Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Antichrist

2018-12-25T18:00:02Z

Edenfaithful: hillary clinton

The '''Antichrist''' is a person of evil and deception in Premillennialism<ref>{{cite web| title=Premillennialism| url=http://www.theopedia.com/Premillennialism| publisher=Theopedia, an Encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity}}</ref> who will persecute faithful Christians during the [[Tribulation]]. Many Christian denominations say he will come on the world scene during a time of chaos, and will make a peace [[treaty]] with [[Israel]] for 7 years and then break the treaty after the first three and a half years to finally commit [[genocide]] against his opponents. This isn't stated in the Bible though.

==Etymology==

The word '''Antichrist''' comes from the [[Greek language|Greek]] αντί-χριστος (''anti''-''khristos''), meaning ''opposite of Christ''. The Greek word ''anti'' can also mean 'instead of' or "equal to, like" so that the phrase can also be interpreted as meaning ''in place of, or like, Christ'' so while opposing Christ the antichrist will try to appear to be like Christ. Some Christians believe that the use in John refers to a single being that will appear in the [[End Times]]. This view is most commonly found among [[Premillennialism|premillennialist Christians]]. In modern usage, the term is usually used to refer to one who is pure evil.

== The Antichrist in the Bible ==
The following verses are the only verses which directly use the word Antichrist ([[KJV]])

:I John 2:18 'as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now there are many antichrists'

:I John 2:22 'Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.'

:I John 4:3 'And every spirit that confesseth not that [[Jesus]] Christ is come in the flesh is not of [[God]]: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

:2 John 7: 'For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.'

Based on the lack of direct references, some Christians argue that the Bible refers only to a ''generalized concept'' of Antichrist, applicable to anybody who is 'against Christ', not to a particular person. Moreover, such 'antichrists' were already present in the world nearly two thousand years ago. [[Augustine|St. Augustine]] in his treatise ''The City of God'' relates the long-held belief in his day that [[Nero]] was the supreme Antichrist, and that he was still alive and in hiding, awaiting his opportunity, a belief he dismisses as absurd, saying, "''But I wonder that men can be so audacious in their conjectures''.<ref>[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XX.19.html Augustine, ''The City of God'', chapter 19 (ccel.org)]</ref>" Other Christians, such as the [[Catholic Church]] and many [[Protestant]] denominations, have argued that these verses mainly prefigure the actual Antichrist and that one can see a single unifying Antichrist figure with the proper exegetical methods if one looks at the books of [[Book of Daniel|Daniel]] and [[Book of Revelation|Revelation]].<ref>{{cite web| title=Antichrist| url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01559a.htm| publisher=New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia}}</ref> So while there is a spirit of antichrist, there is also one Antichrist who is to come.

The Antichrist is often associated with, and in some interpretations considered equivalent to, ''the Beast'' of Revelation or the ''Man of Sin'' referenced in II Thessalonians 2:3.

The Protestant Reformers did not hesitate to declare in the strongest possible language that the [[Pope]] and the office of the Papacy is indeed the Antichrist<ref>[http://www.semperreformanda.com/creeds/the-reformers-on-who-is-the-antichrist/ The Reformers On Who is the Antichrist? (semperreformanda.com)] Nicolaus Von Amsdorf (1483-1565), Martin Luther (1483-1546), Flacius (1570), Georg Nigrinus (1530-1602), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Knox (1505-1572), Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556), Roger Williams (1603-1683), Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), John Wesley (1703-1791), Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892), Rev. J. A. Wylie (1808-1890)</ref>. This is the doctrinal position of conservative Christian [[Evangelical Christians|Evangelicals]], [[Baptist]]s, [[Fundamentalism|Fundamentalists]], the [[Plymouth Brethren]], and anti-Catholic groups in general who hold to the doctrine of [[Dispensationalism]] and the [[Rapture#Controversy Surrounding Rapture|Pre-Tribulation Rapture]].

[[Orthodox Church|Orthodoxy]] firmly asserts that Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are antichrist in their heretical rejection of the truth of Orthodox doctrine as clearly defined by the seven [[Ecumenical council]]s.<ref>[http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/prot_rc_heresy.aspx Are Protestantism and Roman Catholicism Heretical? (orthodoxinfo.com)] ''A compilation of historically documented Orthodox doctrinal statements.''</ref>

According to the biblical definition of the identity of antichrist [[Biblical inerrancy|infallibly]] set forth in 1 John 2:22; 4:3 and 2 John 7, no historical [[pope]] has been the antichrist. None of them has denied that Jesus is the Christ, none of them has denied the Father and the Son, none of them has denied that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, each of them [[dogma]]tically confessing that Jesus Christ has indeed come in the flesh, and therefore none of them is or has been the antichrist.

==Islam==
[[Islamic]] theology also teaches of an antichrist-like figure known as [[Dajjal]]<ref>{{cite web| title=Who is the evil Dajjal (the "anti-Christ")? - from ''Signs of Qiyamah''| url=http://www.islam.tc/prophecies/masdaj.html| author=Mohammed Ali Ibn Zubair Ali}}</ref>

==America as the Seat of Antichrist==
Some Protestants have seen America as the "Seat of Antichrist"—perhaps with the President of the United States, as the Antichrist. This theme has replaced the older version that the Catholic Church and the Pope were the Antichrist.

