Easter
|-
|Saint Patrick's Day
|Paddy's Day
|-
|[[Saint Valentine's Day]]
|Valentine's Day
|-
|Shrove Tuesday
|Fat Tuesday
|-
|Thanksgiving
|Turkey Day
|-
|The Reverend Martin Luther King Day
|MLK Day
|-
|Washington's Birthday
|President's Day
|-
|}

'''Expressions and Colloquialisms'''
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original expression
!Secularized version
|-
|God be with you
|Good luck
|-
|God bless you
|Gesundheit
|-
|Jesus!
|Gee whiz!
|-
|One nation under God
|One nation
|-
|Praise the Lord
|Praise be
|-
|Thank God!
|Thank Goodness!
|-
|Thank heavens
|Thank goodness
|-
|Thank the Lord
|Give thanks
|-
|}

'''General Examples'''
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original expression
!Secularized version
|-
|Abomination
|Mistake
|-
|Abortion
|Birth control
|-
|Act of God
|Natural disaster
|-
|Adultery
|Cheating
|-
|Adultery
|Fooling around
|-
|Angelic
|Pretty
|-
|Anti-life
|Pro-choice
|-
|Bible study
|Fundamentalism
|-
|Blasphemy
|Secular opinion
|-
|Blessed
|Lucky
|-
|Chosen lifestyle
|Innate characteristic
|-
|Christchurch
|New Zealand city [http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-22/world/new.zealand.earthquake_1_prime-minister-john-key-new-zealand-quake?_s=PM:WORLD]
|-
|Contraception
|Protection
|-
|Covetousness
|Inequality
|-
|Creation
|Abiogenesis
|-
|Curse
|Bad luck
|-
|Drunkard
|[[Alcoholic]]
|-
|Father
|Old man
|-
|Fertile
|Breeder
|-
|God
|A higher power
|-
|God-fearing
|Intolerant
|-
|God-given
|Natural
|-
|Golden Rule
|Altruism
|-
|Govern
|Rule
|-
|Harlot
|Sex worker
|-
|[[Hell]] (or Heaven)
|Afterlife
|-
|Heathen
|Multicultural
|-
|Heresy
|Scientific theory
|-
|Holy matrimony
|Civil union
|-
|Homosexual
|Gay
|-
|Homosexuality
|Lifestyle choice
|-
|Husband or wife
|Significant other/life partner
|-
|Immoral
|Personal choice
|-
|Islamic Terrorism
|Man-made disaster
|-
|Living in sin
|Shacking up/cohabitation
|-
|Miraculous
|Amazing
|-
|Mother
|Parent
|-
|Pagan
|Secular
|-
|Perversion
|Diversity
|-
|Possessed
|Crazy
|-
|Possessed
|Influenced
|-
|Pray
|Plead
|-
|prayer/blessing
|moment of silence
|-
|Pro-abortion
|Pro-choice
|-
|Providence
|Lucky break
|-
|Rebuke
|Hate speech
|-
|Reckoning
|Accountability
|-
|Religion
|Spirituality
|-
|Righteous
|Law-abiding
|-
|Sacred
|Respected
|-
|Saintly
|Well-behaved
|-
|Sin
|Crime
|-
|Sin
|Lifestyle Choice
|-
|Sodomite (generally)
|Gay; LGBT
|-
|Sodomite (in antiquity)
|Male shrine prostitute
|-
|Sodomy
|Relations
|-
|Solemn
|Dignified
|-
|Son/Daughter
|Offspring
|-
|Soul
|Spirit
|-
|The State
|The Government
|-
|Unborn baby
|Fetus
|-
|Wicked
|Antisocial
|-
|Wicked
|Naughty
|-
|Witchcraft
|Wicca
|-
|With child
|Pregnant
|-
|}

==See Also==
*[[Politically correct]]
*[[Liberal creep]]
*[[Opposition to Christianity]]
* Contrast with [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Language]]

Secularized Language

2011-02-26T19:16:19Z

DevonJ: Moving and standardizing capitalizations

While [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|the development of conservative words grows by doubling each century]], those with an [[antichristian]] and [[anti-American]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s, have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views. Such [[deceit]]ful tactics are a prime example of [[Liberal redefinition]] and other [[Liberal tools]].

'''Calendar Terms'''
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original expression
!Secularized version
|-
|B.C./A.D.
|B.C.E./[[C.E.]]
|-
|Christmas
|Xmas
|-
|Christmas Holy Day
|Winter Break
|-
|Easter Holy Day
|Spring Break
|-
|Godspeed
|Be good
|-
|Hallowed Eve
|Halloween
|-
|Holy Day
|Holiday
|-
|Independence Day
|The Fourth of July
|-
|Merry Christmas
|Happy Holidays
|-
|Resurrection Sunday
|Easter
|-
|Saint Patrick's Day
|Paddy's Day
|-
|[[Saint Valentine's Day]]
|Valentine's Day
|-
|Shrove Tuesday
|Fat Tuesday
|-
|Thanksgiving
|Turkey Day
|-
|The Reverend Martin Luther King Day
|MLK Day
|-
|Washington's Birthday
|President's Day
|-
|}

'''Expressions and Colloquialisms'''
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original expression
!Secularized version
|-
|God be with you
|Good luck
|-
|God bless you
|Gesundheit
|-
|One nation under God
|One nation
|-
|Praise the Lord
|Praise be
|-
|Thank God!
|Thank Goodness!
|-
|Thank heavens
|Thank goodness
|-
|Thank the Lord
|Give thanks
|-
|}

'''General Examples'''
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original expression
!Secularized version
|-
|Abomination
|Mistake
|-
|Abortion
|Birth control
|-
|Act of God
|Natural disaster
|-
|Adultery
|Cheating
|-
|Adultery
|Fooling around
|-
|Angelic
|Pretty
|-
|Anti-life
|Pro-choice
|-
|Bible study
|Fundamentalism
|-
|Blasphemy
|Secular opinion
|-
|Blessed
|Lucky
|-
|Chosen lifestyle
|Innate characteristic
|-
|Christchurch
|New Zealand city [http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-22/world/new.zealand.earthquake_1_prime-minister-john-key-new-zealand-quake?_s=PM:WORLD]
|-
|Contraception
|Protection
|-
|Covetousness
|Inequality
|-
|Creation
|Abiogenesis
|-
|Curse
|Bad luck
|-
|Drunkard
|[[Alcoholic]]
|-
|Father
|Old man
|-
|Fertile
|Breeder
|-
|God
|A higher power
|-
|God-fearing
|Intolerant
|-
|God-given
|Natural
|-
|Govern
|Rule
|-
|Harlot
|Sex worker
|-
|[[Hell]] (or Heaven)
|Afterlife
|-
|Heathen
|Multicultural
|-
|Heresy
|Scientific theory
|-
|Holy matrimony
|Civil union
|-
|Homosexual
|Gay
|-
|Homosexuality
|Lifestyle choice
|-
|Husband or wife
|Significant other/life partner
|-
|Immoral
|Personal choice
|-
|Islamic Terrorism
|Man-made disaster
|-
|Living in sin
|Shacking up/cohabitation
|-
|Miraculous
|Amazing
|-
|Mother
|Parent
|-
|Pagan
|Secular
|-
|Perversion
|Diversity
|-
|Possessed
|Crazy
|-
|Possessed
|Influenced
|-
|Pray
|Plead
|-
|prayer/blessing
|moment of silence
|-
|Pro-abortion
|Pro-choice
|-
|Providence
|Lucky break
|-
|Rebuke
|Hate speech
|-
|Reckoning
|Accountability
|-
|Religion
|Spirituality
|-
|Righteous
|Law-abiding
|-
|Sacred
|Respected
|-
|Saintly
|Well-behaved
|-
|Sin
|Crime
|-
|Sin
|Lifestyle Choice
|-
|Sodomite (generally)
|Gay; LGBT
|-
|Sodomite (in antiquity)
|Male shrine prostitute
|-
|Sodomy
|Relations
|-
|Solemn
|Dignified
|-
|Son/Daughter
|Offspring
|-
|Soul
|Spirit
|-
|The State
|The Government
|-
|Unborn baby
|Fetus
|-
|Wicked
|Antisocial
|-
|Wicked
|Naughty
|-
|Witchcraft
|Wicca
|-
|With child
|Pregnant
|-
|}

==See Also==
*[[Politically correct]]
*[[Liberal creep]]
*[[Opposition to Christianity]]
* Contrast with [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Language]]

Secularized Language

2011-02-26T19:11:00Z

DevonJ:

While [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|the development of conservative words grows by doubling each century]], those with an [[antichristian]] and [[anti-American]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s, have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views. Such [[deceit]]ful tactics are a prime example of [[Liberal redefinition]] and other [[Liberal tools]].

'''Calendar Terms'''
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original expression
!Secularized version
|-
|B.C./A.D.
|B.C.E./[[C.E.]]
|-
|Christmas
|Xmas
|-
|Christmas Holy Day
|Winter Break
|-
|Easter Holy Day
|Spring Break
|-
|Godspeed
|Be good
|-
|Hallowed Eve
|Halloween
|-
|Holy Day
|Holiday
|-
|Independence Day
|The Fourth of July
|-
|Merry Christmas
|Happy Holidays
|-
|Resurrection Sunday
|Easter
|-
|Saint Patrick's Day
|Paddy's Day
|-
|[[Saint Valentine's Day]]
|Valentine's Day
|-
|Shrove Tuesday
|Fat Tuesday
|-
|Thanksgiving
|Turkey Day
|-
|The Reverend Martin Luther King Day
|MLK Day
|-
|Washington's Birthday
|President's Day
|-
|}

'''Expressions and Colloquialisms'''
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original expression
!Secularized version
|-
|God be with you
|Good luck
|-
|God bless you
|Gesundheit
|-
|One nation under God
|One nation
|-
|Praise the Lord
|Praise be
|-
|Reckoning
|Accountability
|-
|Thank God!
|Thank Goodness!
|-
|Thank heavens
|Thank goodness
|-
|Thank the Lord
|Give thanks
|-
|}

'''General Examples'''
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original expression
!Secularized version
|-
|Abomination
|Mistake
|-
|Abortion
|Birth control
|-
|Act of God
|Natural disaster
|-
|Adultery
|Cheating
|-
|Adultery
|Fooling around
|-
|Angelic
|Pretty
|-
|Anti-life
|Pro-choice
|-
|Bible study
|Fundamentalism
|-
|Blasphemy
|Secular opinion
|-
|Blessed
|Lucky
|-
|Chosen lifestyle
|Innate characteristic
|-
|Christchurch
|New Zealand city [http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-22/world/new.zealand.earthquake_1_prime-minister-john-key-new-zealand-quake?_s=PM:WORLD]
|-
|Contraception
|Protection
|-
|Covetousness
|Inequality
|-
|Creation
|Abiogenesis
|-
|Curse
|Bad luck
|-
|Drunkard
|[[Alcoholic]]
|-
|Father
|Old man
|-
|Fertile
|Breeder
|-
|God
|A higher power
|-
|God-fearing
|Intolerant
|-
|God-given
|natural
|-
|govern
|rule
|-
|Harlot
|Sex worker
|-
|[[Hell]] (or Heaven)
|Afterlife
|-
|Heathen
|Multicultural
|-
|Heresy
|Scientific theory
|-
|Holy matrimony
|Civil union
|-
|Homosexual
|Gay
|-
|Homosexuality
|Lifestyle choice
|-
|Husband or wife
|Significant other/life partner
|-
|Immoral
|Personal choice
|-
|Islamic Terrorism
|Man-made disaster
|-
|Living in sin
|Shacking up/cohabitation
|-
|Miraculous
|Amazing
|-
|Mother
|Parent
|-
|Pagan
|Secular
|-
|Perversion
|Diversity
|-
|Possessed
|Crazy
|-
|Possessed
|Influenced
|-
|Pray
|Plead
|-
|prayer/blessing
|moment of silence
|-
|Pro-abortion
|Pro-choice
|-
|Providence
|Lucky break
|-
|Rebuke
|Hate speech
|-
|Religion
|Spirituality
|-
|Righteous
|Law-abiding
|-
|sacred
|respected
|-
|Saintly
|Well-behaved
|-
|Sin
|Crime
|-
|Sin
|Lifestyle Choice
|-
|Sodomite (generally)
|Gay; LGBT
|-
|Sodomite (in antiquity)
|Male shrine prostitute
|-
|Sodomy
|Relations
|-
|Solemn
|Dignified
|-
|Son/Daughter
|Offspring
|-
|soul
|spirit
|-
|The State
|The Government
|-
|Unborn baby
|Fetus
|-
|Wicked
|Antisocial
|-
|wicked
|naughty
|-
|Witchcraft
|Wicca
|-
|With child
|Pregnant
|-
|}

==See Also==
*[[Politically correct]]
*[[Liberal creep]]
*[[Opposition to Christianity]]
* Contrast with [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Language]]

Secularized Language

2011-02-23T23:19:51Z

DevonJ:

While [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|the development of conservative words increases at an exponential rate]], those with an [[antichristian]] and [[anti-American]] agenda, such as [[liberal]]s, [[homosexual]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[evolutionist]]s and [[leftist]]s, have attempted to remove the [[Christian]] origins of our '''[[language]]''' by replacing common phrases with '''[[secular]]ized''' versions. By appealing to [[tolerance]] and [[political correctness]], they have succeeded in propagating these secularized versions, even among those who don't share their views. Such [[deceit]]ful tactics are a prime example of [[Liberal redefinition]] and other [[Liberal tools]].

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Original expression
!Secularized version
|-
|Thank God!
|Thank Goodness!
|-
|God bless you
|Gesundheit
|-
|Praise the Lord
|Praise be
|-
|Thank heavens
|Thank goodness
|-
|Merry Christmas
|Happy Holidays
|-
|Christmas Holy Day
|Winter Break
|-
|Easter Holy Day
|Spring Break
|-
|B.C./A.D.
|B.C.E./[[C.E.]]
|-
|[[Saint Valentine's Day]]
|Valentine's Day
|-
|Resurrection Sunday
|Easter
|-
|[[Hell]] (or Heaven)
|Afterlife
|-
|Sin
|Crime
|-
|Sin
|Lifestyle Choice
|-
|Abomination
|Mistake
|-
|Holy Day
|Holiday
|-
|Mother
|Parent
|-
|Father
|Old man
|-
|Son/Daughter
|Offspring
|-
|With child
|Pregnant
|-
|Bible study
|Fundamentalism
|-
|Blasphemy
|Secular opinion
|-
|Miraculous
|Amazing
|-
|Heresy
|Scientific theory
|-
|Abortion
|Birth control
|-
|Pro-abortion
|Pro-choice
|-
|Anti-life
|Pro-choice
|-
|Immoral
|Personal choice
|-
|Perversion
|Diversity
|-
|Husband or wife
|Significant other/life partner
|-
|prayer/blessing
|moment of silence
|-
|Washington's Birthday
|President's Day
|-
|Holy matrimony
|Civil union
|-
|Providence
|Lucky break
|-
|Possessed
|Crazy
|-
|Possessed
|Influenced
|-
|Pagan
|Secular
|-
|Hallowed Eve
|Halloween
|-
|Shrove Tuesday
|Fat Tuesday
|-
|Thanksgiving
|Turkey Day
|-
|The Reverend Martin Luther King Day
|MLK Day
|-
|Saint Patrick's Day
|Paddy's Day
|-
|Unborn baby
|Fetus
|-
|Creation
|Abiogenesis
|-
|Covetousness
|Inequality
|-
|Contraception
|Protection
|-
|Curse
|Bad luck
|-
|Rebuke
|Hate speech
|-
|The State
|The Government
|-
|God
|A higher power
|-
|Harlot
|Sex worker
|-
|Religion
|Spirituality
|-
|Fertile
|Breeder
|-
|Adultery
|Cheating
|-
|Act of God
|Natural disaster
|-
|Living in sin
|Shacking up/cohabitation
|-
|Thank the Lord
|Give thanks
|-
|Saintly
|Well-behaved
|-
|Angelic
|Pretty
|-
|Christmas
|Xmas
|-
|Sodomy
|Relations
|-
|Islamic Terrorism
|Man-made disaster
|-
|Godspeed
|Be good
|-
|God be with you
|Good luck
|-
|Independence Day
|The Fourth of July
|-
|Wicked
|Antisocial
|-
|Righteous
|Law-abiding
|-
|Pray
|Plead
|-
|Witchcraft
|Wicca
|-
|Solemn
|Dignified
|-
|Christchurch
|New Zealand city [http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-22/world/new.zealand.earthquake_1_prime-minister-john-key-new-zealand-quake?_s=PM:WORLD]
|-
|Homosexual
|Gay
|-
|Drunkard
|[[Alcoholic]]
|-
|}

==See Also==
*[[Politically correct]]
*[[Liberal creep]]
*[[Opposition to Christianity]]
* Contrast with [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Language]]

Talk:Secularized Language

2011-02-23T02:06:04Z

DevonJ: /* Perversion diversity */

James Buchanan

2011-02-21T01:54:41Z

DevonJ:

{{President
|image=James buchanan.jpg
|seq=15
|term_start=March 4, 1857
|term_end=March 4, 1861<ref>http://www.trivia-library.com/a/15th-us-president-james-buchanan.htm</ref>
|party=Democratic
|vp=John C. Breckinridge
|previous=Franklin Pierce
|next=Abraham Lincoln
|birth_date=April 23, 1791
|birth_place=Cove Gap, Pennsylvania
|death_date=June 1, 1868
|death_place=Lancaster, Pennsylvania
|spouse=None (Bachelor)
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Presbyterian]]
}}

For other uses of "Buchanan", see [[Buchanan]].