The idea was propounded in 1859 by Frances Rolleston in ''Notes on the Apocalypse, as Explained by the Hebrew Scriptures: The Place in Prophecy of America and Australia Being Pointed Out''.<ref>{{cite web| title=Notes on the Apocalypse, as Explained by the Hebrew Scriptures: the Place in Prophecy of America and Australia Being Pointed Outurl| url=http://www.books.google.com/books?id=IXoaAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1293&lpg=PA1293&dq=Frances+Rolleston+The+Place+in+Prophecy+of+America+and+Australia+Being+Pointed+Out&source=bl&ots=ziK45_MuIm&sig=qG5DgNL7ag6fMQ4K5IHBaC4h94U&hl=en&ei=KKrFScveGZmMsQPi9dkk&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA1294,M1| publisher=Rivingtons, London 1858}}</ref>

[[Seventh-day Adventist Church]] expositor Uriah Smith in 1884 authored a text entitled ''The United States in the Light of Prophecy; or, An Exposition of Rev. 13:11-17''<ref>{{cite web| title=The United States in the Light of Prophecy; or, An Exposition of Rev. 13:11-17| url=http://www.books.google.com/books?id=0dziN9QI3SgC&dq=The+United+States+in+the+Light+of+Prophecy%3B+or,+An+Exposition+of+Rev.+13:11-17&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=6-CGmRJvUX&sig=iD-5yIDPNhHfMz9trznrpc2W9AI&hl=en&ei=POHFSeOwDIKqsAPK18X9Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result| author|Uriah Smith}}</ref> Smith was insistent that America was the beast of Revelation 13:11-17.

In 1968 Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon, Senior Pastor of the Moody Church in Chicago, suggested that the USA was Babylon the Great.<ref>{{cite web| title=U.S. in Bible Prophecy| url=http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:tN8J-JOJDS8J:www.lib.ucdavis.edu/dept/specol/news/fundamentalism/+U.S.+in+Bible+Prophecy+Logsdon+Armageddon+Books&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us| author=S. Franklin Logsdon, Sr. Pastor, Moody Church, Chicago, Illinois| publisher=Zondervan, 1968, pp. 59-60, ISBN 0974476498}}</ref>

In 1998, R. A. Coombes, in ''America, the Babylon: America’s Destiny Foretold in Biblical Prophecy''<ref>{{cite web| title=America the Babylon| url=http://www.americathebabylon.com/| author=R. A. Coombes| publisher=Real Publishing, Liberty, 1998; especially pp. 55-58 and 182-86, ISBN 1-890622-33-8}}</ref> presents thirty-three identifying markers which he claims identify America as the Babylon of the End Times, the seat of Antichrist. He finds sixty-six reasons why New York City is the bastion of Babylon the Great.
===Other identifications===
Mark Hitchcock, in his 2009 text, ''The Late Great United States, What Bible Prophecy Reveals About America's Last Days''<ref>{{cite web| title=The Late Great United States, What Bible Prophecy Reveals About America's Last Days| url=http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9781601421401| author=Mark Hitchcock| publisher=Multnomah Books, Colorado Springs, CO, 2009, pp. 17-21, ISBN 978-1-60142-140-1}}</ref> rejects the eschatologists who suggest that America is ''Mystery, Babylon the Great'' (Revelation 17:5) and claims, instead, that modern-day [[Iraq]] is the literal Babylon the Great of the latter days (pp. 17–21).

In his e-book ''Antichrist - Reflections on the Desolator''<ref>{{cite web| title=Antichrist - Reflections on the Desolator| url=http://www.the-tribulation-network.com/ebooks/antichrist_reflections_on_the_desolator/antichrist_intro.htm| author=Doug Krieger| publisher=The Tribulation Network}}</ref> Doug Krieger asserts that The Antichrist will be the leader of the West and the "protector of the Jews in a regathered Israel" - it is this figure who will make a "defense pact" to defend Israel's majority for seven years but, like other Biblical Futurists, will break his covenant with Israel and declare himself as God.

==Russia/The Soviet Union as the Seat of the Antichrist==
Some also consider Russian president [[Vladimir Putin]] or a grey eminence behind him to be the antichrist. [http://new.euro-med.dk/20151118-gottloser-westen-spielt-putin-dem-antichristen-in-die-hande.php]

==The Vatican as the Seat of the Antichrist==
Others consider [[Pope Francis|Francis]] to be the antichrist. [https://www.srf.ch/news/international/papst-franziskus-in-georgien-als-antichrist-beschimpft]

==Titles of the Antichrist==

Arthur Pink<ref>{{cite web| title=Arthur Walkington Pink's Archive| url=http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/pinks_archive.htm| publisher=Providence Baptist Ministries}}</ref> (See: ''The Antichrist''<ref>{{cite web| title=the Antichrist| url=http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Antichrist/antichrist.htm| author=Arthur Pink| publisher=Providence Baptist Ministries}}</ref>) and Doug Krieger,<ref>{{cite web| title=Antichrist, Reflections on the Desolator| author=Doug Krieger| url=http://www.the-tribulation-network.com/ebooks/antichrist_reflections_on_the_desolator/antichrist_intro.htm| publisher=The Tribulation Network}}</ref> as well as many, especially Premillennial<ref>{{cite web| title=What is premillennialism?| url=http://www.gotquestions.org/premillennialism.html| publisher=gotQuestions?org}}</ref> Evangelicals,<ref>{{cite web| title=What is Evangelicalism?| url=http://www.gotquestions.org/evangelicalism.html| publisher=gotQuestions?org}}</ref> extrapolate titles of the [[End Times]] Antichrist from both Testaments of the Bible; to name but a few:

1. The Antichrist- {{bibleverse|I|John|2:22|NKJV}}

2. The Man of Sin – {{bibleverse|II|Thess.|2:3|NKJV}}

3. The Lawless One – {{bibleverse|II|Thess.|2:9|NKJV}}

4. The Beast – {{bibleverse||Rev.|11:7|NKJV}}

5. The Bloody and Deceitful Man – {{bibleverse||Psalm|5:6|NKJV}}

6. The Wicked One – {{bibleverse|II|Thess.|2:8|NKJV}}

7. The Man of the Earth – {{bibleverse||Psalm|10:18|NKJV}}

8. The Mighty Man – {{bibleverse||Psalm|52:1|NKJV}}

9. The Enemy – {{bibleverse||Psalm|55:3|NKJV}}

10.The Adversary – {{bibleverse||Psalm|74:8-10|NKJV}}

11.The Head Over Many Countries – {{bibleverse||Psalm|110:6|NKJV}}

12.The Violent Man – {{bibleverse||Psalm|140:1|NKJV}}

13.The Assyrian – {{bibleverse||Isa.|10:5-12|NKJV}}

14.The King of Babylon – {{bibleverse||Isa.|14:4|NKJV}}

15.The Son of the Morning – {{bibleverse||Isa.|14:12|NKJV}}

16.The Abominable Branch – {{bibleverse||Isa.|14:19|NKJV}}

17.The Spoiler – {{bibleverse||Isa.|16:4|NKJV}}

18.The Nail – {{bibleverse||Isa.|22:25|NKJV}}

19.The Branch of the Terrible Ones – {{bibleverse||Ezk.|21:25-27|NKJV}}

20.The King of Tyre – {{bibleverse||Ezk.|28:12|NKJV}}

21.The Little (i.e., "Younger") Horn – {{bibleverse||Daniel|7:8|NKJV}}

22.The Head Over Many Countries- {{bibleverse||Psalm|110:6|NKJV}}

23.The Coming Prince – {{bibleverse||Dan.|9:26|NKJV}}

24.The Vile (or Despicable) Person – {{bibleverse||Dan.|11:21|NKJV}}

25.The Willful King – {{bibleverse||Dan.|11:3|NKJV}} and {{bibleverse||Dan.|11:36|NKJV}}

26.The Idol Shepherd – {{bibleverse||Zech.|11:16-17|NKJV}}

27.The Angel of the Bottomless Pit – {{bibleverse||Rev.|9:11|NKJV}}

28.The Son of Perdition – {{bibleverse|II|Thess.|2:3|NKJV}}

29.The Desolator – {{bibleverse||Daniel|9:27|NKJV}}

30.The [[Abomination of Desolation]] – {{bibleverse||Daniel|11:31|NKJV}} and {{bibleverse||Daniel|12:11|NKJV}}

31.God of Fortresses – {{bibleverse||Daniel|11:38|NKJV}}

==See also==
* [[2300 Day Prophecy of Daniel 8]]
* [[Abomination of Desolation]]
* [[Apocalypse]]
* [[Armageddon]]
* [[Book of Daniel]]
* [[Book of Revelation]]
* [[Revelation, Book of (historical exegesis)]]
* [[Eschatology]]
* [[End times]]
* [[Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse]]
* [[Last Judgment]]
* [[Millenarianism]]
* [[Oracle of Damascus]]
* [[Preterism]]
* [[Postmillennialism]]
* [[Rapture|The Rapture]]
* [[Third Temple]]
* [[Two Witnesses]]

==Resources==
* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)
* McGinn, Bernard. ''Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of Human Fascination with Evil'' (San Francisco: Harper, 1994)
* Lindsey, Hal. ''The Late Great Planet Earth'' (New York: Bantam Books, 1973)

[[Category:Christian Theology]]
[[Category:Israel]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105527 Did Jesus actually reveal name of the 'antichrist'?]

* [http://www.lastdaysmystery.info/from_where_the_antichrist_comes.htm A view on the Antichrist's possible nationality]

* [http://www.countdown.org/armageddon/antichrist.htm A summary of the Antichrist]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2018-12-25T14:24:51Z

Edenfaithful: /* Hi everyone */ new section

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>

[[Community Portal/Archives]]

''This page contains some material that has been moved from [[Talk:Main_Page]]. We are attempting to get general discussion of issues relating to Conservapedia's content and policies on this page, leaving the main talk page for its original purpose of discussing the content of the Main Page.''

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

== Cool article ==

I found a cool [http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-bless-this-food-except-for-the-atheist-at-table-12 article about atheism in the National Post]. You might not like it at first, but read past the first couple of paragraphs.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 20:31, 11 May 2017 (EDT)
==Error==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/United_States_Presidential_Election,_2016 Error in the Move log. I dont have delete powers so I cant fix it.] [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Trump now is fighting back against the coup plotters'']] 17:17, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
==Overly long articles==
From what I understand, the typical Conservapedia article should be accessible to a secondary school student or at least a freshman in university. Some articles, such as [[Alger Hiss]], [[Elvis Presley]], and [[Barack Hussein Obama]], are some of the longest articles on this site. They rival the overly verbose entries on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Should these and other overly long articles be trimmed and extraneous content possibly be moved to more subpages? Just a thought. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 18:34, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
:I'm personally against it. I'm glad that these articles are detailed. For me, it's fine just as long as they are well-organized. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:01, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
::These articles aren't exactly accessible to the target audience, and overly complex I think. Basic biographies should really be the emphasis most of the articles on here are shorter and more digestible than WP and aren't weighed down with non-essential information. I personally like articles that resemble the old school paper encyclopedias of my youth than WP's excessively long articles. Encyclopedia entries are meant to be starting points for research. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 20:57, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
:::If you really think these articles should be split up, I recommend asking the editors most occupied with them. The Alger Hiss article is predominantly edited by [[User:FOIA]]. Maybe ask RobS or Andy regarding Obama. The editors most familiar with the articles will probably give you the best answer. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:45, 16 May 2017 (EDT)
::::Some articles can be split up, if done carefully with a summary of the forked article remaining in the main article. It is best if the expert on the topic do the splitting up because they are best at summarizing what is most important. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:12, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
:::::In the print encyclopedias I recall, there was a Micropedia and a Macropedia, short and long articles. An article about George Ade, Hoosier playwright and fable writer, would only need to be a brief paragraph. An article called "Rocks and Minerals," meanwhile, would detail every type, the various classifications, chemical compositions, and means of formation, though both would be really an outline to the sum of human knowledge on the subject. In the area of biographies, length was variant - short biographies for Jeppe Aekjaer and Abbas I, a longer biography for Alvar Aalto, and a massive Macropedia biography for Isaac Newton or William Shakespeare. As we specialize in politics, it would make sense to have such articles for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 14:22, 30 May 2017 (EDT)
::::::That was the later Encyclopedia Britanica. The earlier EBs when I was a child were like the World Book encyclopedia with all of the articles (long and short) in an alphabetical list. My parents bought both. As a child, I would pick up a volume and start reading articles in alphabetical order sometimes. Unfortunately, Wikipedia killed off the market for printed encyclopedias (and for professionally written encyclopedias.) There is no viable market for printed encyclopedias today. People would hand down their printed encyclopedias and dictionaries from generation to generation, because they did not think that the world was changing quickly. However, none of the country names and maps of Africa that I learned as of 1960 were around by 1970. After 9/11 all of the stuff that was of little consequence became of vital importance to the American public. People had to know about Osama bin Laden, but less so about Isaac Newton or William Shakespeare. So, the pace of change killed off the printed encyclopedia. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 09:23, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
==Religion in America==
After reading a number of CP articles, I realize that we accidentally present an inaccurate or outdated view of religion in America. Religion in America has changed since we were growing up. 1) The traditional churches have declined in attendance. To attract new members some churches have offered new ministries: weight loss, financial counseling, youth, etc. 2) Some churches are offering foreign language services or sublet to a separate foreign language congregation (such as Korean, Filipino, etc.) 3) More people are getting their sermons via television, radio or the internet. 4) Military chaplains and chapels are important for worship by the military and their families. 5) Wealthy people have private chapels on their weekend estates for privacy and security. 6) College based ministries must compete for student time and attention. 7) Historic downtown congregations have had to respond to migration to the suburbs, and small congregations face competition from mega-church congregations. Religion continues to be an important social force in America -- it is not as much of a melting pot as it was decades ago. Does anyone want to work on an article or additions to related articles? Perhaps AlanE or AugustO can tell us if similar changes are happening in other countries. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 08:12, 30 May 2017 (EDT)