'''James Buchanan''' was the 17th [[Secretary of State]]<ref>http://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/secretaries</ref> <ref>http://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/buchanan-james</ref> and the 15th [[President of the United States of America]], serving as [[POTUS]] from 1857-1861. He was born on April 23, 1791 in Cove Gap, [[Pennsylvania]]. He was President during the unsuccessful raid on Harper's Ferry by [[John Brown]]. He left office shortly before the firing on [[Battle of Fort Sumter|Fort Sumter]] and [[Civil War]] started. He died in Lancaster, Pennsylvania on June 1, 1868 at age 78. <ref> Encyclopedia of Presidents James Buchanan by Marlene Targ Brill, Children's Press, 1988. </ref>

Buchanan was elected in 1856. The 1856 election was very good for the upstart [[Republican Party]], which was formed in opposition to slavery. Republican candidate [[John C. Frémont]] did not manage to capture enough votes to defeat Buchanan, but the party would seat its next presidential nominee in the [[White House]] four years later. Buchanan also ran against former President [[Millard Fillmore]], who ran as a part of the "Know Nothing Party", a third party formed largely in opposition to immigration and [[Catholic]] influence. <ref>http://www.multied.com/elections/1856.html</ref> Buchanan received 174, Fremont received 116, and Fillmore received 8.

Buchanan's presidency was marred by several disasters stemming from misgauging of public opinion. He did not realize the political weight of the importance of slavery, despite the storm clouds brewing that would soon lead to the Civil War. He felt that the [[Dred Scott]] court decision had settled the issue for good. Also, the newly acquired territory of [[Kansas]] was struggling to decide on a constitution, and several drafts had been proposed, which differed widely on a number of issues, most notably slavery. Buchanan publicly supported the pro-slavery LeCompton Constitution, which was rejected both by most Kansans and by [[Congress]].

Buchanan is notable as being the only bachelor president of the United States.

==References==
<references/>

{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Buchanan, James}}

[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-02-21T01:45:28Z

DevonJ: /* Question */ Answering own question

I think the biggest negative about John Thune (other than the fact that he's not really well known right now) is that he supported the McCain-Feingold bill. He's since admitted that that was a mistake, and no one is perfect, of course, but if he does seriously run in 2012, people are going to bring that vote up.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 22:56, 12 February 2010 (EST)

:Good point, I'll add it. I don't think it disqualifies him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 12 February 2010 (EST)

Is Mitt Romney "regularly" on Fox? I haven't seen that, but I don't watch it regularly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:44, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:If no one can vouch for Mitt Romney being "regularly" on Fox, then I'll revert it back to something like "rarely" on Fox.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:::While "regularly" is obviously a subjective measure, he's been on Fox a lot lately. He was on Hannity on January 20th, on "On the Record with Greta van Sustern" on January 11th, and on Hannity again on December 18th. Of course, a lot of that was to discuss the Scott Brown race. Sean Hannity also had him on a lot in 2008 after John McCain got the nomination to analyze the presidential race. While I don't have an opinion as to whether or not that counts as regularly, I thought you might like to know.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 17:23, 15 February 2010 (EST)

::::That's helpful, but doesn't seem to be nearly as much as the Fox favorites of Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich. So perhaps "on occasionally" might describe this best. 2008 is ancient history and not relevant to appearances in connection with 2012.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 15 February 2010 (EST)

==Hillary Clinton==
Of all potential candidates, Obama, Palin, McCain, Romney, ''et all'', [[Hillary Clinton]] currently enjoys the highest approval ratings at 58%. It is hard not to believe the Clintons are not seriously mulling thier options at the moment. This article should note the distinct possibility of a Democratic Primary challenge in 2012 as ''[[US News]]'' has reported. [http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/27/a-hillary-clinton-primary-challenge-to-obama-in-2012.html] Obama recently remarked on the possibility of being a one term president in his Diane Sawyer interview and Hillary stated she cannot see herself being Secretary of State after 2012. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 10:02, 15 February 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Is "irrational liberal hatred of her" really a con? It seems it will just make the Democrats look foolish when they foam at the mouth and drive more voters to the Republicans. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:40, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: You may be right, but it could be a hurdle. The liberal media are losing market share but still have some.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:00, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::I'm guessing it'd come down to her performance. If she does well in debate and interviews, the rage will look silly. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 17:10, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
:::People resent seeing those like them being attacked. They look at Palin and see someone they know IRL. We all have family dramas and tribulations. Those outside the political world don't see her quitting as Governor to be as bad a thing as the media and political world make it out to be, to use but one example. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:20, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

== Ken Cuccinelli ==
Why is "effective critic of Obama" under cons? I have a feeling that might have been vandalism. Does anyone oppose if that is moved to a pro?--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 18:45, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: Please do. Great point, thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:06, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== A concern ==

Does anyone feel like having so many potential Republican candidates is a detriment? It just feels like the Republican Party is so divided these days.
As for Clinton and Obama, if Clinton wins over Obama I'd be thoroughly surprised. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the incumbent president has never been beaten in the primaries by someone else in their own party. Also, I think Obama has kept a lot of moderates on his side. However, he's never been a friend of the right, and he's alienating the left. Just my 2 cents. --[[User:JasonN|JasonN]] 12:40, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

: In 1968, incumbent [[Lyndon Johnson]] felt compelled to withdraw from the race after being humiliated by the strong showing of [[Eugene McCarthy]] against him in the first primary.

: As to the large number, that's appropriate at this stage so that no one is missed. Competition is a good thing!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:14, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

== Rubio and Experience ==

I'm curious what you all think about Rubio in 2012. The article says "Will face liberal double standard: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a conservative." But it seems to me that by pushing him in 2012 we might be equally guilty of a conservative double standard: Obama was quite rightly attacked by conservatives for inexperience. But what's not OK for Obama is OK for Rubio? My perspective is that Rubio should serve out his term and consider a run in 2020, probably holding a high office (maybe VP) during the 2017-2021 term of whoever ends up beating Obama. Thoughts? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 22:31, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

:Most conservatives criticized Obama for being too liberal. I don't think Obama's inexperience was the major basis for criticism, but it will be when liberals criticize Rubio.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:47, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

::Obama was criticized, and rightly so, for ''absolutely no executive experience''. He had experience as a legislator, but had never actually held a job that required executive experience, running a company and meeting a payroll. Since that criticism was rejected by the Obama camp, one would think it would be off-limits for them to use it against Rubio. But since liberals don't think logically, and only care about smearing their opponents, as Andy said.....of course they will use it! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:08, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

== "New" president ==

I just made a minor edit, but have a feeling it may be contentious, so I'll explain a bit here. The opening sentence said the election is when the U.S. "picks a new president." I removed "new" because, inasmuch as it's likely that Obama will not be re-elected, it's still possible, meaning the country may not have a new president, but rather the same old one. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:34, 15 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your clarifying edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 15 November 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Sarah Palin did appoint a judge who is not pro-life, but with the way the Alaskan Constitution is written she had to appoint one of the people nominated by the Judicial council. Her choices were anti-life, more anti-life, and most anti-life. She chose anti-life. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 21:45, 6 February 2011 (EST)

:I don't agree. Palin picked the more anti-life candidate, and of course she did not have to pick anyone at all. Moreover, good politicians anticipate tricks by the other side and advert crises before they occur ... if they want to, that is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 17 February 2011 (EST)

== Question ==

I understand that the Republicans are ordered by likelihood of success, but have you done the same for the Democrats? If so, I really don't see Mike Gravel having any chance of winning the nomination. He is too far left for most of the democratic base and he is an incredible flip-flopper (he ran for the Libertarian nomination in 2008). Otherwise, this is a fascinating article. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 13:23, 17 February 2011 (EST)

:Excellent point. I've improved the ranking on the [[Democratic]] side. Please feel free to improve further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:42, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::The new ranking is great. It would be very interesting to see Hillary Clinton attempt another primary run against Obama. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 16:56, 17 February 2011 (EST)
:::That would be silly of her. She'd have to resign as SoS to do so effectively since all Obama need do is keep her bogged down with impossible tasks. She'll bide her time until 2016. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 18:05, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::::She'd have to pick a fight with the Admin, claiming the President is to soft on Iran or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood for instance, and she's unable to continue her duties as SoS. In reality, this in unlikely, for the simple reason she doesn't have any fresh faces to bring into a Hillary Administration; Obama pretty much fired all his old Chicago mafia after the midterm fiasco and replaced them with Clinton retreads. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:51, 19 February 2011 (EST)
:::::SoS ''used'' to be the place to gain experience for POTUS position but that was "back in the day" right after the Revolution. Who ''was'' the last President that held the SoS job in a previous administration? [[James Buchanan]]? [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:40, 20 February 2011 (EST)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-02-21T01:40:46Z

DevonJ: /* Question */ Positioning

Battle of Atlanta

2011-02-20T23:54:04Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850779 by JeffL1 (talk)

{{ACWbattle
|name=Battle of Atlanta Decatur
|image=
|begin=July 22, 1864
|end=Same day
|place=Fulton County, Georgia
|theater=Western Theater
|campaign=Atlanta Campaign
|result=Union victory
|combatants1=Military Division of the Mississippi
|combatants2=Army of Tennessee
|commanders1=[[William T. Sherman]] Major General, USA
|commanders2=[[John Bell Hood]] Lieutenant General, CSA
|strength1=
|strength2=
|casualties1='''3,641'''
|casualties2='''8,499'''
}}
Following the Battle of Peachtree Creek, Hood determined to attack Maj. Gen. James B. McPherson’s Army of the Tennessee. He withdrew his main army at night from Atlanta’ s outer line to the inner line, enticing Sherman to follow. In the meantime, he sent William J. Hardee with his corps on a fifteen-mile march to hit the unprotected Union left and rear, east of the city. Wheeler’s cavalry was to operate farther out on Sherman’s supply line, and Gen. Frank Cheatham’s corps were to attack the Union front. Hood, however, miscalculated the time necessary to make the march, and Hardee was unable to attack until afternoon. Although Hood had outmaneuvered Sherman for the time being, McPherson was concerned about his left flank and sent his reserves—Grenville Dodge’s XVI Army Corps—to that location. Two of Hood’s divisions ran into this reserve force and were repulsed. The Rebel attack stalled on the Union rear but began to roll up the left flank. Around the same time, a Confederate soldier shot and killed McPherson when he rode out to observe the fighting. Determined attacks continued, but the Union forces held. About 4:00 pm, Cheatham’s corps broke through the Union front at the Hurt House, but Sherman massed twenty artillery pieces on a knoll near his headquarters to shell these Confederates and halt their drive. Maj. Gen. John A. Logan’ s XV Army Corps then led a counterattack that restored the Union line. The Union troops held, and Hood suffered high casualties.<ref>[http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/bystate.htm NPS.gov: NPS Battle Summaries]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{Template:Campaignbox Atlanta}}
{{Template:ACW Battles of 1864}}

[[Category:American Civil War Battles]]

Trade with Germany

2011-02-20T23:53:33Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850781 by JeffL1 (talk)

State trade with [[Germany]] in 2004 and 2005:

Top ranking of manufacturing jobs supported by U.S. affiliates of German companies (2004):
Michigan - 32,100
 Ohio - 22,300
 North Carolina - 19,200
 Indiana - 17,900
 South Carolina - 15,800

Top ranking of merchandise exports to Germany (2005):
California - $4.3 billion
 South Carolina - $2.4 billion
 New York - $2.2 billion
 Massachusetts - $2.2 billion
 Illinois - $1.8 billion

The United States is the third largest exporter of goods to Germany after [[France]] and the [[Netherlands]]. The United States imports nearly 10% of all German goods.

== Sources ==

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, RGIT
 Office of Trade and Economic Analysis, RGIT

[[Category:Homeschool Curriculum]]

Governors of Massachusetts

2011-02-20T23:53:27Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850782 by JeffL1 (talk)

A list of '''governors''' from the commonwealth of '''[[Massachusetts]]'''.<ref>http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.8fd3d12ab65b304f8a278110501010a0?submit=Submit&State=MA</ref><ref>http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-colonial-governors-of-Massachusetts</ref>

==Plymouth Colony Governors==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Years
|-
| John Carver
| 1620-1621
|-
| William Bradford
| 1621-1633, 1635-1636, 1637-1638, 1639-1644, 1645-1657
|-
| Edward Winslow
| 1633-1634, 1636-1637, 1644-1645
|-
| Thomas Prence
| 1634-1635, 1638-1639, 1657-1673
|-
| Josiah Winslow
| 1673-1680
|-
| Thomas Hinckley
| 1680-1686, 1689-1692
|}
==Massachusetts Bay Colony Governors==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Years
|-
| John Endicott
| 1629-1630, 1644, 1649, 1651-1653, 1655-1664
|-
| John Winthrop
| 1630-1633, 1637-1639, 1642-1643, 1646-1648
|-
| Thomas Dudley
| 1634, 1640, 1645, 1650
|-
| John Haynes
| 1635
|-
| Henry Vane the Younger
| 1636
|-
| Richard Bellingham
| 1641, 1654, 1665-1672
|-
| John Leverett
| 1673-1678
|-
| Simon Bradstreet
| 1678-1686
|}
==Dominion of New England Governors==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Years
|-
| Joseph Dudley
| 1686
|-
| Edmund Andros
| 1686-1689
|}
==Province of Massachusetts Bay Governors==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Years
|-
| William Phips
| 1692-1694
|-
| William Stoughton
| 1694-1699, 1700-1701
|-
| Richard Coote
| 1699-1700
|-
| Joseph Dudley
| 1702-1715, 1715
|-
| William Tailer
| 1715-1716, 1730
|-
| Samuel Shute
| 1716-1723
|-
| William Dummer
| 1723-1728, 1729-1730
|-
| William Burnet
| 1728-1729
|-
| Jonathan Belcher
| 1730-1741
|-
| William Shirley
| 1741-1749, 1753-1756
|-
| Spencer Phips
| 1749-1753, 1756-1757
|-
| Thomas Pownall
| 1757-1760
|-
| Thomas Hutchinson
| 1760, 1769-1774
|-
| Francis Bernard
| 1760-1769
|-
| Thomas Gage
| 1774-1775
|-
| William Howe
| 1775-1776
|}

==Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governors==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name!! Party !! Years
|-
| [[John Hancock]]
| Federalist
| 1780-1785, 1787-1793
|-
| Thomas Cushing
|
| 1785
|-
| James Bowdoin
|
| 1785-1787
|-
| [[Samuel Adams]]
| Democratic Republican
| 1793-1797
|-
| Increase Sumner
| Federalist
| 1797-1799
|-
| Moses Gill
|
| 1799-1800
|-
| Caleb Strong
| Federalist
| 1800-1807, 1812-1816
|-
| James Sullivan
| Democratic Republican
| 1807-1808
|-
| Levi Lincoln
| Democratic Republican
| 1808-1809
|-
| Christopher Gore
| Federalist
| 1809-1810
|-
| [[Elbridge Gerry]]
| Democratic Republican
| 1810-1812
|-
| John Brooks
| Federalist
| 1816-1823
|-
| William Eustis
| Democratic Republican
| 1823-1825
|-
| Marcus Morton
| Democratic Republican
| 1825, 1840-1841, 1843-1844
|-
| Levi Lincoln, Jr.
| Adams Republican
| 1825-1834
|-
| John Davis
| Republican/Whig
| 1834-1835, 1841-1843
|-
| Samuel Turell Armstrong
| Whig
| 1835-1836
|-
| Edward Everett
| Whig
| 1836-1840
|-
| George Nixon Briggs
| Whig
| 1844-1851
|-
| George Sewall Boutwell
| Democrat
| 1851-1853
|-
| John Henry Clifford
| Whig
| 1853-1854
|-
| Emory Washburn
| Whig
| 1854-1855
|-
| Henry Joseph Gardner
| American (Know Nothing)
| 1855-1858
|-
| [[Nathaniel Prentice Banks]]
| Republican
| 1858-1861
|-
| John Albion Andrew
| Republican
| 1861-1866
|-
| Alexander Hamilton Bullock
| Republican
| 1866-1869
|-
| William Claflin
| Republican
| 1869-1872
|-
| William Barrett Washburn
| Republican
| 1872-1874
|-
| Thomas Talbot
| Republican
| 1874-1875, 1879-1880
|-
| William Gaston
| Democrat
| 1875-1876
|-
| Alexander Hamilton Rice
| Republican
| 1876-1879
|-
| John Davis Long
| Republican
| 1880-1883
|-
| Benjamin Franklin Butler
| Democrat/National
| 1883-1884
|-
| George Dexter Robinson
| Republican
| 1884-1887
|-
| Oliver Ames
| Republican
| 1887-1890
|-
| John Quincy Adams Brackett
| Republican
| 1890-1891
|-
| William Eustis Russell
| Democrat
| 1891-1894
|-
| Frederic Thomas Greenhalge
| Republican
| 1894-1896
|-
| Roger Wolcott
| Republican
| 1896-1900
|-
| Winthrop Murray Crane
| Republican
| 1900-1903
|-
| John Lewis Bates
| Republican
| 1903-1905
|-
| William Lewis Douglas
| Democrat
| 1905-1906
|-
| Curtis Guild, Jr.
| Republican
| 1906-1909
|-
| Ebenezer Sumner Draper
| Republican
| 1909-1911
|-
| Eugene Noble Ross
| Democrat
| 1911-1914
|-
| David Ignatius Walsh
| Democrat
| 1914-1916
|-
| Samuel Walker McCall
| Republican
| 1916-1919
|-
| [[Calvin Coolidge|John Calvin Coolidge]]
| Republican
| 1919-1921
|-
| Channing Harris Cox
| Republican
| 1921-1925
|-
| Alvan Tufts Fuller
| Republican
| 1925-1929
|-
| Frank G. Allen
| Republican
| 1929-1931
|-
| Joseph Buell Ely
| Democrat
| 1931-1935
|-
| James Michael Curley
| Democrat
| 1935-1937
|-
| Charles Francis Hurley
| Democrat
| 1937-1939
|-
| Leverett Saltonstall
| Republican
| 1939-1945
|-
| Maurice Tobin
| Democrat
| 1945-1947
|-
| Robert Fiske Bradford
| Republican
| 1947-1949
|-
| Paul Andrew Dever
| Democrat
| 1949-1953
|-
| Christian Archibald Herter
| Republican
| 1953-1957
|-
| Foster John Furcolo
| Democrat
| 1957-1961
|-
| John Anthony Volpe
| Republican
| 1961-1963, 1965-1969
|-
| Endicott Peabody
| Democrat
| 1963-1965
|-
| Francis William Sargent
| Republican
| 1969-1975
|-
| [[Michael Dukakis|Michael Stanley Dukakis]]
| Democrat
| 1975-1979, 1983-1991
|-
| Edward Joseph King
| Democrat
| 1979-1983
|-
| William Floyd Weld
| Republican
| 1991-1997
|-
| Argeo Paul Cellucci
| Republican
| 1997-2001
|-
| Jane Maria Swift
| Republican
| 2001-2003
|-
| [[Mitt Romney]]
| Republican
| 2003-2007
|-
| [[Deval Patrick]]
| Democrat
| 2007-present
|}