=== My feedback ===

Michael Brown wrote:

"Several decades ago, church statistician and demographer David Barrett began to report the surprising news that around the world, the most rapidly growing faith was Spirit-empowered Christianity, marked by clear gospel preaching, belief in the literal truth of the Scriptures, and the reality of God’s presence. (The data were compiled in the prestigious “World Christian Encyclopedia,” published by Oxford University Press.)...

This is confirmed in the new Pew Forum report, which showed that [[Evangelicalism|evangelical Protestant]] churches in America grew by 2 million from 2007 to 2014 whereas the so-called mainline (liberal) Protestant churches declined by 5 million, meaning that evangelical Protestants now make up the largest religious group in the nation. (Although this is not part of the Pew Forum survey, my surmise is that the evangelical churches that are most Bible-based and make the most serious, grace-empowered demands on their congregants are, generally speaking, the ones that are growing rather than declining.[http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/why-conservative-churches-are-still-growing/]

I hope the helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:51, 12 June 2017 (EDT)

== Is this article appropriate to cite? ==

I and JDano have been in a major dispute on the [[Donald Trump achievements]] article over what is probably a silly and absurd issue: whether [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/18/media-ignores-imported-female-genital-mutilation/ this article] is appropriate to cite. JDano believes that we should not cite it because adding it to this article would somehow increase the chances of people who practice FGM of being ruled not guilty and having the practice legalized -- something which I frankly think is completely absurd and ridiculous. But JDano will not give up in his attempts to delete the source, and I am fully convinced that it is appropriate, so I an bringing it here. Is this article appropriate or inappropriate to cite? Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:29, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
:There are two Brettbart articles. The first one was a straight news story about three people being arrested for performing [[female genital mutilation]] on two Minnesota girls in a clinic outside of Detroit. The second article, the one at issue, is an ax-griding piece that has the following points:
:*Trump Has a New Policy - there is nothing to show that the policy changed in April from the "old" Trump policy or the policy under the Obama administration.
:*There is "a national campaign" to eradicate FGM. This was an action brought by the US Attorney in Michigan, not some newly-announced task force.
:*That one media critic is complaining that there is not enough MSM coverage of this "new national campaign" - perhaps because it does not exist.
:*That the critic says that is due to "political correctness" and "fear of offending Muslims" - but it could be due to the fact that the government is not bringing religion into this and does not want to set up the defense counsel with a "religious defense" to the criminal charges. This is speculation.
:*That a few MSM media stories have followed the government' lead in the bringing religion into this.
:*The story then conclude with an attack on the MSM as "conspicuously silent on this case and their silence is deafening" and "aiding and abetting violence against women out of a politically correct fueled fear of offending Muslims." On the whole, this is an advocacy piece trying to bootstrap a failure of the MSM to play up the religion angle so as to explain why they did not report on the dramatic launch of a "new national campaign" when there apparently is no such campaign.
:I think the article is very misleading, and plays into the hands of those who would assert that this prosecution is anti-Muslim motivated. We don't need to cite it. We have now fixed the [[Donald Trump achievements]] article to just focus on the individual prosecution. I have been trying to take any mention of religion out of the article bullet as well, because neither the statute nor the indictment mentions religion. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 19:05, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
:I think it is an appropriate article to cite. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:56, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
::For the record, I linked the article that is in dispute, and both Andy and Conservative have seen the article. They know which article we are referring to, and they think it's fine. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:07, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Nobody's asserting that the prosecution is motivated by "Islamophobia," and the article certainly does not say that. It is noting that this practice is one that is promoted by the leaders of sects of Islam. It is also noting MSM bias in covering the story. The MSM cannot admit that certain sects of Islam promote this practice. We know the religon and even the sect ([http://religionnews.com/2017/04/27/the-splainer-what-is-female-genital-mutilation-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-islam/ the Dawoodi Bohra sect]) of those who committed the crimes. They are crimes nonetheless. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:12, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
::::The article does not advance the bullet in the article. It is focusing on Islam, but we all agree that so far, this case has nothing to do with Islam. Let's wait until the Defense raises it. The "Trump Administration achievement" has nothing to do with Islam, just as the bullets in [[Obamagate timeline]] have nothing to do with "Russian conspiracy." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:27, 14 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::I am involved with several projects right now so I unfortunately don't have time to investigate this issue further and mediate this issue. However, I do have a message for 1990sguy and JDano: Please consider the possibility of a compromise position. Perhaps, there is some middle ground position that you two could settle on. Again, my regrets for not being able to investigate this issue further. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 03:05, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::@Conservative: JDano got about 80% of what he wanted: we originally cited only the Breitbart source, but now other sources are cited as well. I removed mentions of "Islamic" from the Donald Trump achievements article (even though those prosecuted ''clearly'' are Muslim and that FGM is mainly Islamic). I changed other wording after JDano criticized it. I have been extremely patient, and I have been very considerate. It is time for JDano to accept a middle ground position, which I think is how it is now, which actually would be 80% JDano's version. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:18, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
The matter was easier to research than I expected.

Obama commissioned a study on FGM in 2014 and a fairly mainstream press outlet, ''The Hill'', wondered if he was serious about the the issue.[http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/214242-will-obama-keep-his-promise-to-end-fgm-in-the-us] A politician saying he is commissioning a study is often like a husband telling a wife "we'll so" or a sales prospect saying "I'll think about". In short, it is often a ploy to do nothing. Obama does not have a good record on FGM or equal pay for equal work in terms of White House employees.[http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/06/25/female-genital-mutilation-epidemic-obama-administration-hiding/]

Trump quickly took action on this issue which shows at least some commitment. So it is a new policy rather than Obama's do nothing FGM policy for 8 years which obtained zero convictions.

So I vote for 1990sguys' decision and oppose JDano. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:28, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano ==

I did not want to do this, and I waited 24 hours and 1-2 dozen reversions, but I was forced to block JDano for three days for poor editing in [[Donald Trump achievements]].

He added irrelevant information with a liberal POV, he blindly reverted edits that I made that had nothing to do with our disputes that he had no apparent problem with, and in his latest edit, he duplicated information to create a new "education" section without deleting the duplicate information that was listed in the "government size" section.

We had a serious dispute over whether to cite a single Breitbart article, and he continued edit warring even though I asked him to keep the status quo until we resolved the dispute. He was the only editor to oppose citing the article, and I still made many changes to satisfy him.

JDano's behavior has been very irritating, and he has been almost impossible to work with. Please judge the edits on Donald Trump achievements for yourselves (the "education" section he added are just copied-and-pasted info from other portions of the article). I gave him a three-day block for him to cool off. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:54, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
:JDano's objections to [[Richard Dawkins' health]] have been adequately answered at [[Talk:Richard Dawkins' health]]. Yet, I do not expect him to acknowledge this matter.

:On top of this, Dawkins is clearly acting hypocritical when it comes to his views on experts/consensus/science when it comes to the application of medical science/medical advice to his health. His doctors are clearly giving him sound advice and he is clearly acting foolishly and ignoring their advice. And the proof is in the pudding. Namely, Dawkins ignored and continues to ignore their sound medical advice and continues to go back to the "controversy trough" again and again even after his stroke.

:I thought JDano had some reasonable objections to the [[Obama's religion]] article, but I thought his picture choice of Obama standing in front of a glorious looking cross like he was some kind of devout Christian preacher was over the top. Do I like the present Obama's religion article? I am not a fan of it. That is why I provided the counterexamples to Obama being a Muslim.

:Many conservatives are reactive and overly defensive. When liberals invariably and reflexively yell racist/misogynist, etc. regardless of the merit of their charges, conservatives often cower like kicked puppies. I like the fact that Sean Hannity took on a liberal via threat of a slander suit in order to stop her nonsense. I wish more conservatives were like Hannity.

:[[Sun Tzu]] said a strong defense makes one invincible, but an attack brings victory. At some point, Hitler/other unsavory characters and harmful ideologies have to be challenged. The one thing I like about Trump is that he is willing to go on the attack. For years, conservatives largely ignored liberal indoctrination in public schools. What did Trump do? He picked Betty Devos as his Secretary of Education to promote school choice. Trump pushed for a wall on the Mexican border. Trump has "NY attitude" like assertiveness and boldness. He is the George Patton of American politics. That is why people voted for him. Does Trump go too far sometimes? Yes, he does. Attacking Carly Fiorina's looks in terms of her face was crass and foolish for example.

:Maybe JDano is being overly reactive. At the same time, I do believe in accuracy in both content and sources. I wish I had time to investigate this matter and mediate it, but I don't. I will say that as long as the Breitbart article has no inaccuracy in it, I have no problems with it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:08, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

::Conservative, JDano's dispute with me over the Breitbart reference was not the only problem.

::JDano also wanted to add other information that I did not think was appropriate. Some of the information was irrelevant (it should have been added in other articles) or had a liberal POV, some of the information was unsourced (everything should be sourced so we can verify it as true). I explained my edits, but he reverted them.

::Although I made several edits in the meantime that were completely unrelated to what we were disputing, JDano reverted those edits as well.

::When trying to add changes, JDano also said he created a new section on Trump's achievements on education. This seems good, but he just copied and pasted information that already existed in the article, and he did not delete the duplicates. I seemed like a ploy for him to continue reverting.

::It's also not just the past 24 hours. I have had disputes with him in the past where he repeated the same behaviors, constantly reverting without discussing, adding irrevevant content with a liberal pov, and removing unrelated changes I had done in the meantime.