== See also ==

*[[State Governors]]

==Notes==
<references/>
{{Governors}}
[[Category:Massachusetts Governors]]

Deinonychus

2011-02-20T23:53:16Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850785 by JeffL1 (talk)

{{Taxonomy
|name=Deinonychus (extinct)
|image=deinonychus.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=Diapsida
|infraclass=Archosauromorpha
|superorder=Dinosauria
|order=Saurischia
|suborder=Theropoda
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|family=Dromaeosauridae
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=Deinonychus
|subgenus=
|species=D. antirrhopus
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Deinonychus''' was a small, [[bipedal]], [[carnivore|carnivorous]] [[dinosaur]]. It is generally believed among [[evolutionist]]s to have existed about 65-70 million years ago during the [[Cretaceous]] period, but [[young earth creationist]]s accept it as having been created on the [[sixth day]], along with all the other dinosaurs. It had a long, [[sickle]]-like [[claw]] on the end of its big toe. ''Deinonychus'' [[fossils]] were first discovered in 1931 by [[Barnum Brown]] in southern [[Montana]]. In 1964 the fossils were designated ''Deinonychus antirrhopus'' by [[John Ostrom]] and [[Grant Meyer]].

Deinonychus are believed by many evolutionists to have been [[feather]]ed, citing other supposedly feathered dinosaurs such as [[microraptor]]<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinonychus</ref>. However, whether or not even the related specimens were feathered is questionable. In fact, the only fossils that allegedly show these feathers are from [[China]], and because of the infamous [[archaeoraptor]] fraud, it is very possible that these other fossils are also forgeries<ref>http://www.creationwiki.org/Feathered_dinosaur]</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Chrysler Building

2011-02-20T23:52:00Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850786 by JeffL1 (talk)

The '''Chrysler Building''' is a hallmark of the [[Manhattan]] skyline. Positioned at 42nd Street and [[Lexington Avenue]], the building towers over nearby [[Grand Central Station]], total height of 1048 feet.<ref>[http://www.archiplanet.org/wiki/Chrysler_Building Chrysler Building.]</ref> Appointed with huge [[gargoyle]]s, the artwork and architecture are the epitome of the [[Art Deco]] movement.
"The design, originally drawn up for building contractor William H. Reynolds, was finally sold to Walter P. Chrysler, who wanted a provocative building which would not merely scrape the sky but positively pierce it."<ref>Peter Gossel and Gabriele Leuthauser. Architecture in the Twentieth Century. p209.</ref>

William Van Alen (1883 – 1954), an American architect, was the principal designer.

[[File:Chrysler skyscraper.jpg]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Buildings]]
[[Category:New York City]]

Antwain Spann

2011-02-20T23:51:53Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850787 by JeffL1 (talk)

'''Antwain Spann''' is a [[National Football League]] cornerback for the [[New England Patriots]]. He was born on February 22, 1983 in Oceanside, [[California]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Spann, Antwain}}

[[Category:New England Patriot Players]]

Psalter

2011-02-20T23:51:46Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850789 by JeffL1 (talk)

A '''Psalter''' is a book containing the [[Book of Psalms]] from the [[Old Testament]], usually intended for private, devotional use.<ref>https://libwww.library.phila.gov/medievalman/glossary.cfm#m_q</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religious Texts]]

Economics Homework Nine Answers - Student Ten

2011-02-20T23:51:45Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850788 by JeffL1 (talk)

Aran M

'''1. Identify an industry not mentioned in the lecture that is an oligopoly, and explain why.'''
Computer companies, such as Dell, Hp, Acer, and Apple.

:Good.

'''2. Order the types of industries from those having the lowest price (due to the greatest competition) to those having the highest price (due to the least competition).'''
Perfect compaction b.Perfctly contestable markets c.monopalistic compaction d.oligopoly e.cartel f.Monopoly

:Correct, but spellings are off. E.g., "competition", not "compaction"

'''3. Explain which specific type of industry (e.g., oligopoly or something else) each of these quotes probably refers to: (1) "She's the finest hair stylist in town; no one has her special style!", (2) "Crazy Eddie ... his low prices are INSANE!", (3) "Don't like his prices? He's the only one in town selling what you need."'''
monopolistic compaction, Perfect compaction, Monopoly

:Correct. note spelling errors again.

'''4. List how monopolies can be established.'''
The licensing of professionals creates a barrier to entry.
Control of a valuable resource can also create a monopoly.
Economies of scale can create a monopoly by rewarding the biggest company with the lowest average cost.
Government grants of monopoly such as patents and copyrights.

:Also government-created monopolies by law, as in cable TV franchise companies. (Minus 1).

'''5. What prevents a monopoly from increasing its prices without limitation?'''
When the MR=MC,the price is usually set. the demand curve still applies to monopoles the availability of substitutes may also limit the price.

:Not many substitutes. The Law of Demand applies due mostly to the income effect. (Minus 1).

:39/40. Good.

[[Category:Economics Homework Nine Answers]]

Sixth Amendment

2011-02-20T23:51:31Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850790 by JeffL1 (talk)

The '''{{PAGENAME}}''' to the [[United States Constitution]] states:
{{cquote|'''In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial [[jury]] of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.'''}}

{{US amendments}}

[[Category:United States Constitution]]

Divided government

2011-02-20T23:51:25Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850791 by JeffL1 (talk)

A '''Divided government''' is one in which the [[President|presidency]] and the [[Congress]] are controlled by different [[parties]]. For example, in the second half of the [[William J. Clinton|Clinton]] administration, 1995-2000, the presidency was controlled by the [[Democrat]]s, while the Congress was [[Republican]] controlled.

Many commentators suggest that a divided government may be the best state for the United States, since each party then serves as a watchdog on the other.

Statistics show that the economy grows at a higher rate during divided government than with either party in control of both branches of government. This is sometimes attributed to the [[gridlock]] effect, in which each party blocks the other party's spending. For example, undivided Republican control (2002-2006) under the leadership of [[George W. Bush]] resulted in budget deficits.

Also, in the Clinton administration the years of undivided Democratic control resulted in budget deficits, while the years of divided government resulted in a budget surplus, the first significant surplus in the post-[[World War II]] era.

[[Category:United States Political Terms]]

Monocracy

2011-02-20T23:51:17Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850792 by JeffL1 (talk)

'''Monocracy''' is a [[government]] run by a single person.

This can be contrasted with:

*[[aristocracy]], which is government by a privileged class
*[[democracy]], which is government by the people
*[[gerontocracy]], which is government by a group of elders
*[[ochlocracy]], which is government by a mob
*[[theocracy]], which is government by a claim of divine authority

[[category:Forms of Government]]

Dante Alighieri

2011-02-20T23:47:06Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850793 by JeffL1 (talk)

[[Image:Dante alighieri.jpg|right|thumb|Dante Alighieri]]
'''Dante Alighieri''' (1265-1321) was a late [[Medieval]] or early [[The Renaissance|Renaissance]] poet, born to a prominent family in [[Florence]], whose most famous work is the [[Divine Comedy]]. The Italian town of Florence was considered the cradle of the Renaissance by 1425 (partly due to Dante's work), but [[Venice]] and [[Rome]] became just as successful by the early 1500s.

Dante was politically active, part of the physicians, apothacaries, and book dealers guild and later one of the 6 priors of Florence. Florence was divided into factions, the Papal Guelphs, the “Whites”, with Pope Boniface VIII, and the Ghibellines, the Holy Roman Empire party, the “Blacks”, with King Philip of France and later King Henry of Luxembourg. Dante was exiled from Florence about 1302, living with sympathetic patrons for the remainder of his life. It was during this exile that he traveled, studied philosophy and theology, and wrote several works, including [[The Divine Comedy]].

Dante wrote his most famous works in the Italian language of the time (the vernacular) rather than [[Latin]], revolutionizing the common language intellectually much the way [[Shakespeare]] would for english several centuries later. The ''[[Vita Nuova]]'' is an early collection of love poems inspired by [[Beatrice]], a woman whom he adopted as his [[muse]]. Dante later described the path of a soul to salvation in "[[The Divine Comedy]]," in which Dante travels through [[Hell]] ([[Inferno]]), [[Purgatory]] ([[Purgatorio]]), and [[Heaven]] ([[Paradiso]]). In this journey, Dante is first guided by the Roman epic poet [[Virgil]], and then by the soul of Beatrice, who had died young.

{{DivineComedy}}
[[Category:Poets]]

Renaissance Terms I

2011-02-20T23:46:47Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850795 by JeffL1 (talk)

==I==

{{Renaissance Terms}}
{{History Terms}}

Core nations

2011-02-20T23:46:22Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850796 by JeffL1 (talk)

The term "'''core nations'''" refers to the most dominant countries in the world economic system. The core produces capital-intensive high-technology goods from their sophisticated technologies and mechanized means of production. The [[United States]] is considered to be one of the core nations.

==See also==
*[[Clash of Civilizations]]
*[[Brick nations]]
*[[G8]]

[[category:economics]]

Crossword/Answer1

2011-02-20T23:46:16Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850798 by JeffL1 (talk)

This is the solution to the example [[crossword]].

{| style="padding:0; border-collapse:collapse" cellspacing="0"
|-
| style="width:1.5em; border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''T'''
| style="width:1.5em; border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''R'''
| style="width:1.5em; border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''A'''
| style="width:1.5em; border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''I'''
| style="width:1.5em; border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''N'''
| style="width:1.5em; border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''S'''
|-
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''A'''
| style="background:black"|
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''P'''
| style="background:black"|
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''E'''
| style="background:black"|
|-
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''N'''
| style="background:black"|
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''E'''
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''T'''
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''O'''
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''N'''
|-
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''K'''
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''I'''
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''S'''
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''S'''
| style="background:black"|
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''O'''
|-
| style="background:black"|
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''L'''
| style="background:black"|
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''A'''
| style="background:black"|
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''E'''
|-
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''P'''
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''L'''
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''U'''
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''R'''
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''A'''
| style="border:solid 1px black; text-align:center"|'''L'''
|}

[[category:Word Puzzles]]

United States presidential election, 1932

2011-02-20T23:42:57Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850799 by JeffL1 (talk)

The country faced a great economic depression by the time President [[Herbert Hoover]] was up for reelection. Although he won the Republican party nomination, he was unpopular in the overall opinions of the people because of the depression. The Democrats nominated [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as their candidate.

Roosevelt proposed a "[[New Deal]]" for Americans, a program with emphasis on [[states' rights]], opposition to too powerful central government, opposition to big government which should be cut down to its proper size, opposition to high taxes, unbalanced budgets, and government debts. In preelection speeches, Roosevelt stressed the rights of the states so much so as to urge that public welfare relief, old age pensions and unemployment insurance should be administered by the states, and that the federal government would merely aid the states with relief funds and serve as collection agent for social insurance. Above all Roosevelt decried the shocking spending habits of the Republicans and the mounting public debt. He called Herbert Hoover "the greatest spender in history." He said of the Republican party : "It has piled bureau on bureau, commission on commission ... at the expense of the taxpayer." He told the people: "For three long years I have been going up and down this country preaching that government, federal, state and local, costs too much. I shall not stop that preaching."

Roosevelt claimed to be against Big Government saying, "We must merge, we must consolidate subdivisions of government and, like private citizens, give up luxuries which we can no longer afford." Roosevelt repeated over and over during the campaign: "I propose to you that government, big and little, be made solvent and that the example be set by the President of the United States and his cabinet." As governor of New York from 1928 to 1932 Roosevelt inherited from Gov. [[Al Smith]] a surplus of $15,000,000 and left it with a deficit of $90,000,000. Toward the end of the 1932 Presidential campaign he cried: "Stop the deficits! Stop the deficits!"

This was the New Deal as it was described to the people in the fall of 1932.

Another thing that smeared Hoover's campaign was when a group of Veterans made a public march. Hoover ordered General [[Douglas MacArthur]] to gently disperse them. However McArthur was far from gentle and several people were badly injured. Hoover bore the blame for it. The voters clearly decided in favor of Roosevelt on election day.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! candidates
! popular vote
! electoral vote
|-
| Franklin Roosevelt
| 22, 809, 638
| 472
|-
| Herbert Hoover
| 15, 758, 901
| 59
|-
| [[Norman Thomas]]
| 881, 951
| 0
|-
| [[William Z. Foster]]
| 102, 785
| 0
|-
| [[William D. Upshaw]]
| 81, 869
| 0
|-
| [[Verne L. Reynolds]]
| 33, 276
| 0
|-
| [[William H. Harvey]]
| 53, 425
| 0
|}
<ref> [[A Pictoral History of the U.S. Presidents]], by Clare Gibson, Gramercy Books, 2001, p. 124.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:1932, United States presidential election}}
[[Category:United States Presidential Elections]]

Taras Fedorovych

2011-02-20T23:42:49Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850800 by JeffL1 (talk)

'''Taras Fedorovych''' was a [[Hetman]] of the [[Ukrainian Kozak|Ukrainian Kozaks]]. His date of birth and death are unknown. In 1629 he campaigned against the [[Crimean Tatars]]. In March 1630, he led a Kozak-peasant revolt against the [[Poland|Polish Commonwealth]]. This revolt was known as the ''Fedorovych Uprising'', and it was brought on by the exploitation of the Ukrainian peasantry and the forced conversions to [[Catholicism]]. He scored victories in the battles of [[Korsun]] and [[Pereiaslav]] and forced the Poles to accept a new treaty at Pereiaslav in 1630. The treaty process was corrupt and the Kozak leadership did not implant the conditions that Fedorovych wanted. He was removed as hetman, but he attempted to lead more revolts in the following years. He fought against the Poles alongside the [[Russia|Russians]] in the [[Smolensk War]] of 1632-34. He tried to engage further Russian support against Poland in 1636, but the Russians turned him down. They did not want to enter new conflicts with Poland.

== References ==

[http://exlibris.org.ua/greathistory/r21.html Велика Історія України(Great History of Ukraine)]

[http://www.encyclopediaof ukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages\F\E\FedorovychTaras.htm Encyclopedia of Ukraine]
==Further reading==
Subtelny, Orest. ''Ukraine - A History''. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993

{{DEFAULTSORT:Fedorovych, Taras}}
[[category:Ukraine|Fedorovych, Taras]]
[[category:Hetmans of Ukrainian Kozaks]]

Aneurin Bevan

2011-02-20T23:42:44Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850802 by JeffL1 (talk)

'''Aneurin Bevan''' (1897-1960) (commonly called '''Nye Bevan''') was a British left wing socialist politician and cabinet minister in the post-war Labour government of [[Clement Attlee]].

Bevan was born in Tredegar, [[Monmouthshire]], in south [[Wales]]; his father was a coal miner and Bevan himself started work in the pits at the age of 13. He became a trade union activist, and was converted to Marxism while on a scholarship to the union-supported Central Labour College in [[London]]. Returning to south Wales in 1921, he found himself blacklisted, and did not work again until 1924. In 1926 he became a full time miners' union official and in 1929 was elected to [[Parliament]] as Labour MP for [[Ebbw Vale]]. A spokesman for the left wing of the Labour Party, he was expelled for some months in 1939 for supporting a [[United Front]] of the [[Labour Party]] and [[Communist Party of Great Britain]].

During the war he agitated for the opening of a 'Second Front' in western Europe to relieve pressure on the [[Soviet Union]], and was described by [[Winston Churchill]] (whom Bevan had supported for the premiersjhip in 1940) as "a squalid nuisance."

In 1945 Bevan was made Minister of Health in the new Labour government, an onerous role that included responsibility for housing as well as health matters. He is remembered partly for his work in bringing about the construction of some hundreds of thousands of municipal houses despite severe shortages of materials, but mainly for his role in creating the [[National Health Service]], which was inaugurated on 5 July 1948. Bevan was made Minister of Labour in 1951 but resigned from the cabinet, with [[Harold Wilson]] and John Freeman, in protest at the decision by [[Chancellor of the Exchequer]] [[Hugh Gaitskell]] to impose charges for spectacles and dentures.