::Overall, his behavior was too disruptive and was doing CP more harm than good. I had to temporarily block him. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:59, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
1990sguy, I revised my commentary/decision on this issue. I took your side. See my post above.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:30, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Still having a hard time wrapping my head around the dispute here. Is it (a) Brietbart is not credible if it's not backed up by MSM reporting, or (b) the Brietbart article is irrelevent to the text in mainspace? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 18:39, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::::The funniest thing about this is that 1990sguy has actually removed his own factually incorrect editorialising about Islam and FGM from the Conservapedia text, but still insists on retaining a reference which engages in exactly the same kind of editorialising, only turned all the way up to 11 and with a dirty great fireworks and laser show to boot.

::::JDano has probably done himself an injury with all the facepalming he must've been doing last night. He deserves a medal, not a 3 day block. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 19:44, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
Today was a separate problem from yesterday. I wanted to add content about Title IX and the appointment of Adam Kissel to head up these Dept. of Education reforms. I realized that although Education policy is a very important area of Trump policy changes, and is of high interest to Conservapedia readers, there was no section for it on the page. So, I started to move education bullets from other sections and to add the Kissel bullet, but every time I would hit "save", 1990sguy would create an "edit conflict" Rather than loose the text, I saved it so that I could go back and fix the conflicts, but 1990sguy blocked me before I could complete the work as intended. The plan was to move the bullets not duplicate them. I think we need more group effort and less "individual ownership" of pages. Also, less name-calling. I am a life-long conservative, and Lindsay Graham is a life-long conservative, who is a good-guy. If he offers concise, good-natured advice to President Trump to stop tweeting, it is very newsworthy and worth including in a discussion of the Trump Twitter account. I am here to build a well-researched reliable encyclopedia, not to see how much I can build a false narrative to advance my own political agenda. I expect everyone else to be here for the same reason. So:
1) Let's give each other some space - make sure the first editor is done before you start to rewrite his contribution.
2) Look at multiple sources - if only one source has the story and everyone else has the opposite, consider that the outlier may have the facts wrong or has miscommunicate to you.
3) If you don't understand what you are trying to write, ask for help. If your understanding is not clear, what you write will only confuse other Conservapedia readers. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:04, 15 June 2017 (EDT)

===Just the facts, ma'am===
::Ok, so we have established the dispute is over inclusion of a Brietbart citation. Now, can you answer my inquiry over ''why'' Brietbart is inappropriate for the language in text, without going into extraneous discussion on unrelated matters. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 22:31, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Correct. Setting aside the interwoven "edit conflict" confusion of today, we are back to the Brietbart article with a headline "Establishment Media Hides Trump’s New Policy to Stop ‘Genital Mutilation’ of American Girls". I described my concerns [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=1353941 here.] The revised bullet has nothing to do with Islam or any "Trump's New Policy to Stop FGM", rather it discusses just the Michigan prosecution, which is notable because it is the first prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §118. So, the Breitbart article is not relevant to the bullet in question. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:16, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::::Ok. So it's not really a 'new policy', it is the first time prosecutions have been brought under a 20 year old federal law. The Trump White House and sympathetic media charge the mainstream media is covering this fact up, which is both pro-woman, pro-child, and even designed to protect Muslims. What's wrong with that? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 23:39, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps I am missing a source. The White House (Sean Spicer) is not commenting. The main stream media is not covering up "a new policy" because the policy and law have been the same for years. How can Brietbart beat up on the mainstream media if there has been no announcement of a "new policy?" What is new was the FBI was able to prove that two girls were transported across state lines for FGM, so they arrested the doctors and got medical help for the girls. Prior actions have been focusing on international "FGM tourism" at border crossings. [https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/general/fact-sheet-on-female-genital-mutilation-or-cutting.html State Dept. Fact Sheet] Intrastate FGM cases are in the hands of local and state police. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:56, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::So there are two issues, correct me if I'm wrong. One, enforcement of a law to protect young girls, which is an achievement; secondly, the debate over identifying victims and perpetrators of these crimes as Muslims. Is this a fair synopsis? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 00:12, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::No. The second issue is whether there was a "new" policy or a policy change. There is a long tradition in the media of not identifying young victims of sexual crimes. Neither the government nor almost all of the media have said anything about the girls (names, hometown, nor religious sect.) The Breitbart article is misinterpreting the MSM's absence of detail as "fear of offending Muslims." The problem that I had with the original bullet was the claim that during the Obama Administration and the Trump Administration (Jan. 20 to mid-April) there was a policy of non-enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 118. I can't find any evidence of that. It is easier to catch international "FGM tourism" at the border than to catch mothers driving daughters across state-lines for a domestic FGM trip. So, the achievement was the first domestic criminal prosecution. (Please watch this brief interview if you think it is a "Muslim issue": https://youtu.be/sb_YPFrWty0 .)[[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 05:22, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::::Ok, fair enough. So your argument is that while the Trump Justice Department's first enforcement of federal anti-FGM is a recognizable achievement, the Brietbart article is irrelevent to that accomplishment. Should any reference be made to the fact that both perpatrators and victims were Muslim in this achievement? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 10:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::::As an experienced encyclopedia editor on several wikis, I value your input on this. To me, the fact that no mention was made in the charging documents and that I don't want to give defense counsel any ammo leads me to say "no". Wikipedia would call that "synthesis". [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 10:19, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::::::Would it be a valid citation to outline the facts of the case, without mentioning 'Muslim' or 'Islam' in the text? Secondly, in an article entitled 'Donald Trump achievements', why wouldn't the Trump administration aggressively enforcing federal law to protect little Muslim girls be an achievement? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 10:47, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::::::::Answer #1: The first Brietbart article would be better than the second one that 1990sguy wants in the footnote. There are many other clearer sources including the DOJ press release, and 1990sguy and I have reached agreement on the text of the bullet and all references except the second Brietbart article, which I feel is nonsense. Answer #2: The US attorney would argue that religion was not relevant to the arrest and prosecution. FGM is not limited to one religious group, and the health-related statute focuses upon a specific action rather than upon the motives of the accused. Hypotheically, if DOJ was trying to prosecute a religious group for their beliefs, that move would be subject to the same court challenges as now apply to the "travel ban." 1990sguy chose to have this debate on my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJDano&diff=1354127&oldid=1353746 talk page] rather than on this page. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:28, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Well, my simple point is, the Trump administration protecting Muslims is a worthy accomplishment, which is the point the first Brietbart article - and no other source - makes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 11:48, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

===policy vs law===
JDano states, "the policy and law have been the same for years". I bring this up here because understanding the difference can be valuable to us on multiple levels. ''What is the difference between policy and law?''. I disagree with JDano's assertion: while the law outlaws FMG, the policy of three past administrations has been not to enforce the law. Similiarly, while sanctuary cities are illegal, and
Dream Act is not law, the policy of past administrations has been to not enforce immigration law and treat the Dream Act as if it were law. Or the ABM missile Treaty with Russia, while the ABM treaty is binding law, the policy of the Bush & Obama administrations have been to ignore it and allow international tensions to escalate. Or Operation Fast and Furious. While the law required enforcement of illegal weapons sales, the policy allowed the government itself to facilitate illegal weapons sales. These issues will be revisted soon in the Supreme Court were the law entrusts national security to the president, the courts have denied the president's policy of enforcing the law in regard to the travel ban. So we can use all these illustrations to understand the difference. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 10:47, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::You can judge each President's administration by the totality of their actions. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton on Sept. 30, 1996. President Obama signed an amendment to the law to outlaw "FGM tourism" abroad in 2013. One of the things that custom and border patrol staff look out for is young girls traveling abroad for FGM. There is also continuous US support of anti-FGM actions via the United Nations. I realize that law and policy can differ. For example, President Lincoln made a deal with the Mormons to not prosecute bigamy laws in exchange for their not siding with the Confederacy in the Civil War. Everything I have found indicates that the DOJ policies inherited from the Obama Administration were to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 116. If we can find something credible to the contrary, it would be quite a scoop for Conservapedia. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:02, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::FMG tourism would be virtually impossible to enforce without a confession of intent from the adult escort, or perhaps on return if the facts can be documented. Are there any known cases of prosecution? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 11:22, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::I can look for sources, but it would be administrative action and not a criminal case in an Article III court. Only the travel and the adult escort would be targeted, since the person performing the procedure would be in the other country. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 12:46, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

:JDano, Lindsey Graham is one of the most liberal Republicans.[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/how-lindsey-graham-stomped-the-tea-party/372521/] He belongs to the "surrender Republicans" rather than someone like Newt Gingrich who forced Bill Clinton to have a balanced budget.

:The GOP base is sick of surrender GOP members and that is why Trump far surpassed Graham in the 2016 GOP presidential primary. We're tired of GOP members who are terrified to have their uniforms soiled by the press/liberals calling them names. We want Donald "blood and guts" Trump.

:Please don't bother me on a talk page page again if you want to fly the white flag rather than take the opposition to task for hypocritical/inconsistent behavior. You are not willing to concede reasonable points and impose time wasting opposition to others.

:You were so busy to appease liberals with that ridiculous picture of Obama that you couldn't see the obvious truth: Obama is not a Christian. The Apostle Paul's views never "evolved" on homosexuality. Obama may not be a Muslim, but he is certainly not a Christian. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 21:35, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::As far as clarification, I am not saying Trump or any other politician should go out of his way to create unnecessary conflict, but they shouldn't be afraid of conflict either. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:08, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
:::You have totally lost me. What does Lindsey Graham have to do with female genital mutilation, a specific Brietbart citation, and the blocking of a constructive editor? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 23:42, 15 June 2017 (EDT)
::::Man if you lost ''nobs'' then that's like, some next-level obfuscation. Kudos, Conservative. [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 00:03, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::I'm really struggling to see what Sun Tzu, Lindsey Graham, and the Apostle Paul have to do with settling a dispute between users on female genital mutilation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 00:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::Conservative was referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_achievements&diff=1354109&oldid=1354107 this edit] and previous edits done by JDano. He made other problematic edits before I blocked him. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:26, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

=== History of FGM in the United States ===

*[http://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/02/10/16/00001/schubert_k.pdf FEMALE CIRCUMCISION IN THE UNITED STATES: AN ANALYSIS OF LAWS AND POLICIES]

*[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1162/152651603766436324 Cutting History, Cutting Culture: Female Circumcision in the United States]

The history of FGM is more complex than I originally thought. My first inclination to not get involved in this matter unless I gave it the due diligence it may require turned out to be correct.

I hope these resources help resolve matters. I do think that JDano and 1990sguy should be able to work this matter out. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 07:27, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:Dear Conservative, thank you for sharing your research. The first paper is a bit out-of-date. Since then, Congress amended the law to address FGM tourism, and more states have enacted laws. I have hesitated to greatly expand the FGM article because I want to keep it family-friendly. I believe that 1990sguy and I reached agreement on the FGM bullet, except for whether to include the Brietbart article. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 09:40, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::If you are a member of an Islamic sect that practices FGM, you will be offended by the US, the UN, and the EU outlawing the practice. So, you will not be surprised by news coverage of an arrest whether or not the mainstream media discusses the religion of the family or the doctor. If you are a non-Muslim whose family practiced FGM, you may feel uncomfortable every time FGM is in the news, but that does not dictate how we cover the subject. If you are a criminal defense lawyer, your only real option is to argue the statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and that this is more a question of free exercise of religion than of protecting the health of the girls. (You could also argue under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because cutting girls is illegal when cutting boys is not.) Quite a difficult area to navigate. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 10:16, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Without getting too far off course, and changing this to a sociological phenomenon, the practice among Muslims (and others) is mostly motivated by tribal custom, i.e. preparing a female for barter or trade in a marriage contract who will not dishonor the the family or tribe she originated from, thus violating the marriage contract that binds certain tribal alliances together. An unfaithful wife can cause wars, such as Helen of Troy, or serious internal breaches like Tristan and Isolde. At root of FGM is treating women as property. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 11:37, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

===My response to JDano's other edits that I reverted===
It seems we have solved the Breitbart source (finally! :) ). JDano made [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_achievements&diff=1354109&oldid=1354107 several other edits that I reverted] because I thought they were not constructive. First, however, let me say thank you for not trying to re-add them after I reverted (and blocked) you. I don't think I did a good job of explaining my position, which I strongly hold.