As a [[back-bencher]], Bevan was the leader of a clique of left-wing Labour MPs who became known as 'Bevanites'; their opposition to party policy, coupled with Bevan's increaingly rancorous temperament, brought increasing splits to the Parliamentary party, from which Bevan was briefly suspended in 1955. However, following the resignation of Clement Atlee as Labour leader in 1955, his replacement, Gaitskell, appointed Bevan to the [[Shadow Cabinet]] as Shadow Colonial Secretary; and a year later, as Shadow Foreign Secretary. In this role Bevan outraged many of his former left-wing supporters when, at the 1957 Labour Party conference, he denounced calls for unilateral nuclear disarmament by the [[United Kingdom]], saying famously that such a policy would send him, as a putative future Labour Foreign Secretary, "naked into the conference chamber."

Bevan died of cancer in 1960.

In 1934 Bevan married Jennie Lee (1904-1988), also a socialist MP, but at that time a member for the [[Independent Labour Party]] rather than the Labour Party. Between 1964 and 1967 she served as Arts Minister in the Labour Government of Harold Wilson.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bevan, Aneurin}}
[[Category:British History]]

Essay:Christianity, Survival of the Fittest, and Intelligent Design

2011-02-20T23:41:53Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850803 by JeffL1 (talk)

Debates on evolution and intelligent design are commonplace, but largely focus on biological systems. However, it is interesting to reflect on the fact that these same principles can be applied to non-biological systems. Computer programmers, for example, routinely apply what could be considered "evolutionary algorithms" in software design, demonstrating two things: one, that certain of the mechanisms ascribed to evolution do indeed exist (something which is not debated by Creationists) and, two, that an intelligent agent can employ those mechanisms to achieve a desired goal.

Keeping this in mind, we can then ask the question: how is it that Christianity has prospered for two thousand years, whereas countless other religions have withered and died? The simplest answer to this, of course, is "God wills it so." Need we leave it there, though? Can we, through diligent inquiry, determine some of the mechanisms by which He has caused His Will to be realized?

I propose that Christianity itself is an illustration of the ways in which an intelligent designer can use limited evolutionary mechanisms to achieve a desired goal.

==The Old Testament and the Mosaic Law==

The Mosaic Law is lengthy, and contains many provisions that, from the point of view of a pagan living at the time, must have seemed capricious and without purpose--laws of ritual cleanliness, laws restricting which animals may and may not be eaten, laws concerning the disposal of waste. "These laws are a hodgepodge!" our hypothetical pagan might say. "They make no sense! They serve no purpose! They appear random and without design!"

However, viewing these laws in hindsight, we are struck by how amazingly practical they were, and how focused on a single goal: preventing the spread of disease. The washing of hands, the avoidance of pork (and thus trichinosis,) the insistence on keeping human waste away from living areas--all of these would combine to increase the "fitness" of a people practicing them enormously.

==The New Testament and Christ's Commandments==

Likewise, consider the New Testament and Christ's lessons concerning the sick. Matthew 25:36 makes it clear that we are to care for the sick; likewise, Christ, through His deeds, showed time and time again that caring for the sick was a Christian duty commanded by God.

Was this more than simply an example of His infinite compassion? Was it also an example of intelligent design?

Consider: historically, the first reaction to illness has often been to avoid the sick. In one respect, the commandment to visit and care for the sick seems counter-intuitive and unwise. However, coupled with the Mosaic strictures concerning hygiene, caring for the sick would, again, tend to raise the overall survival rate among Christian communities during times of plague or pestilence. Christianity, then, is a survival trait, and being a Christian would make one more "fit" in an evolutionary sense.

==The Practical Side of Mercy==

The early history of Christianity is one of proselytization--the faithful going out into a pagan world to teach them Christ's Word. On the surface of it, this seems a daunting task. Why would wildly diverse pagan peoples abandon their long-held beliefs and embrace the Word of God?

Here, again, we can see the immense practicality--the design--inherent in the cumulative commandments of the Old and New Testaments. Many pagan traditions were immensely pragmatic: they wanted results. If a given god's followers were victorious in battle, they would adopt worship of that god. If a given god's people suffered from hardships, they would abandon worship of that god.

Consider, then, the case of such a people with a Christian minority living among them. Being neither stupid nor unobservant, they would be able to see that, during times of disease, the Christian community was far less afflicted than their own. In short, they would be able to see that praying to the God of Abraham gets results. This would make them inclined to adopt such worship themselves. In a competing marketplace of ideas, the idea of Christianity would prove "more fit" and would gradually supplant other ideas and other faiths.

==Evolution or Design?==

Can we simply ascribe this to fortunate happenstance? Well, yes, in the sense that you can ascribe ''anything'' to happenstance and coincidence. You could come across an arrangement of stones spelling out the word "HELLO" and claim that the stones simply fell that way by coincidence--but it is unlikely that most reasonable people would agree.

The fact that there are so many laws in the Bible which, to an uninformed observer, seem illogical, disconnected, and of no value, yet which combine to ensure the propagation both of the faith and the faithful, COULD be a coincidence--but it would be a coincidence so large as to stagger the imagination.

Clearly, the more reasonable conclusion is that these "unrelated" passages--written centuries apart--combine so well because they were designed to do so, by a guiding and exceedingly wise Designer.

[[category:Conservapedia Essays]]

Crossroads

2011-02-20T23:41:10Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850805 by JeffL1 (talk)

'''Crossroads''' was a famous British TV [[soap opera]] that ran from 1964 until 1988. It centered around the family of Meg Mortimer, her son Sandy and her daughter Jayne. It was set in a hotel near Birmingham, which is a big town near London, England. The series focussed on the trials and tribulations of running the eponymous hotel.

===Early days ===

The early plots of the soap featured many semi-comic situations that might have occurred during the everyday running of a hotel. Chief characters of this time included Gordon Honeycombe, the guest who believed he was reading the news from the hotel elevators, Manuel, the semi-incompetent waiter from [[Portuagal]] whose interpretations of guest food orders often led to hilarious results and funny goings-on in the kitchen, led by the irrepressible [[Mr. Pastry]].

===Latter days ===

Crossroads went color in 1969, but with color came a darkening of the program's mood. Sandy's character changed from that of a cheerful happy-go-lucky teenager to that of a sharp businessman who was determined to wrest control of Crossroads Hotel from his mother with the help of his right hand man, the evil Benny. Together Sandy and Benny quickly became the men Britain loved to hate.

===The Final days ===

By 1982 Crossroads was struggling in the ratings so the BBC decided to give them a boost. Meg Mortimer, the central character in the soap was to be burnt out of the hotel in a bonfire set by Benny but luckily for her she was rescued by Sandy who had a last minute change of heart and sent her off on a cross channel ferry, ''The Herald of Free Enterprise'' for a day trip to [[Zeebrugge]]. After Meg left the ratings dropped further and the BBC replaced the series with more repeats of ''Are you being Served?''.

[[Category:Television Shows]]

Logarithm

2011-02-20T23:36:05Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850784 by JeffL1 (talk)

[[Image:log.png|thumb|right|px=200|Logarithm with various bases]]
'''Logarithm''' of a [[number]] is the [[exponential]] power to which you raise the base to obtain the number.

For high school [[algebra]], the most common logarithms are base-10 (the common log) and base ''[[e]]'' (the [[natural logarithm|natural log]]).

For example, the logarithm base 10 of 100 is the power to which you raise 10 to obtain 100. Because 10 to the power of 2 equals 100, the logarithm of 100 is 2:

log 100 = 2 because 102 = 100

There are formulas for converting logarithms having different bases. To find a logarithm with base ''b'' using another base ''c'', use the following identity:

: <math> \log_b(x) = \frac{\log_c(x)}{\log_c(b)} </math>

==History==

Logarithms were used for centuries as a computing tool by [[scientist]]s making pencil-and-paper [[computation]]s, because the use of logarithms can greatly simplify arithmetical calculations. For example, raising a number x to any power y (where x and y might be large or fractional) can be achieved by first looking up the logarithm of x, then multiplying by y, and then finding the inverse logarithm of the result.

Logarithms were invented or discovered by [[John Napier]] in 1614 AD, and quickly revolutionized astronomy. Johannes Kepler said that Napier "tripled the life of an astronomer."

For centuries, tables of logarithms were working tools of the scientist and engineer. Students and people doing rough calculations typically used a "table of four-place logarithms," which would fit on one or two pages. Such tables were printed in the back of virtually every [[physics]] book. For more precise work, longer tables with more places of precision were used, or entire volumes.

Closely associated with logarithms was a tool called the ''slide rule.'' A slide rule consists of ruled logarithmic scales. By manipulating the slide rule, one can graphically add together the logarithm of two numbers, which is equivalent to multiplying them. From about 1870 AD to 1970 AD, slide rules were used by virtually every scientist and engineer. They were regarded as a symbol of engineering. Engineering students were identifiable by the ten-inch slide rules attached to their belts. Learning to use a slide rule was a fundamental skill taught in high-school mathematics classes.

The arrival of pocket-sized electronic [[calculator]]s brought an end to the practical use of the slide rule or the table of logarithms. A calculator can compute a logarithm to ten places in less time than it takes to turn to the right page in a book-sized table of logarithms.
[[category:mathematics]]

China

2011-02-20T23:32:39Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850743 by Rudolph20 (talk)

{{Country
|name =中华人民共和国 中華人民共和國 Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó
|map =China rel01.jpg
|map2 =China location.png
|flag =Flag_of_the_PRC.png‎
|arms =Arms of PR China.png
|capital =Beijing
|capital-raw =
|government =Communist
|government-raw =
|language =Mandarin Chinese
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|chairman =Hu Jintao
|premier =Wen Jiabao
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =
|pm-raw =
|area =3,704,427 sq mi
|pop =1,317,000,000 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$10 trillion (2007)
|gdp-pc =$7,600 (2007)
|currency =Yuan
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''China''' (formally, '''The People's Republic of China'''), is the world's largest country by population, with a rapidly growing economy. With thousands of years of continuous traditions, in three decades it has dramatically changed itself from a poor backward nation to a world power, and is one of the world's top economies. It has emerged as a major regional power in East Asia, averaging over 9% economic growth per year since 1978 when it introduced a market-based economic system with many elements of capitalism, to replace its old socialism. Foreign businesses have flocked to invest in China, Americans and others rush to buy its cheap factory output, Chinese exports flooded the world. It has vast reserves of dollar holdings. China is modernizing its military, has joined numerous regional and international institutions, and plays an increasingly visible role in international politics.

The nation is under control from the [[Chinese Communist Party]], which encompasses mainland China, albeit with many border disputes. The PRC claims [[Taiwan]], the [[Republic of China]], as its own province, but the ROC maintains its sovereignty.

[[Hong Kong]] was transferred back to Chinese control by the [[United Kingdom]] in 1997, and [[Macau]] was handed over by [[Portugal]] in 1999. Both territories are now [[Special Administrative Region]]s and have autonomy over local affairs. Since the 1950s China has increasingly asserted brutal control over [[Tibet]].

The next 5 years represent a critical period in China's development. To investors and firms, particularly since China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, China represents a vast market that has yet to be fully tapped and a low-cost base for export-oriented production. Educationally, China is forging ahead as partnerships, and exchanges with foreign universities have helped create new research opportunities for its students. China used the Summer Olympics in 2008 to showcase to the world its amazing gains of the past two decades. The new leadership is committed to generating greater economic development in the interior and providing more services to those who do not live in China's coastal areas, goals that form the core of President Hu's concepts of a "harmonious society" and a "spiritual civilization." However, there is still much that needs to change in China.

For more information on China, see [[World History Lecture Three]].

==People==
===Ethnic Groups===
[[File:Chinese people.jpg|right|250px]]
China officially recognizes 56 distinct ethnic groups. The largest ethnic group is the Han Chinese, who constitute about 91.9% of the total population. The remaining 8.1% are Zhuang (16 million), Manchu (10 million), Hui (9 million), Miao (8 million), [[Uighur]] (7 million), Yi (7 million), Mongolian (5 million), Tibetan (5 million), Buyi (3 million), Korean (2 million), and other ethnic minorities.

In July 2009 large scale rioting erupted as the [[Uighur]] minority fought Chinese riot police in major cities in China's western Xinjiang province. Hundreds are dead..<ref> See [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/world/asia/07kadeer.html?ref=world Wrik Eckholm, "China Points to Another Leader in Exile," ''New York Times'' July 6, 2009]</ref> Uighurs are angry at political, cultural and religious persecution as well as the growing presence in the region of Han Chinese - China's main ethnic group. Han now predominate in the cities, and Uighurs in the countryside. This is the first major violent unrest in China in two decades.

===Language===
There are seven major Chinese dialects and many subdialects. [[Mandarin Chinese|Mandarin]] (or Putonghua), the predominant dialect, is spoken by over 70% of the population. It is taught in all schools and is the medium of government. About two-thirds of the Han ethnic group are native speakers of Mandarin; the rest, concentrated in south and southeast China, speak one of the six other major Chinese dialects. Non-Chinese languages spoken widely by ethnic minorities include Mongolian, Tibetan, Uyghur and other Turkic languages (in Xinjiang), and Korean (in the northeast).

All Chinese dialects use the same written character sets. In mainland China, the [[Simplified Chinese|Simplified]] characters have been in use since 1949.

====The Pinyin System of Romanization====
On January 1, 1979, the Chinese Government officially adopted the [[Hanyu pinyin|pinyin]] system for spelling Chinese names and places in Roman letters. A system of Romanization invented by the Chinese, pinyin has long been widely used in China on street and commercial signs as well as in elementary Chinese textbooks as an aid in learning Chinese characters and for common character input systems. Variations of pinyin also are used as the written forms of several minority languages.

Pinyin has now replaced other conventional spellings in China's English-language publications. The U.S. Government also has adopted the pinyin system for all names and places in China. For example, the capital of China is now spelled "Beijing" rather than "Peking."

In 2008 the anti-Communist government of Taiwan finally adopted the pinyin system, replaces the old [[Wade-Giles]] system which was increasingly ignored by the Chinese diaspora.

==Religion==
A February 2007 survey concluded that 31% of Chinese citizens ages 16 and over, representing 300 million persons, are religious believers.<ref> This is approximately three times the official figure reported by the Government in April 2005.See [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108404.htm U.S. State Department "International Religious Freedom Report 2008"]</ref>

There are reportedly more than 100,000 officially recognized sites for religious activities, 300,000 officially recognized clergy, and more than 3,000 officially recognized religious organizations.
[[File:China B.jpg|left|280px]]
The Government officially recognizes five main religions: [[Buddhism]], [[Taoism]], [[Islam]], [[Catholicism]], and [[Protestantism]]. There are five state-sanctioned "Patriotic Religious Associations" (PRAs) that manage the activities of the recognized faiths. The Russian Orthodox Church operates in some regions, particularly those with large populations of Russian expatriates or with close links to Russia. Foreign residents in the country who belonged to religious faiths not officially recognized by the Government were generally permitted to practice their religions.

It is difficult to estimate the number of Buddhists and Taoists, because they do not have congregational memberships and many practice exclusively at home.

The Government estimated that there are 16,000 Buddhist temples and monasteries, 200,000 Buddhist monks and nuns, more than 1,700 reincarnate lamas, and 32 Buddhist schools. Most believers, particularly ethnic Han Buddhists, practice Mahayana Buddhism, while the majority of Tibetans and ethnic Mongolians, as well as a growing number of ethnic Chinese, practice Tibetan Buddhism, a Mahayana adaptation. Some ethnic minorities in southwest Yunnan Province practice Theravada Buddhism, the dominant tradition in parts of neighboring Southeast Asia.

There are more than 25,000 Taoist priests and nuns, more than 1,500 Taoist temples, and 2 Taoist schools. Traditional folk religions (worship of local gods, heroes, and ancestors) are practiced by hundreds of millions of citizens and are often affiliated with Taoism, Buddhism, or ethnic minority cultural practices.

The government says there are twenty million Muslims. Independent estimates range as high as fifty million or more. There are more than 40,000 Islamic places of worship (more than half of which are in the XUAR), more than 45,000 imams nationwide, and 10 Islamic schools. The country has ten predominantly Muslim ethnic groups, the largest of which is the Hui, estimated to number more than ten million. The Hui are centered in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, but there are significant concentrations of Hui throughout the country, including in Gansu, Henan, Qinghai, Yunnan, and Hebei Provinces, as well as in the TAR and the XUAR. Hui Muslims slightly outnumber Uighur Muslims, who live primarily in the XUAR. According to an official 2005 report, the XUAR had 23,900 mosques and 27,000 clerics at the end of 2004, but fewer than half of the mosques were authorized to hold Friday prayer and holiday services. The country also has more than one million Kazakh Muslims and thousands of Dongxiang, Kyrgyz, Salar, Tajik, Uzbek, Baoan, and Tatar Muslims.

Officials from the Three-Self Patriotic Movement/China Christian Council (TSPM/CCC), the state-approved Protestant religious organization, estimated that at least twenty million citizens worship in official churches. Government officials stated that there are more than 50,000 registered TSPM churches and 18 TSPM theological schools. The Pew Research Center estimates that between 50 million and 70 million Christians practice without state sanction. The World Christian Database estimates that there are more than 300 unofficial house church networks.

The Catholic Patriotic Association (CPA) reports that 5.3 million persons worship in its churches and it is estimated that there are an additional 12 million or more persons who worship in unregistered Catholic churches that do not affiliate with the CPA. According to official sources, the government-sanctioned CPA has more than 70 bishops, nearly 3,000 priests and nuns, 6,000 churches and meeting places, and 12 seminaries. There are thought to be approximately 40 bishops operating "underground," some of whom are in prison or under house arrest. During the reporting period, at least three bishops were ordained with papal approval. In September 2007 the official media reported that Liu Bainian, CPA vice president, stated that the young bishops were to be selected to serve dioceses without bishops and to replace older bishops. Of the 97 dioceses in the country, 40 reportedly did not have an acting bishop in 2007, and more than 30 bishops were over 80 years of age.
===Religious discrimination===
The Government restricts legal religious practice to government-sanctioned organizations and registered religious groups and places of worship, and seeks to control the growth and scope of the activity of both registered and unregistered religious groups, including "house churches." Government authorities limit proselytism, particularly by foreigners and unregistered religious groups, but permit proselytism in state-approved religious venues and private settings.
[[File:Great Mosque Xi an China.jpg|thumb|330px|Great Mosque of Xi'an.]]
In 2008, the Government's repression of religious freedom intensified in some areas, including in Tibetan areas and in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR). Unregistered Protestant religious groups in Beijing reported intensified harassment from government authorities in the lead up to the 2008 Summer Olympic Games. Media and China-based sources reported that municipal authorities in Beijing closed some house churches or asked them to stop meeting during the 2008 Summer Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. During the reporting period, officials detained and interrogated several foreigners about their religious activities and in several cases alleged that the foreigners had engaged in "illegal religious activities" and cancelled their visas. Media reported that the total number of expatriates expelled by the Government due to concerns about their religious activities exceeded one hundred. Officials in the XUAR, the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), and other Tibetan areas tightly controlled religious activity. The Government sought the forcible return of several Uighur Muslims living abroad, some of whom had reportedly protested restrictions on the Hajj and encouraged other Muslims to pray and fast during Ramadan. Followers of Tibetan Buddhism, including those in the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region and most Tibetan autonomous areas, faced more restrictions on their religious practice and ability to organize than Buddhists in other parts of the country. "Patriotic education" campaigns in the TAR and other Tibetan regions, which required monks and nuns to sign statements personally denouncing the Dalai Lama, and other new restrictions on religious freedom were major factors that led monks and nuns to mount peaceful protests at a number of monasteries on March 10, 2008. The protests and subsequent security response gave way to violence in Lhasa by March 14 and 15.

"Underground" Roman Catholic clergy faced repression, in large part due to their avowed loyalty to the Vatican, which the Government accused of interfering in the country's internal affairs. The Government continued to repress groups that it designated as "cults," which included several Christian groups and Falun Gong.

Religious and ethnic minority groups such as Tibetan Buddhists and Uighur Muslims experienced societal discrimination not only because of their religious beliefs but also because of their status as ethnic minorities with distinct languages and cultures. After the March 2008 protests in Lhasa and other Tibetan areas there were reports of increased tensions between Tibetan Buddhists and Hui Muslims.

The [[Falun Gong]] is a self-described spiritual movement that blends aspects of Taoism, Buddhism, and the meditation techniques and physical exercises of qigong (a traditional Chinese exercise discipline), with the teachings of Falun Gong leader Li Hongzhi. There are estimated to have been at least 2.1 million adherents of Falun Gong before the Government banned the group in 1999. Hundreds of thousands may practice Falun Gong privately.

==Population Policy==
[[Image:China Mex RGarciaOrtiz.jpg|right|Chinese at Mexico]]
{{main|One-child Policy}}

With a population officially just over 1.3 billion and an estimated growth rate of about 0.6%, China is very concerned about its population growth and has attempted with mixed results to implement a strict birth limitation policy. The government permits one child per family, with allowance for a second child under certain circumstances (such as twins), especially in rural areas, and with guidelines looser for ethnic minorities with small populations. Enforcement varies, and relies largely on "social compensation fees" to discourage extra births. Official government policy opposes forced [[abortion]] or sterilization, but in some localities there are instances of forced [[abortion]]. The government's goal is to stabilize the population in the first half of the 21st century, and current projections are that the population will peak at around 1.6 billion by 2050. Boys are highly prized, and because screening of fetuses is done to determine gender, selective abortion has resulted in 119 boys born for every 100 girls. By 2020, 24 million men of marrying age will find themselves without wives.

==Government==
The People's Republic of China is an authoritarian state in which the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) constitutionally is the paramount source of power. Party members hold almost all top government, police, and military positions. Ultimate authority rests with the 25-member political bureau (Politburo) of the CCP and its nine-member standing committee. '''[[Hu Jintao]]''' holds the three most powerful positions as CCP general secretary, president, and chairman of the Central Military Commission. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces.

===Chinese Communist Party===
The 71 million member CCP, authoritarian in structure and ideology, continues to dominate government. Nevertheless, China's population, geographical vastness, and social diversity frustrate attempts to rule by fiat from Beijing. Central leaders must increasingly build consensus for new policies among party members, local and regional leaders, influential non-party members, and the population at large.

In periods of greater openness, the influence of people and organizations outside the formal party structure has tended to increase, particularly in the economic realm. This phenomenon is most apparent today in the rapidly developing coastal region. Nevertheless, in all important government, economic, and cultural institutions in China, party committees work to see that party and state policy guidance is followed and that non-party members do not create autonomous organizations that could challenge party rule. Party control is tightest in government offices and in urban economic, industrial, and cultural settings; it is considerably looser in the rural areas, where the majority of the people live.

Theoretically, the party's highest body is the Party Congress, which traditionally meets at least once every 5 years. The 17th Party Congress is expected to take place in the fall of 2007. The primary organs of power in the Communist Party include:
*The Politburo Standing Committee, which currently consists of nine members (one seat is vacant following the June 2, 2007 death of Huang Ju);
*The Politburo, consisting of 24 full members, including the members of the Politburo Standing Committee;
*The Secretariat, the principal administrative mechanism of the CCP, headed by the General Secretary;
*The Central Military Commission;
*The Discipline Inspection Commission, which is charged with rooting out corruption and malfeasance among party cadres.
===State Structure===
The Chinese Government has always been subordinate to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP); its role is to implement party policies. The primary organs of state power are the National People's Congress (NPC), the President (the head of state), and the State Council. Members of the State Council include Premier Wen Jiabao (the head of government), a variable number of vice premiers (now four), five state councilors (protocol equivalents of vice premiers but with narrower portfolios), and 22 ministers and four State Council commission directors.

Under the Chinese constitution, the NPC is the highest organ of state power in China. It meets annually for about 2 weeks to review and approve major new policy directions, laws, the budget, and major personnel changes. These initiatives are presented to the NPC for consideration by the State Council after previous endorsement by the Communist Party's Central Committee. Although the NPC generally approves State Council policy and personnel recommendations, various NPC committees hold active debate in closed sessions, and changes may be made to accommodate alternate views.

When the NPC is not in session, its permanent organ, the Standing Committee, exercises state power.
===Principal Government and Party Officials===
[[File:Hu - Fidel Castro.jpg|thumb|Hu Jintao and [[Fidel Castro]].]]
*President--[[Hu Jintao]]
*Vice President--Zeng Qinghong
*Premier, State Council--Wen Jiabao
*NPC Chair--Wu Bangguo
*Vice Premiers--Wu Yi, Zeng Peiyan, Hui Liangyu
*Politburo Standing Committee--Hu Jintao (General Secretary), Wu Bangguo, Wen Jiabao, Jia Qinglin, Zeng Qinghong, Wu Guanzheng, Li Changchun, Luo Gan
*Other Politburo Members--Cao Gangchuan, Guo Boxiong, He Guoqiang, Hui Liangyu, Liu Qi, Liu Yunshan, Wang Lequan, Wang Zhaoguo, Wu Yi, Yu Zhengsheng, Zeng Peiyan, Zhang Dejiang, Zhang Lichang, Zhou Yongkang, Wang Gang (alternate)
*Alternate Politburo Members--Wang Gang
*Chairman, Central Military Commission--Hu Jintao
*Foreign Minister--Yang Jiechi
*Minister of Commerce--Bo Xilai
*Minister of Finance--Jin Renqing
*Minister of Agriculture--Sun Zhengcai
*Minister of Information Industry--Wang Xudong
*Governor, People's Bank of China--Zhou Xiaochuan
*Minister, State Development and Reform Commission--Ma Kai
*Ambassador to U.S.--Zhou Wenzhong
*Ambassador to UN--Wang Guangya

===Foreign Relations===
[[Image:Chinese painting.jpg|thumb|Chinese painting.]]
Since its establishment, the People's Republic has worked vigorously to win international support for its position that it is the sole legitimate government of all China, including Hong Kong, Macau, and [[Taiwan]]. In the early 1970s, Beijing was recognized diplomatically by most world powers. [[Beijing]] (Pekin) assumed the China seat in the [[United Nations]] in 1971 and has since become increasingly active in multilateral organizations. Japan established diplomatic relations with China in 1972, and the United States did so in 1979. As of July 2007, the number of countries that have diplomatic relations with Beijing had risen to 167, while 24 maintained diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

After the founding of the P.R.C., China's foreign policy initially focused on solidarity with the Soviet Union and other communist countries. In 1950, China sent the People's Liberation Army into North Korea to help North Korea halt the UN offensive that was approaching the Yalu River. After the conclusion of the Korean conflict, China sought to balance its identification as a member of the Soviet bloc by establishing friendly relations with Pakistan and other Third World countries, particularly in Southeast Asia.

In the 1960s, Beijing competed with Moscow for political influence among communist parties and in the developing world generally. Following the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia and clashes in 1969 on the Sino-Soviet border, Chinese competition with the Soviet Union increasingly reflected concern over China's own strategic position.

In late 1978, the Chinese also became concerned over Vietnam's efforts to establish open control over Laos and Cambodia. In response to the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, China fought a brief border war with Vietnam (February-March 1979) with the stated purpose of "teaching Vietnam a lesson."

Chinese anxiety about Soviet strategic advances was heightened following the Soviet Union's December 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. Sharp differences between China and the Soviet Union persisted over Soviet support for Vietnam's continued occupation of Cambodia, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and Soviet troops along the Sino-Soviet border and in Mongolia--the so-called "three obstacles" to improved Sino-Soviet relations.

In the 1970s and 1980s China sought to create a secure regional and global environment for itself and to foster good relations with countries that could aid its economic development. To this end, China looked to the West for assistance with its modernization drive and for help in countering Soviet expansionism, which it characterized as the greatest threat to its national security and to world peace.

China maintained its consistent opposition to "superpower hegemony," focusing almost exclusively on the expansionist actions of the Soviet Union and Soviet proxies such as Vietnam and Cuba, but it also placed growing emphasis on a foreign policy independent of both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. While improving ties with the West, China continued to follow closely economic and other positions of the Third World nonaligned movement, although China was not a formal member.

In the immediate aftermath of Tiananmen crackdown in June 1989, many countries reduced their diplomatic contacts with China as well as their economic assistance programs. In response, China worked vigorously to expand its relations with foreign countries, and by late 1990, had reestablished normal relations with almost all nations. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in late 1991, China also opened diplomatic relations with the republics of the former Soviet Union.

In recent years, Chinese leaders have been regular travelers to all parts of the globe, and China has sought a higher profile in the UN through its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council and other multilateral organizations. Closer to home, China has made efforts to reduce tensions in Asia, hosting the Six-Party Talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program, cultivating a more cooperative relationship with members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and participating in the ASEAN Regional Forum. China has also taken steps to improve relations with countries in South Asia, including India. Following Premier Wen's 2005 visit to India, the two sides moved to increase commercial and cultural ties, as well as to resolve longstanding border disputes. The November 2006 visit of President Hu was the first state visit by a Chinese head of state to India in 10 years.

China has likewise improved ties with Russia, with Presidents Putin and Hu exchanging visits to Beijing and Moscow in April 2006 and March 2007. A second round of Russia-China joint military exercises is scheduled for fall 2007. China has played a prominent role in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a regional grouping that includes Russia and the Central Asian nations of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Beijing has resolved many of its border and maritime disputes, notably including a November 1997 agreement with Russia that resolved almost all outstanding border issues and a 2000 agreement with Vietnam to resolve differences over their maritime border, though disagreements remain over islands in the South China Sea. Relations with Japan improved following Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's October 2006 visit to Beijing, although longstanding and emotionally charged disputes over history and competing claims to portions of the East China Sea remain sources of tension.

While in many ways Sudan's primary diplomatic patron, China has played a constructive role in support of peacekeeping operations in Southern Sudan and pledged to contribute an engineering unit in support of UN operations in Darfur. China has stated publicly that it shares the international community's concern over Iran's nuclear program and has voted in support of UN sanctions resolutions on Iran. Set against this has been an effort on the part of China to maintain close ties to countries such as Iran, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela, which are sources of oil and other resources and which welcome China's non-conditional assistance and investment.

==Political Conditions==
===Legal System===
The government's efforts to promote rule of law are significant and ongoing. After the Cultural Revolution, China's leaders aimed to develop a legal system to restrain abuses of official authority and revolutionary excesses. In 1982, the National People's Congress adopted a new state constitution that emphasized the rule of law under which even party leaders are theoretically held accountable.

Since 1979, when the drive to establish a functioning legal system began, more than 300 laws and regulations, most of them in the economic area, have been promulgated. The use of mediation committees--informed groups of citizens who resolve about 90% of China's civil disputes and some minor criminal cases at no cost to the parties--is one innovative device. There are more than 800,000 such committees in both rural and urban areas.

Legal reform became a government priority in the 1990s. Legislation designed to modernize and professionalize the nation's lawyers, judges, and prisons was enacted. The 1994 Administrative Procedure Law allows citizens to sue officials for abuse of authority or malfeasance. In addition, the criminal law and the criminal procedures laws were amended to introduce significant reforms. The criminal law amendments abolished the crime of "counter-revolutionary" activity, although many persons are still incarcerated for that crime. Criminal procedures reforms also encouraged establishment of a more transparent, adversarial trial process. The Chinese constitution and laws provide for fundamental human rights, including due process, but these are often ignored in practice. In addition to other judicial reforms, the Constitution was amended in 2004 to include the protection of individual human rights and legally-obtained private property, but it is unclear how those provisions will be implemented. Although new criminal and civil laws have provided additional safeguards to citizens, previously debated political reforms, including expanding elections to the township level, and other legal reforms, including the reform of the reeducation through labor system, have been put on hold.

==Military==
Establishment of a professional military force equipped with modern weapons and doctrine was the last of the "Four Modernizations" announced by Zhou Enlai and supported by Deng Xiaoping. In keeping with Deng's mandate to reform, the People's Liberation Army (PLA), which includes the strategic nuclear forces, army, navy, and air force, has demobilized millions of men and women since 1978 and introduced modern methods in such areas as recruitment and manpower, strategy, and education and training.
[[File:China military.jpg|left]]
Following the June 1989 Tiananmen crackdown, ideological correctness was temporarily revived as the dominant theme in Chinese military affairs. Reform and modernization appear to have since resumed their position as the PLA's priority objectives.

The Chinese military is in the process of transforming itself from a land-based power, centered on a vast ground force, to a smaller, mobile, high-tech military eventually capable of mounting limited operations beyond its coastal borders.

China's power-projection capability is limited but has grown over recent years. China has acquired some advanced weapons systems from abroad, including Sovremmeny destroyers, SU-27 and SU-30 aircraft, and Kilo-class diesel submarines from Russia, and continued to develop domestic production capabilities, such as for the domestically-developed J-10 fighter aircraft. However, much of its air and naval forces continues to be based on 1960s-era technology. As the Defense Department's Quadrennial Defense Review, released February 2006, noted, the U.S. shares with other countries a concern about the pace, scope, and direction of China's military modernization. We view military exchanges, visits, and other forms of engagement are useful tools in promoting transparency, provided they have substance and are fully reciprocal. Regularized exchanges and contact also have the significant benefit of building confidence, reducing the possibility of accidents, and providing the lines of communication that are essential in ensuring that episodes such as the April 2001 EP-3 aircraft incident do not escalate into major crises. During their April 2006 meeting, President Bush and President Hu agreed to increase officer exchanges and to begin a strategic nuclear dialogue between STRATCOM and the Chinese military's strategic missile command. U.S. and Chinese militaries are also considering ways in which we might cooperate on disaster assistance relief.

===Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Policy ===
In 1955, Mao Zedong's Chinese Communist Party decided to proceed with a nuclear weapons program; it was developed with Soviet assistance until 1960. After its first nuclear test in October 1964, Beijing deployed a modest but potent ballistic missile force, including land- and sea-based intermediate-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

China became a major international arms exporter during the 1980s. Beijing joined the Middle East arms control talks, which began in July 1991 to establish global guidelines for conventional arms transfers, but announced in September 1992 that it would no longer participate because of the U.S. decision to sell F-16A/B aircraft to Taiwan.

China was the first state to pledge "no first use" of nuclear weapons. It joined the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1984 and pledged to abstain from further atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in 1986. China acceded to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1992 and supported its indefinite and unconditional extension in 1995. In 1996, it signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and agreed to seek an international ban on the production of fissile nuclear weapons material. To date, China has not ratified the CTBT.

In 1996, China committed not to provide assistance to un-safeguarded nuclear facilities. China became a full member of the NPT Exporters (Zangger) Committee, a group that determines items subject to IAEA inspections if exported by NPT signatories. In September 1997, China issued detailed nuclear export control regulations. China began implementing regulations establishing controls over nuclear-related dual-use items in 1998. China also has committed not to engage in new nuclear cooperation with Iran (even under safeguards), and will complete existing cooperation, which is not of [[proliferation]] concern, within a relatively short period. In May 2004, with the support of the United States, China became a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

Based on significant, tangible progress with China on nuclear nonproliferation, President Clinton in 1998 took steps to bring into force the 1985 U.S.-China Agreement on Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation.

===Missiles===
Although it is not a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the multinational effort to restrict the proliferation of missiles, in March 1992 China undertook to abide by MTCR guidelines and parameters. China reaffirmed this commitment in 1994, and pledged not to transfer MTCR-class ground-to-ground missiles. In November 2000, China committed not to assist in any way the development by other countries of MTCR-class missiles. However, in August 29, 2003, the U.S. Government imposed missile proliferation sanctions lasting two years on the Chinese company China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO) after determining that it was knowingly involved in the transfer of equipment and technology controlled under Category II of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Annex that contributed to MTCR-class missiles in a non-MTCR country.

In December 2003, the P.R.C. promulgated comprehensive new export control regulations governing exports of all categories of sensitive technologies.

==Economy ==
China's economy, based on rice and wheat farming, was generally prosperous until the 18th century. Population pressures, and failure to adopt new technology led to an impoverished nation by 1900.

After Mao's death the policy of modernization along Western lines has led to a remarkable rate of economic growth in the industrial cities, which have pulled in millions of peasants from the still poor rural areas. Slack environmental standards have led to serious pollution problems.

The modern Chinese economy has benefited from investments from Taiwan and Hong Kong. They jumped far ahead of China by 1970 in terms of technology, and in recent years have invested in mainland industries.

These two factors have changed Chinese economy, from a command economy to a more socialist state, with the Chinese economy increasingly in the hands of privately-owned businesses, not state- or military-run enterprises. The 2001 declaration by Jiang Zemin (former leader of the Communist Party) of the "theory of three represents" -- that the CCP represents not only workers, but also intellectuals and entrepreneurs -- was an explicit affirmation of what had been a trend for the previous years

[[File:National Stadium, Beijing.jpg|thumb|250px|National Stadium, Beijing.]]
Since 1980 China has enjoyed the highest economic growth rates in the world. Suddenly in mid-2008, the growth rate slowed sharply from 11% a year to only 5.5%. Much of the economy was geared to exports, and building factories for exports to the United States and Japan. When the [[Financial Crisis of 2008]] hit, exports fell off and prices for industrial products like steel fell in half. Many factories were shut down. The decline has especially hit steel, cement and the construction industry. The government in November 2008 announced a $586 billion stimulus program to build roads, dams, electric grids and other infrastructure projects that are designed to supplement the international market.<ref> David Barboza, "Great Engine of China Slows ," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/business/worldbusiness/26chinasteel.html?_r=1 ''New York Times'' Nov. 25, 2008] </ref>

Since 1979, China has largely rejected socialism and embraced capitalism, while maintaining Communist party rule. Private ownership of the means of production has dramatically reduced poverty and increased wealth, especially in the cities but also in rural areas. Nationally the GDP (in 2007 prices) has exploded from 2 trillion yuan in 1980 to 25 trillion in 2007.

As late as 1980 60% of the people in rural China lives in poverty; by 2007 fewer than 5% did. Grain production has grown 300 to 500 tons per person, and rural income per person has soared from a few hundred yuan in 1980 to over 4000.<ref>See ''Economist'' Dec. 13, 2008</ref>

The reforms reformed and opened its economy. The Chinese leadership has adopted a more pragmatic perspective on many political and socioeconomic problems, and has reduced the role of ideology in economic policy. China's ongoing economic transformation has had a profound impact not only on China but on the world. The market-oriented reforms China has implemented over the past two decades have unleashed individual initiative and entrepreneurship. The result has been the largest reduction of poverty and one of the fastest increases in income levels ever seen. China today is the fourth-largest economy in the world. It has sustained average economic growth of over 9.5% for the past 26 years. In 2006 its $2.76 trillion economy was about one-fifth the size of the U.S. economy.

In the 1980s, China tried to combine central planning with market-oriented reforms to increase productivity, living standards, and technological quality without exacerbating inflation, unemployment, and budget deficits. China pursued agricultural reforms, dismantling the commune system and introducing a household-based system that provided peasants greater decision-making in agricultural activities. The government also encouraged nonagricultural activities such as village enterprises in rural areas, and promoted more self-management for state-owned enterprises, increased competition in the marketplace, and facilitated direct contact between Chinese and foreign trading enterprises. China also relied more upon foreign financing and imports.

During the 1980s, these reforms led to average annual rates of growth of 10% in agricultural and industrial output. Rural per capita real income doubled. China became self-sufficient in grain production; rural industries accounted for 23% of agricultural output, helping absorb surplus labor in the countryside. The variety of light industrial and consumer goods increased. Reforms began in the fiscal, financial, banking, price-setting, and labor systems.

By the late 1980s, however, the economy had become overheated with increasing rates of inflation. At the end of 1988, in reaction to a surge of inflation caused by accelerated price reforms, the leadership introduced an austerity program.

China's economy regained momentum in the early 1990s. During a visit to southern China in early 1992, China's paramount leader at the time, Deng Xiaoping, made a series of political pronouncements designed to reinvigorate the process of economic reform. The 14th Party Congress later in the year backed Deng's renewed push for market reforms, stating that China's key task in the 1990s was to create a "socialist market economy." The 10-year development plan for the 1990s stressed continuity in the political system with bolder reform of the economic system.

China's economy grew at an average rate of 10% per year during the period 1990-2004, the highest growth rate in the world. China's gross domestic product (GDP) grew 10.0% in 2003, and even faster, 10.1%, in 2004, and 9.9% in 2005 despite attempts by the government to cool the economy. China's total trade in 2006 surpassed $1.76 trillion, making China the world's third-largest trading nation after the U.S. and Germany. Such high growth is necessary if China is to generate the 15 million jobs needed annually--roughly the size of Ecuador or Cambodia--to employ new entrants into the job market.

Nevertheless, serious imbalances exist behind the spectacular trade performance, high investment flows, and high GDP growth. High numbers of non-performing loans weigh down the state-run banking system. Inefficient state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are still a drag on growth, despite announced efforts to sell, merge, or close the vast majority of SOEs.

Social and economic indicators have improved since reforms were launched, but rising inequality is evident between the more highly developed coastal provinces and the less developed, poorer inland regions. According to World Bank estimates, more than 152 million people in China in 2003--mostly in rural areas of the lagging inland provinces--still live in poverty, on consumption of less than U.S. $1 a day.

Following the Chinese Communist Party's Third Plenum, held in October 2003, Chinese legislators unveiled several proposed amendments to the state constitution. One of the most significant was a proposal to provide protection for private property rights. Legislators also indicated there would be a new emphasis on certain aspects of overall government economic policy, including efforts to reduce unemployment (now in the 8-10% range in urban areas), to rebalance income distribution between urban and rural regions, and to maintain economic growth while protecting the environment and improving social equity. The National People's Congress approved the amendments when it met in March 2004. The Fifth Plenum in October 2005 approved the 11th Five-Year Economic Program aimed at building a "harmonious society" through more balanced wealth distribution and improved education, medical care, and social security.

===Agriculture===
China is the world's most populous country and one of the largest producers and consumers of agricultural products. Roughly half of China's labor force is engaged in agriculture, even though only 10% of the land is suitable for cultivation and agriculture contributes only 13% of China's GDP. China's cropland area is only 75% of the U.S. total, but China still produces about 30% more crops and livestock than the U.S. because of intensive cultivation, China is among the world's largest producers of rice, corn, wheat, soybeans, vegetables, tea, and pork. Major non-food crops include cotton, other fibers, and oilseeds. China hopes to further increase agricultural production through improved plant stocks, fertilizers, and technology. Incomes for Chinese farmers are stagnating, leading to an increasing wealth gap between the cities and countryside. Government policies that continue to emphasize grain self-sufficiency and the fact that farmers do not own--and cannot buy or sell--the land they work have contributed to this situation. While this was the case in China before Communism, many other countries have since embrace individual ownership while China has not. In addition, inadequate port facilities and lack of warehousing and cold storage facilities impede both domestic and international agricultural trade.

===Industry===
Industry and construction account for about 46% of China's GDP. Major industries are mining and ore processing; iron; steel; aluminum; coal, machinery; textiles and apparel; armaments; petroleum; cement; chemicals; fertilizers; consumer products including footwear, toys, and electronics; automobiles and other transportation equipment including rail cars and locomotives, ships, and aircraft; and telecommunications.

China has become a preferred destination for the relocation of global manufacturing facilities. Its strength as an export platform has contributed to incomes and employment in China. The state-owned sector still accounts for about 40% of GDP. In recent years, authorities have been giving greater attention to the management of state assets--both in the financial market as well as among state-owned-enterprises--and progress has been noteworthy.

===Regulatory Environment===
Though China's economy has expanded rapidly, its regulatory environment has not kept pace. Since Deng Xiaoping's open market reforms, the growth of new businesses has outpaced the government's ability to regulate them. This has created a situation where businesses, faced with mounting competition and poor oversight, will be willing to take drastic measures to increase profit margins, often at the expense of consumer safety. This issue has recently acquired more prominence, with a number of restrictions being placed on problematic Chinese exports by the U.S. The Chinese Government recognizes the severity of the problem, recently concluding that up to 20% of the country's products are substandard or tainted.

===Energy===
Together with strong economic growth, China's demand for energy is surging rapidly. In 2003, China surpassed Japan to become the second-largest consumer of primary energy, after the United States. China is the world's second-largest consumer of oil, after the United States, and for 2006, China's increase in oil demand represented 38% of the world total increase in oil demand. China is also the third-largest energy producer in the world, after the United States and Russia. China's electricity consumption is expected to grow by over 4% a year through 2030, which will require more than $2 trillion in electricity infrastructure investment to meet the demand. China expects to add approximately 15,000 megawatts of generating capacity a year, with 20% of that coming from foreign suppliers.

Coal makes up the bulk of China's energy consumption (70% in 2005), and China is the largest producer and consumer of coal in the world. As China's economy continues to grow, China's coal demand is projected to rise significantly. Although coal's share of China's overall energy consumption will decrease, coal consumption will continue to rise in absolute terms. China's continued and increasing reliance on coal as a power source has contributed significantly to putting China on the path to becoming the world's largest emitter of acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide and green house gases, including carbon dioxide.

The 11th Five-Year Program, announced in 2005, calls for greater energy conservation measures, including development of renewable energy sources and increased attention to environmental protection. Moving away from coal towards cleaner energy sources including oil, natural gas, renewable energy, and nuclear power is an important component of China's development program. China has abundant hydroelectric resources; the Three Gorges Dam, for example, will have a total capacity of 18 gigawatts when fully on-line (projected for 2009). In addition, the share of electricity generated by nuclear power is projected to grow from 1% in 2000 to 5% in 2030. China's renewable energy law, which went into effect in 2006, calls for 10% of its energy to come from renewable energy sources by 2020.

Since 1993, China has been a net importer of oil, a large portion of which comes from the Middle East. Net imports are expected to rise to 3.5 million barrels per day by 2010. China is interested in diversifying the sources of its oil imports and has invested in oil fields around the world. Beijing also plans to increase China's natural gas production, which currently accounts for only 3% of China's total energy consumption. Analysts expect China's consumption of natural gas to more than double by 2010.

In May 2004, then-Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) that launched the U.S.-China Energy Policy Dialogue. The Dialogue has strengthened energy-related interactions between China and the United States, the world's two largest energy consumers. The U.S.-China Energy Policy Dialogue builds upon the two countries' existing cooperative ventures in high energy nuclear physics, fossil energy, energy efficiency and renewable energy and energy information exchanges. The NDRC and the Department of Energy also exchange views and expertise on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Technologies, and we convene an annual Oil and Gas Industry Forum with China.

===Environment===
[[Image:Tianmenshan mountain.jpg|left|300px]]
One of the serious negative consequences of China's rapid industrial development has been increased pollution and degradation of natural resources. China is widely expected to surpass the United States as the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases sometime in 2007 or 2008. A World Health Organization report on air quality in 272 cities worldwide concluded that seven of the world's 10 most polluted cities were in China. According to China's own evaluation, two-thirds of the 338 cities for which air-quality data are available are considered polluted--two-thirds of them moderately or severely so. Respiratory and heart diseases related to air pollution are the leading cause of death in China. Almost all of the nation's rivers are considered polluted to some degree, and half of the population lacks access to clean water. By some estimates, every day approximately 300 million residents drink contaminated water. Ninety percent of urban water bodies are severely polluted. Water scarcity also is an issue; for example, severe water scarcity in Northern China is a serious threat to sustained economic growth and the government has begun working on a project for a large-scale diversion of water from the Yangtze River to northern cities, including Beijing and Tianjin. Acid rain falls on 30% of the country. Various studies estimate pollution costs the Chinese economy 7%-10% of GDP each year.

China's leaders are increasingly paying attention to the country's severe environmental problems. In 1998, the State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) was officially upgraded to a ministry-level agency, reflecting the growing importance the Chinese Government places on environmental protection. In recent years, China has strengthened its environmental legislation and made some progress in stemming environmental deterioration. In 2005, China joined the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development, which brings industries and governments together to implement strategies that reduce pollution and address climate change. During the 10th Five-Year Plan, China plans to reduce total emissions by 10%. Beijing in particular is investing heavily in pollution control as part of its campaign to host a successful Olympiad in 2008. Some cities have seen improvement in air quality in recent years.

China is an active participant in climate change talks and other multilateral environmental negotiations, taking environmental challenges seriously but pushing for the developed world to help developing countries to a greater extent. It is a signatory to the Basel Convention governing the transport and disposal of hazardous waste and the Montreal Protocol for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, as well as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and other major environmental agreements.

The question of environmental impacts associated with the Three Gorges Dam project has generated controversy among environmentalists inside and outside China. Critics claim that erosion and silting of the Yangtze River threaten several endangered species, while Chinese officials say the dam will help prevent devastating floods and generate clean hydroelectric power that will enable the region to lower its dependence on coal, thus lessening air pollution.

The United States and China are members of the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP). The APP is a public-private partnership of six nations--Australia, China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the United States--committed to explore new mechanisms to meet national pollution reduction, energy security and climate change goals in ways that reduce poverty and promote economic development. APP members have undertaken cooperative activities involving deployment of clean technology in partner countries in eight areas: cleaner fossil energy, renewable energy and distributed generation, power generation and transmission, steel, aluminum, cement, coal mining, and buildings and appliances.

The United States and China have been engaged in an active program of bilateral environmental cooperation since the mid-1990s, with an emphasis on clean energy technology and the design of effective environmental policy. While both governments view this cooperation positively, China has often compared the U.S. program, which lacks a foreign assistance component, with those of Japan and several European Union (EU) countries that include generous levels of aid.

===Science and Technology===
Science and technology have always preoccupied China's leaders; indeed, China's political leadership comes almost exclusively from technical backgrounds and has a high regard for science. Deng called it "the first productive force." Distortions in the economy and society created by party rule have severely hurt Chinese science, according to some Chinese science policy experts. The Chinese Academy of Sciences, modeled on the Soviet system, puts much of China's greatest scientific talent in a large, under-funded apparatus that remains largely isolated from industry, although the reforms of the past decade have begun to address this problem.

Chinese science strategists see China's greatest opportunities in newly emerging fields such as biotechnology and computers, where there is still a chance for China to become a significant player. Most Chinese students who went abroad have not returned, but they have built a dense network of trans-Pacific contacts that will greatly facilitate U.S.-China scientific cooperation in coming years. The U.S. space program is often held up as the standard of scientific modernity in China. China's small but growing space program, which successfully completed their second manned orbit in October 2005, is a focus of national pride.

The U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement remains the framework for bilateral cooperation in this field. A 5-year agreement to extend the Science and Technology Agreement was signed in April 2006. The Agreement is among the longest-standing U.S.-China accords, and includes over eleven U.S. Federal agencies and numerous branches that participate in cooperative exchanges under the S&T Agreement and its nearly 60 protocols, memoranda of understanding, agreements and annexes. The Agreement covers cooperation in areas such as marine conservation, renewable energy, and health. Biennial Joint Commission Meetings on Science and Technology bring together policymakers from both sides to coordinate joint science and technology cooperation. Executive Secretaries meetings are held biennially to implement specific cooperation programs. Japan and the European Union also have high profile science and technology cooperative relationships with China.
====Internet====
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has criticized Chinese censorship and restrictions on the Intrernet, and China is pushing back since the Communist Party considers Internet control essential if it is to keep power and avoid elections. The government has denied suggestions by Google that a major, sophisticated assault on Google in late 2009 was sponsored by the government. The attack targeted email accounts used by dissidents, the weak point in China's political dictatorship. Google is threatening to ignore the censorship policies demanded by the government, and perhaps leave the country. The Communist Party promotes Internet use for commerce, but heavily censors content it deems pornographic, anti-social or politically subversive and blocks many foreign news and social media sites, including Twitter Facebook, and YouTube.

===Poor Medical care===
China, like most Communist countries, gives low priority to medicine and medical care. China only spends 1% of GDP on health care, ranking #156 out of 196 nations surveys by the World Health Organization. Many people rely on traditional practitioners, having more faith in acupuncture than modern science. In any case few have the opportunity to receive modern drugs or treatment with advanced devices. The local clinic has only a thermometer and stethoscope for instrumentation, and very few modern drugs. Only one in six medical personnel have a college degree, and those degrees are not high quality. The ordinary people want more medical care but that hardly matters, for in a dictatorship violence matters, but not public opinion. <Ref> Gordon Fairclaugh, "In China, Rx for Ailing Health System," ''Wall Street Journal,'' Oct. 15, 2009</ref>

===Trade===
China's merchandise exports totaled $969.3 billion and imports totaled $791.8 billion in 2006. Its global trade surplus surged from $32 billion in 2004 to $177.5 billion in 2006. China's primary trading partners include Japan, the EU, the United States, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. According to U.S. statistics, China had a trade surplus with the U.S. of $232.6 billion in 2006.

China has taken important steps to open its foreign trading system and integrate itself into the world trading system. In November 1991, China joined the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) group, which promotes free trade and cooperation in the economic, trade, investment, and technology spheres. China served as APEC chair in 2001, and Shanghai hosted the annual APEC leaders meeting in October of that year.

China formally joined the WTO in December 2001. As part of this far-reaching trade liberalization agreement, China agreed to lower tariffs and abolish market impediments. Chinese and foreign businessmen, for example, gained the right to import and export on their own, and to sell their products without going through a government middleman. By 2005, average tariff rates on key U.S. agricultural exports dropped from 31% to 14% and on industrial products from 25% to 9%. The agreement also opens up new opportunities for U.S. providers of services like banking, insurance, and telecommunications. China has made significant progress implementing its WTO commitments, but serious concerns remain, particularly in the realm of intellectual property rights protection.

While accession does not guarantee smaller trade deficits, full implementation of all WTO commitments would further open China's markets to--and help level the playing field for--U.S. exports. China is now one of the most important markets for U.S. exports: in 2006, U.S. exports to China totaled $55.2 billion, almost triple the $19 billion when China joined the WTO in 2001 and up 32% over 2005. U.S. agricultural exports have increased dramatically, making China our fourth-largest agricultural export market (after Canada, Japan, and Mexico). Over the same period (2001-2006), U.S. imports from China have risen from $102 billion to $287.8 billion.

Export growth continues to be a major driver of China's rapid economic growth. To increase exports, China has pursued policies such as fostering the rapid development of foreign-invested factories, which assemble imported components into consumer goods for export, and liberalizing trading rights. In its eleventh Five-Year Program, adopted in 2005, China placed greater emphasis on developing a consumer demand-driven economy to sustain economic growth and address global imbalances.

The United States is one of China's primary suppliers of power generating equipment, aircraft and parts, computers and industrial machinery, raw materials, and chemical and agricultural products. However, U.S. exporters continue to have concerns about fair market access due to strict testing and standards requirements for some imported products. In addition, a lack of transparency in the regulatory process makes it difficult for businesses to plan for changes in the domestic market structure. The April 11, 2006 U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) produced agreements on key U.S. trade concerns ranging from market access to U.S. beef, medical devices, and telecommunications; to the enforcement of intellectual property rights, including, significantly, software. The JCCT also produced an agreement to establish a U.S.-China High Technology and Strategic Trade Working Group to review export control cooperation and facilitate high technology trade.

===Foreign Investment===
China's investment climate has changed dramatically in 24 years of reform. In the early 1980s, China restricted foreign investments to export-oriented operations and required foreign investors to form joint-venture partnerships with Chinese firms. Foreign direct investment (FDI) grew quickly during the 1980s, but stalled in late 1989 in the aftermath of Tiananmen. In response, the government introduced legislation and regulations designed to encourage foreigners to invest in high-priority sectors and regions. Since the early 1990s, China has allowed foreign investors to manufacture and sell a wide range of goods on the domestic market, and authorized the establishment of wholly foreign-owned enterprises, now the preferred form of FDI. However, the Chinese Government's emphasis on guiding FDI into manufacturing has led to market saturation in some industries, while leaving China's services sectors underdeveloped. China is now one of the leading recipients of FDI in the world, receiving almost $80 billion in 2005 according to World Bank statistics.

As part of its WTO accession, China undertook to eliminate certain trade-related investment measures and to open up specified sectors that had previously been closed to foreign investment. New laws, regulations, and administrative measures to implement these commitments are being issued. Major remaining barriers to foreign investment include opaque and inconsistently enforced laws and regulations and the lack of a rules-based legal infrastructure.

Opening to the outside remains central to China's development. Foreign-invested enterprises produce about half of China's exports, and China continues to attract large investment inflows. Foreign exchange reserves were $1.1 trillion at the end of 2006, and have now surpassed those of Japan, making China's foreign exchange reserves the largest in the world.
===Higher education===
Despite fears that China may be outpacing the United States in turning out engineers, the number of college students in China who study engineering is on the decline, according to ''Global Times'', a Chinese newspaper. Fewer than one in 10 college graduates in 2009 majored in engineering. Instead, students are turning to economics, finance, and management, which pay more and carry more social status. "Engineering usually makes people think of factories, while factories often give people an impression of hard work, low wages, and layoffs," the newspaper quoted one professor as saying.

Meanwhile China is building universities overnight, and sending graduate students to the U.S. for PhD's so they can become professors.

The exodus of Chinese undergraduate and graduate students continues; as 180,000 left in 2008, about 25% percent more than in 2007, as more families were able to pay overseas tuition. For every four students who left in the past decade, only one returned; those with American PhDs in science or engineering the least likely to return. The intellectual vitality, quality of science, pay scales and political climate is much more attractive in the West. Those who return to China risk being shunned as "foreigners".<ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/world/asia/07scholar.html?hp Sharon LaFraniera, "Fighting Trend, China Is Luring Scientists Home," ''New York Times'' Jan. 6. 2010]</ref>
===The Chinese in Africa===
China has been spending huge amounts of money and time buying influence in various African countries<ref> [http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/Africa-Monitor/2011/0217/China-s-latest-trade-visit-to-Africa-reveals-a-different-approach-to-business]</ref>. China has given 45 Afriacn countries $115 billion, a figure which is growing at 44% every year. Africa has many desirable resources such as [[diamonds]], [[oil]], and rare earth metals such as [[Indium]] which is used to make the touch screens for new high-tech devices such as [[Apple]]'s [[iPad]]<ref> [http://blogs.indium.com/blog/an-interview-with-the-professor/assembled-cost-of-an-ipad]</ref> and [[iPhone]], often under [[sweat shop]] conditions.

China's aim in Africa seems to be to buy up the emerging markets of the developing nations there. China has a big population, but does not have many of the resources (see above) that they will need to improve themselves. When countries go through [[industrialization]] they need to use a lot more resources, and China does not have them. By buying up Africa they get these natural resources cheaply. They will also be able to use these resources as poker chips against the west.
US ambassador [[Johnnie Carson]] believes "China has no morals" in Africa<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/09/cable-kenya-risks-new-violence-reforms/]</ref>, which may be true given their [[communist]] ideology.

== History ==
{{main|History of China}}

Although archaeologists have found settlements in China dating to [[5000 BC]], the earliest nation that can be dated in the area of modern China is the [[Shang Dynasty]], approximately [[2000 BC]].
[[File:Great Wall of China.jpg|left|240px]]
Dynasty followed dynasty, as old regimes would lose the "mandate of heaven;" it was believed that each emperor ruled only with the approval of heaven, and a ruler who was unfit to rule would curse the nation until replaced. In addition, the Chinese capital would occasionally be overrun by "barbarians," who invariably would start a new dynasty in the Chinese capital, integrating their nations into the former dynasty.

Chinese had an advanced artistic culture and well-developed science and technology. However, its science and technology stood still after 1700 and in the 21st century very little survives outside museums, except in for the popular forms of traditional medicine.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the country was beset by large-scale civil wars, major famines, military defeats by Britain and Japan, regional control by powerful warlords and foreign intervention such as the [[Boxer Rebellion]] of 1900. In 1911 the revolution deposed the [[Qing Dynasty]] and a republic was proclaimed.

Under the leadership of the [[KMT]] (Kuomintang), headed by [[Chiang Kai-shek]] (1887-1975), the central government finally suppressed the local warlords who effectively controlled many provinces. The KMT tried to destroy the Communists under [[Mao Zedong]], but they escaped in the "Long March" of 1934-35. Japan seized Manchuria in 1931, and in 1937 invaded all of China, seizing the coast, the major cities, and setting up a puppet government that controlled most of the population. China was allied with the U.S. and Britain against Japan, and at war's end joined the United Nations as a permanent member of the 5-nation Security Council, with a veto.

In 1945-46, the U.S. attempted to force a negotiated settlement between the KMT and the Communists, but failed. In the face of economic collapse the Communists won the civil war in 1949 under [[Mao Zedong]] established a dictatorship, driving the KMT to Taiwan. Taiwan is recognized as an integral part of China in theory, but in practice has been independent since 1949.

Mao liquidated millions of opponents, fought the United States in the bloody [[Korean War]] (1950-53), and around 1960 broke bitterly with the Soviet Union over the issue of who best represented the Marxist orthodoxy. Mao's regime imposed strict controls over everyday life and cost the lives of tens of millions of people.

After 1978, Mao's successor [[Deng Xiaoping]] focused on market-oriented economic development, and by 2000 output had quadrupled, population growth ended (by imposing a one-child policy), and good relations were secured with the West. For much of the population, living standards have improved dramatically and the room for personal choice has expanded, yet political controls and Internet censorship remain tight.

China's economy during the last quarter century has changed from a centrally planned system that was largely closed to international trade, to a more market-oriented economy that has a rapidly growing private sector and is a major player in the global economy.

== Human Rights ==
Under Mao millions of Chinese were killed by famines or government action against the middle classes. The "[[Cultural Revolution]]" in the 1960s was a counterattack against intellectuals endorsed by Mao; it set back China by decades until his death in 1975.

After the mid-1980s the new leader [[Deng Xiaoping]] promoted rapid modernization. While Mao's memory was still revered, most of his brutal policies were ended and much economic freedom--and a dash of political liberalization--was allowed. Intellectuals were encouraged to speak out again and to share in a new spirit of "democratization." However Communist party leaders in 1986 warned that modernization must not be used as an excuse to introduce "bourgeois philosophies and social doctrines." By late 1986 student groups began to demonstrate demanding more student participation in local government, a greater degree of democracy, and better living conditions. As demonstrations escalated Hu Yaobang, the general secretary of the party, resigned, confessing that he had made major mistakes and would take responsibility for them. It was a setback to political and economic liberalization, though Hu remained, out of office, a symbol of the potential for democracy. Hu's death in April 1989, sparked widespread public rallies in favor of broad social changes in Beijing, Shanghai, and other major cities. Tens of thousands of students defied a government clampdown to demonstrate in May in [[Tiananmen Square]] central Beijing. The Party moved to kill dissent, sending uneducated rural troops into square on June 3-4; hundreds of demonstrators were killed, wounded, or arrested. The world was appalled. Following the savage repression of democrats in all major cities Deng Xiaoping appeared to be even more firmly in control.

The China country reports in the U.S. State Department's 2009 Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom Reports<ref> See [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eap/119037.htm U.S. State Department, ''2008 Human Rights Report: China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau)'' Feb. 25, 2009] </ref> noted China's well-documented and continuing abuses of human rights in violation of internationally recognized norms, stemming both from the authorities' intolerance of dissent and the inadequacy of legal safeguards for basic freedoms. Reported abuses have included arbitrary and lengthy incommunicado detention, forced confessions, torture, and mistreatment of prisoners as well as severe restrictions on freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, religion, privacy, worker rights, and coercive birth limitation. In 2006, China continued the monitoring, harassment, intimidation, and arrest of journalists, Internet writers, defense lawyers, religious activists, and political dissidents. The activities of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), especially those relating to the rule of law and expansion of judicial review, continue to be restricted.

In 2008 China loosened its restrictions somewhat for the Summer Olympics. The government arbitrarily closes down Internet access to prevent the people from learning about the world.

Human rights failures remain a major concern. Abatement of pollution and improvements in systems to ensure food, drug, and product safety are major concerns, especially after notorious episodes of exporting poisoned pet food, toothpaste and infant formula.
===Repression in 2008===
In 2008 China's human rights record remained poor and worsened in some areas. During the year the government increased its severe cultural and religious repression of ethnic minorities in Tibetan areas and the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR), increased detention and harassment of dissidents and petitioners, and maintained tight controls on freedom of speech and the Internet. Abuses peaked around high-profile events, such as the Olympics and the unrest in Tibet. As in previous years, citizens did not have the right to change their government. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), both local and international, continued to face intense scrutiny and restrictions. Other serious human rights abuses included extrajudicial killings, torture and coerced confessions of prisoners, and the use of forced labor, including prison labor. Workers cannot choose an independent union to represent them in the workplace, and the law does not protect workers' right to strike. The government continued to monitor, harass, detain, arrest, and imprison journalists, writers, activists, and defense lawyers and their families, many of whom were seeking to exercise their rights under the law.<ref> See [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eap/119037.htm U.S. State Department, ''2008 Human Rights Report: China (includes Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau)'' Feb. 25, 2009] </ref>
===Execution Controversy===
In December 2009, China executed a man named Akmal Shaikh for drug smuggling. There is evidence that Shaikh was mentally ill, but he was not given a psychological exam of any sort before the trial. He was not given an examination because the Chinese government declared that neither Shaikh or his family could prove he was mentally ill through documentation or family history. The British government made many requests for clemency, including at an eleventh-hour meeting with the Chinese ambassador, but they were consistently ignored.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-britain-china30-2009dec30,0,4153003.story</ref>

==Further reading==
* Chow, Gregory C. ''China's Economic Transformation'' (2nd ed. 2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Chinas-Economic-Transformation-Gregory-Chow/dp/1405156244/ref=pd_sim_b_img_3 excerpt and text search]
* Eberharad, Wolfram. ''A History of China'' (2005), 380 pages' [http://books.google.com/books?id=5LgjunIn1CEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:history+intitle:china&num=30&as_brr=1&sig=k1CgHXYb6jQ6BgdwVpUWngov7So full text online free]
* Entwisle, Barbara, and Gail E. Henderson, eds. ''Re-Drawing Boundaries: Work, Households, and Gender in China,'' U of California Press, 2000; on 1990; [http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/kt938nd0k8/?&query=&brand=ucpress complete text online free]
* Fairbank, John King and Goldman, Merle. ''China: A New History.'' (1998). 546 pp.
* Gries, Peter Hays. ''China's New Nationalism: Pride, Politics, and Diplomacy,'' U of California Press, (2004); recent history [http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/kt9290249r/?&query=&brand=ucpress online edition free]
* Kang, David C. ''China Rising: Peace, Power, and Order in East Asia'' (2007), argues a strong China stabilizes East Asia
* Naughton, Barry. ''The Chinese Economy: Transitions and Growth'' (2007), important new survey
*Ogden S. (ed) ''China.'' (2006)
* Oi, Jean C. ''Rural China Takes Off: Institutional Foundations of Economic Reform,'' U of California Press, (1999) [http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft8j49p1hv/?&query=&brand=ucpress complete text online free]
* Perkins, Dorothy. ''Encyclopedia of China: The Essential Reference to China, Its History and Culture.'' (1999). 662 pp.
* Rawski, Thomas G. and Lillian M. Li, eds. ''Chinese History in Economic Perspective,'' University of California Press, 1992 [http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft6489p0n6/?&query=&brand=ucpress online free]
* Roberts, J. A. G. ''A Concise History of China.'' (1999). 341 pp.
* Schoppa, R. Keith. ''The Columbia Guide to Modern Chinese History.'' (2000). 356 pp. [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-columbia-guide-to-modern-chinese-history-by-r-keith-schoppa.jsp online edition]
* Shambaugh, David. ''China's Communist Party: Atrophy and Adaptation'' (2009)
* Shambaugh, David. ''Modernizing China's Military: Progress, Problems, and Prospects'' U of California Press, (2003) [http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/kt4779q33t/?&query=&brand=ucpress complete text online free]
* Spence, Jonathan D. ''The Search for Modern China'' (1991), 876pp; well written survey from 1644 to 1980s [http://www.amazon.com/Search-Modern-China-Jonathan-Spence/dp/0393307808/ref=pd_sim_b_title_2 excerpt and text search]; [http://www.questia.com/read/98946348 complete edition online]
* Wang, Ke-wen, ed. ''Modern China: An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and Nationalism.'' (1998). 442 pp.

==See also==
*[[Chinese History]]
*[[Great Wall of China]]
*[[Oriental art]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/China|Articles about '''China''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
<references/>

==External link==
*[http://www.chinadetail.com/Nation/ All About China]
*[http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/china/home.html People's Daily: China at a Glance]
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1287798.stm BBC News - ''Country Profile: China'']
*[https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html CIA World Factbook - ''China'']
*[http://www.monthlyreview.org/1105wu.htm "Rethinking ‘Capitalist Restoration’ in China"] by Yiching Wu
*[http://www.gov.cn/ The Central People's Government of People's Republic of China]
*[http://www.china.org.cn/ China's Official Gateway for News & Information]
*[http://www.globalpolitician.com/articles.asp?ID=341 The Dragon's Dawn: China as a Rising Imperial Power] February 11, 2005.
*[http://www.china-profile.com/history/hist_list_1.htm History of The People's Republic of China] Timeline of Key Events since 1949.
*[http://www.danwei.org/ Media, advertising, and urban life in China.]
*[http://www.chinastudygroup.org/index.php?action=front2&type=view&id=152 China's Neoliberal Dynasty] by Peter Kwong, originally published in [[The Nation]] October 2, 2006.

[[Category:Asian Countries]]
[[Category:China]]
[[Category:Communist States]]

Hugo Chavez

2011-02-20T23:31:33Z

DevonJ: Undo revision 850727 by Rudolph20 (talk)

{{Dictator bio
| image =[[Image:chavez.jpg|260px]]
| name =Hugo Chavez
| birth =July 28, 1954 Sabaneta, Venezuela
| parents =Hugo de los Reyes Chávez Elena Frías de Chávez
| religion =Roman Catholic
| education =Daniel Florencio O'Leary High School, Barinas Venezuelan Academy of Military Sciences, Caracas
| spouse =Nancy Colmenares (div.) Marisabel Rodríguez (div.)
| children =Rosa Virginia María Gabriela Hugo Rafael Rosinés (with Marisabel)
| death =n/a
| deathmanner =n/a
| burial =n/a
| country =[[Venezuela]]
| military =Venezuelan army
| rank =Lieutenant colonel
| polbeliefs =[[Socialism]] [[Communism]]
| party =Fifth Republic Movement United Socialist Party
| dictatordate =November 2000
| war =n/a
| deathnumber =Unknown
}}
'''Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías''' (b. July 28, 1954) is the repressive [[leftist]] [[tyrant]] of the Bolivarian Republic of [[Venezuela]].
A self-proclaimed [[socialist]] and [[collectivist]], his disastrous economic policies have led to food shortages, quotas, and rationing in his oil-rich country, causing thousands to flee.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref>
Chávez assumed power as President in 1999 and pledged to aid Venezuela's poor majority.
Fraudulent elections were held in 2000 and in 2006, allowing Chavez to retain his [[Authoritarianism|authoritarian]] power. As such it would be accurate to describe him as a [[dictator]].

*{{Venezuela blunder}}

==Election fraud==
Steven F. Hayward wrote:
* While exit polls conducted by the very reliable American firm of Penn, Schoen, and Berland showed Chavez losing by a large margin (41 to 59), the official results put Chavez free and clear by a vote of 58 to 41 percent.<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5A8D0094-4590-4DFB-A7F0-C2E06A6820FB]</ref>

A 26 February 2003 report by Robert Tracinski obliterates the left-wing mythology around Chavez:
<blockquote>
: '''Step one''': Chavez has initiated formal proceedings to revoke the licenses of independent, privately owned television and radio stations. Meanwhile, his political militias, the Bolivarian Circles, have staged violent attacks on independent media outlets. After all, elections don't mean much if all people watch is propaganda on state-run television.

: '''Step two''': Chavez has used a moratorium on currency conversion--needed to pay for imported goods--to punish his opponents. Vowing "no dollars for coup-mongers," he has used this power, for example, to prevent opposition newspapers from importing ink. After all, elections don't mean much if your opponents are too busy worrying where their next meal is coming from.

: '''Step three''': Venezuelan police acting on Chavez's orders have arrested Carlos Fernandez, the head of Venezuela's largest business federation and a leader of the recent anti-Chavez strike, charging him with rebellion and sabotage. Another strike leader, Carlos Ortega, head of Venezuela's largest labor union, has gone into hiding. In one move, Chavez has neutralized two potential rivals for the presidency. After all, elections don't mean much if all of the other candidates are in jail.

: '''Step four''': Last week, four protesters were kidnapped while returning from an anti-Chavez rally. They were blindfolded, tortured, and shot execution-style. Some of the victims were witnesses to a previous pro-Chavez political killing, and they had planned to testify against the shooter. Consider the message sent to the opposition when the mutilated bodies of their friends start showing up in the city streets. After all, elections don't mean much if your opponents are afraid to leave their houses and walk to the polls.

: '''Step five''': A few days ago, Chavez delivered a speech denouncing Spain, Colombia, and the US for interfering in Venezuela. This morning in Caracas, the diplomatic missions of Spain and Colombia were bombed. Credit was claimed by a splinter pro-Chavez group--but this was not a bunch of kids cooking up homemade bombs in their basement. The bombs were powerful plastic explosives, the kind of weapons that are difficult to obtain without government complicity.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/americas/2514-dictatorship-by-the-numbers-in-venezuela.html</ref>
</blockquote>

$4 billion dollars were spent paying paramilitary groups to attack unarmed protestors and other dissidents during and after the elections.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/americas/2968-venezuela-a-new-junket-for-a-dictator-s-best-friend-jimmy-carter.html</ref>

The European Union condemned the conditions placed on election monitors as unacceptable and declined to attend. The Carter Center was shut out for three days. Experts from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University have identified signs of fraud based on statistical analysis.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/americas/3924-the-carter-stamp-of-approval-on-the-venueuzlan-election-less-than-worthless.html</ref>

==Human rights concerns==
Hugo Chávez is a great friend of the tyrannical [[Cuban]] despot [[Fidel Castro]] and is said to have drawn his political style through influences such as [[Che Guevara]], [[Karl Marx]] and [[Simon Bolivar]]. The U.S. State Department ''Report on Global Anti-Semitism'' cited Chavez in August 2004 warning citizens against following the lead of Jewish citizens in the effort to overturn his referendum victory.<ref>[http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm Report on Global Anti-Semitism] U. S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, [[Human Rights]], and Labor, January 5, 2005. </ref> Chavez has also embraced a number of world leaders that have hostile relations with the United States, including Holocaust-denier [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]], the President of [[Iran]], who Chavez has referred to as "my brother".<ref>[http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/07/31/en_pol_art_31A756133.shtml Chávez decorated in Iran; initials cooperation pacts]</ref> U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives [[Nancy Pelosi]] said of Chavez, "Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern-day [[Simon Bolivar]], but all he is is an everyday thug."<ref>[http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/pruden092206.php3 Back to the old days, if only for a minute], Wesley Pruden, ''Jewish World Review'', Sept. 22, 2006.</ref> He is also considered to be an ally of [[leftist]] [[Ecuador|Ecuadorian]] president [[Rafael Correa]], [[Bolivia|Bolivian]] president [[Evo Morales]] and the president of [[Nicaragua]], [[Daniel Ortega]] ... all radical leftists.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6187364.stm Correa]</ref>

In May 2007, Chavez silenced the only remaining opposition television station critical of his repression by revoking its licence.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2085952,00.html Chávez silences critical TV station], Rory Carroll, ''The Guardian'', May 23, 2007.</ref> Crowds of students demonstrated saying they feared for the future of human rights in Venezuala. National Guard troops were ordered to fire [[tear gas]] and [[rubber bullets]]. Two students were injured, a third was hit with a tear gas canister, and about 20 people needed emergency medical attention for inhaling tear gas. <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/05/28/ap3763178.html Troops Fire Upon Protesters in Venezuela], Fabiola Sanchez, Associated Press, 05.28.07. Retrieved from Forbes.com 05/31/07. </ref> Chavez employs discrimination against [[migrant workers]] in the country.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/americas/3924-the-carter-stamp-of-approval-on-the-venueuzlan-election-less-than-worthless.html</ref>

Chavez has said, “I am going to go after those who resist the revolution and eliminate them one by one.”<ref>[http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2007/jul/07/guest_commentary_we_must_help_venezuela_because_fr/ Because Freedom Matters], By U.S. Rep. Connie Mack IV and Blanquita Cullm, ''Naples Daily News'', July 7, 2007.</ref>

===Trafficking in Persons===
Venezuela under Chavez has been on the U.S. State Department’s Tier 3 list for [[trafficking in persons]] since 2004, which means that the government is categorized as one that has failed to make significant efforts to bring itself into compliance with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in persons. The State Department’s June 2007 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report maintains that Venezuela is a source, transit, and destination country for women and children trafficked for [[sexual exploitation]] and [[forced labor]].<ref>U.S. Department of State, [http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2007/ Trafficking in Persons Report], June 12, 2007, p. 207.</ref>

==Relations with US==
[[File:Chavez Obama.jpg|thumb|At the Fifth Summit of the Americas.]]
Foreign relations between the [[United States of America]] and [[Venezuela]] are presently unstable. Chavez often criticizes the United States for its 'imperialism' on his radio segment 'Alo Presidente', and alleges the United States's supported a 2002 coup in Venezuela which toppled Chávez momentarily and later removed by Chávez supporters, also known as 'Chávistas'. Venezuela is heavily dependent upon trade revenue from oil sales to the United States.

===Terrorism===
In May 2006, the State Department determined that, pursuant to Section 40A of the [[Arms Export Control Act]], Venezuela was not fully cooperating with U.S. [[antiterrorism]] efforts. This triggered a prohibition on the sale or license of defense articles and services to Venezuela. Other countries on the Section 40A list include [[Cuba]], [[Iran]], [[North Korea]], and [[Syria]], not to be confused with the "state sponsors of
terrorism" list under Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, which currently includes Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. The State Department asserted that the Section 40A determination was based on Venezuela’s near lack of antiterrorism cooperation over the last year, citing its support for Iraqi insurgents and Iran’s development of nuclear capabilities, the country’s status as a safe haven for Colombian and Basque terrorist groups, and its effort to derail hemispheric efforts to advance counter-terrorism policies in the OAS. In May 2007, the State Department again included Venezuela in its annual Section 40A determination that it was not cooperating fully with U.S. antiterrorism efforts.

In late April 2007, the State Department issued its annual Country Reports on Terrorism, which asserted that President Chávez "persisted in public criticism of U.S. counterterrorism efforts, deepened Venezuelan relationships with Iran and Cuba, and was unwilling to prevent Venezuelan territory from being used as a safe haven" by Colombian terrorist groups.

There have been long-held suspicions that Chávez has supported leftist Colombian guerrillas, although Chávez denies such support. The State Department’s terrorism report maintains that units of Colombia’s two leftist terrorist groups — the [[Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia]] (FARC) and the [[National Liberation Army]] (ELN) — often crossed into Venezuela "to rest and regroup with relative impunity."

In addition, according to the report, splinter groups of the FARC and a rightist terrorist group, the [[AUC|United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia]] (AUC) reportedly operate in various parts of the country and are involved in drug trafficking. The report maintained, however, that "it remained unclear to what extent the Venezuelan
Government provided material support to Colombian terrorists."

In addition, according to the report, Venezuelan citizenship, identity, and travel documents remained easy to obtain, making the country a potentially attractive waystation for terrorists. In July 13, 2006, congressional testimony, the State Department’s Principal Deputy Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Frank Urbancic, asserted that the United States was detaining increasing numbers of third-country aliens at its borders carrying falsified or fraudulently issued Venezuelan documents. U.S. officials also have expressed concerns about President Chávez’s close relationship with Cuba’s Fidel Castro, but Chávez defends his relationship with Cuba. Overall Venezuelan support to Cuba is estimated to be more than $2 billion a year.<ref>Frances Robles and Phil Gunson, ''Cuba Spotlights Chávez Friendship,'' Miami Herald, January 26, 2007.</ref> Venezuela supplies some 90,000 barrels of oil per day to Cuba on a concessionary basis under PetroCaribe. In return, Venezuela has received support from thousands of Cuban health care workers and sports instructors in the country.

During an April 2005 trip to Cuba, Presidents Chávez and Castro announced commercial deals worth over $400 million, including a joint shipyard to build small navy ships and a joint housing construction company. In January 2007, a delegation of Cuban officials visited Caracas and signed a number of agreements to increase economic linkages, including an agreement for joint oil exploration in both countries.

PdVSA is also involved in refurbishing an unfinished oil refinery in Cienfuegos, Cuba. Beyond Latin America, the Bush Administration has expressed concerns with Venezuela’s growing relations with Iran. In February 2006, Secretary of State Rice referred to Venezuela, along with Cuba, as “sidekicks” of Iran in reference to those countries’ votes in the International Atomic Energy Agency against reporting Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its uranium enrichment program.<ref>Pablo Bachelet, “Rice Bashes Venezuelan Leader, Politics,” Miami Herald, February 17, 2006; House International Relations Committee, Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007
International Affairs Budget, Testimony of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, February
16, 2006.</ref> In testimony before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee in February 2006, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte expressed concern that President Chávez "is seeking closer economic, military, and diplomatic ties with Iran and North Korea."<ref>Senate Select Intelligence Committee, Hearing on World Wide Threats, Testimony of Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, February 2, 2006.</ref> ran and Venezuela signed an agreement for a $200 million fund to finance joint investment and social projects, and commercial agreements in the early stages include plans for a cement factory, oil exploration in the Orinoco River belt, and a joint operation to build oil and liquid natural gas tankers.<ref>Steven Dudley, "Chávez’s Wooing of Iran Called Troubling," Miami Herald, March 2, 2006.</ref> During a visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Venezuela in mid-January 2007, the two countries announced they would use a $2 billion investment fund to finance projects in both countries and other countries as well.<ref>Simon Romero, ''Iranian President Visits Venezuela to Strengthen Ties,'' New York Times, January 14, 2007.</ref>

Some Members of Congress have expressed concerns about relations between Venezuela and Iran. In the 110th Congress, H.Res. 435 (Klein) would, among its provisions, express concern over national security implications of the relationship between the leaders of Iran and Venezuela.

According to the ''Washington Post'' Chavez has been accused of supplying weapons to Colombian rebels, of financing Bolivian and Ecuadorian groups seeking to establish "Marxist" states, and of being, with Cuban leader Fidel Castro's guidance, a "[[subversion (political)|subversive]]" everywhere else in the region.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501420.html?nav=rss_world/centralamerica ''Dealing With the Good and Bad Hugo Chavez''], Marcela Sanchez The Washington Post 25 August 2005.</ref>

==Expropriation==
[[Image:Hugo-chavez8.jpg|left|175px|thumb|Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez with Fidel Castro.]]

In typical socialist rhetoric, Chavez makes wild claims to fund the government by nationalizing foreign assets. Typical reasons include accusing companies of environmental damage and exploiting its workers. In 2010 alone, Chavez seized 195 companies. <ref>[http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/10/20/en_eco_art_a-total-of-195-busin_20A4631291.shtml A total of 195 businesses has been seized in 2010, El Universal, October 20, 2010]</ref> Spanish-owned farm supply and U.S.-based Ohio bottle company were recently taken over. Other recognized multi-national companies such ExxonMobil, steel maker Sidor, cement company CEMEX fell to the same fate. <ref>[http://wellsy.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/chavez-takes-over-venezuelan-plants-of-oh-company/ Chavez takes over Venezuelan plants of OH company, Wellsy's World, October 26, 2010]</ref> Venezuala is supposed to compensate the companies but nobody expects Chavez to provide other than peanuts for assets he steals.

Through Venezuela's state owned petroleum industry and membership in [[OPEC]], Chávez has now used powers granted to him by Parliament to increase oil prices, adding revenue for the Bolivarianist projects. Countries such as the United States have criticized Chávez for the increase in cost for crude oil. Chavez is at the forefront of wanting to set crude oil prices at $60 a barrel minimum, according to the ''Asia Times''<ref>[http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HL07Dj01.html ''Bush, OPEC and Chavez of Arabia''], Pepe Escobar, Asia Times, 7 December 2006.</ref>

==Anti-semitism==
Chavez is known to be fiercely [[Anti-semitism|anti-semitic]]<ref>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/hugo-ch-vez-s-jewish-problem-11455
</ref>, which is the likely reason for his friendship and political alliance with Iranian dictator and [[Holocaust denial|holocaust denier]] [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]]<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402428.html
</ref>. As a result of the anti-semitic policies of the Chavez regime and the wave of violent attacks on Venezuelan Jews that it has caused, the [[Jewish]] population of Venezuela has decreased by more than 50 percent since Chavez came to power.<ref>http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/venezuela.php</ref>

==Drug trafficking==
The ''Associated Press'' reported in July 2007 that since Chavez's ascension to power, illegal narcotics passing through Venezuela from [[Colombia]] has risen by as much as 30 tons a year and now accounts for roughly a third of the world's supply of [[cocaine]]. Mildred Camero who was in charge of Venezuela's anti-drug efforts stated, "[[Caracas]] is replacing [[Bogota]] as a center of everything related to drug operations." Camero was fired in 2005 after reporting high-level corruption. <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/01/ap3875048.html Venezuela Becomes Cocaine Conduit], By Ian James and Frank Bajak, ''Associated Press'', 1 July 2007. Retrieved from Forbes.com 8 July 2007.</ref>

==Religious==
Chavez demanded that [[Pope Benedict]] apologize for saying the Roman Catholic Church purified Indians in Latin America. Chavez called the treatment of Indians after [[Christopher Columbus]] landed in 1492 a "holocaust".<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1819661120070519 Chavez demands Pope apologize for Indian comments], Reuters, May 19, 2007</ref>

==Quotes==
*On closure of RCTV, claiming the network's broadcasts amounted to a "permanent attack on public morals" with cartoons that were "poisoned with hatred, violence and even sex."

*"Private banks have to give priority to financing the industrial sectors of Venezuela at low cost...If banks don't agree with this, it's better that they go, that they turn over the banks to me."

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

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/Hugo Chavez|Articles about '''Hugo Chavez''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
* [[Kim Jong Il]]
* [[Idi Amin Dada]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/] An in depth view on Venezuela under Hugo Chávez.
*[http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=706] An overview of articles on Venezuela's business under Hugo Chávez.
*[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_24_06_AVL.html ''Why The Left Should Cringe at The Mention of Hugo Chavez''], Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Independent Institute, February 24, 2006.
*[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmnew/is_200108/ai_kepm313968 ''Bolivar, Dictator or Paladin?''] Interview: Hugo Chavez talks about Venezuela, Maria Amparo Lasso, Newsweek, Aug 20, 2001.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Chavez, Hugo}}
[[Category:Venezuela]]
[[Category:Dictators]]
[[Category: Lunatics]]