One of these edits was adding the paragraph of Lindsey Graham. I am not opposed to having opposing viewpoints, but what makes Graham's single viewpoint so notable compared to other people? He is one of 100 Senators, 1 of 535 Congressmen, and 1 of over 7 billion people in the world. What makes his view so notable? ''If you want to add an opposing view of Trump's Twitter activity, please find a good source (preferably NOT from the MSM, or at least a fair MSM source) that speaks generally of opposition from conservatives and other people, rather than the opinion of a single RINO Senator.'' '''Anyone can say anything about everything. Let's not cherry pick quotes, please.'''

You also added a sentence saying that "The Trump Administration continues to offer spousal benefits to federal workers in same-sex marriages." However, ''there's no source''. The intro paragraph of the article specifically tells you to add sources. Once again, anyone can say anything about everything. We need to be certain this fact you added is accurate. I am not opposed to adding that sentence, but '''there MUST be a source.'''

In your edit, you removed an unrelated edit I made in the meantime. You had no dispute with the edit, but you still reverted it. It was the single Breitbart reference I added (not the same Breitbart article -- a different article on a different topic). JDano, your edit was sloppy, and you need to avoid doing this in the future.

I did not like your wording of the Qatar failure because funding nations is more complicated that you made it seem. If the U.S. did not fund Qatar, a nation that does fund terrorists, Qatar might be driven to align itself with Iran. That would not be good. I simplified the wording.

Your typo in the Trump official portrait at the top did not help at all.

Thank you for improving the "education" section above. It was a lot better than you first made it in the edit I linked above. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:25, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:Also, JDano's edit summary in that edit was very misleading because it stated "new section" when in fact he did more than create a new section (namely revert all my edits). Edit summaries must not be misleading. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:And by the way, I know that I do not own the article. I was reverting what I believed (justifiably) to be simply bad edits (bad for various reasons which I explained above). I support having other people add ''constructive'' edits to the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:32, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::Since going with Windows 10, my computer crashes frequently, particularly upon times of inactivity. So, I have to save less than the complete set of changes. When you save edits while I am editing, when I save, I get a "edit conflict dialog box" which does not allow me to see your edit summaries, but requires me to locate my edit within the entire source code of the page. Because the page is so long, I copy and paste the entire contents of my source window over the entire article source and hope to work out any lost content by looking at the page history. I was getting three or four edit conflict dialog boxes per save yesterday. So, you need to edit a different section of the page, or give the other editor a chance to finish up before you edit the same section. I assume that a editor will go back and check for spelling or other mistakes and do not edit there for at least 5 min after the initial save. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:40, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

:Edit conflict ;)

:JDano, if you want, I can try to help you diagnose the crashing problem. That does sound problematic! If you are letting the PC idle, it could even just be autostandby. Windows Vista and 7 had that kind of issue where it would crash when starting to standby or recovering from it. I dont know if the 8/8.1/10 core has the same issue or not. If you are constantly editing, them a bit more troubleshooting will be needed.
:If you edit one section at a time and then save rather than moving around, it may cause more conflicts, but would also make it easier to recover from one. If both of you edit one paragraph or small section, it would be less destructive to reload the page and paste in that edited section only. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 12:00, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::JDano, you may make the edits in the way you do for a reason, but it is very problematic because only you know why you edit the way you do. For the rest of us, for all we are able to see, you are being sloppy. I understand now, but please change your editing behaviors in the future. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:06, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::Isn't this just a question of "assume good faith"? If a known editor is starting to do something, wait 5 to 10 minutes before jumping in, rather than creating a lot of edit conflicts. I had the educational source windows open and was going to put the section as it is now, but never got a chance. I still do not understand how one of my cut-and-pastes accidentally butchered to top of the article, but I managed to fix it quickly. On Wikipedia, the edit conflict window is based on just the section open to editing, why does the edit conflict window expand the "conflict zone" to the entire article? [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 12:32, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::I'm still not seeing where Lindsey Graham fits in this discussion on female genital mutilation. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 12:14, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::I'm talking about another problematic edit JDano made in this section. I'm not talking about FGM here. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:25, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
::::::As a part-time JAG officer in the Air Force reserves, Lindsay Graham gets into more legal issues than you can imagine. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 12:37, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::Lindsey Graham was in on the [[Arab_Spring#McCain_onboard|Operation Zero Footprint]] coverup, which means he's likely in on the Russian hacking scam, as well. How does Lindsey Graham relate to any Donald Trump achievement? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 12:48, 16 June 2017 (EDT)
:::::::IOW, Lindsey Graham is complicit in [[Obama war crimes]]. The only way he can rehabilitate himself is by voting right in the Senate. Other than that, nobody should care or pay attention to what he thinks about Donald Trump or Donald Trump's accomplishments. We got plenty of dirt on Lindsey Graham, even going back to his inept mishandling of Bill Clinton's impeachment case. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 13:08, 16 June 2017 (EDT)

== Can someone edit this template so the useful links are readable? ==

{{welcome}}

Can someone edit this template so the useful links are readable?

The blue links on a dark red background is hard to read.

Also, some people have started to edit Conservapedia and then quickly gave up because they didn't know how to edit a wiki. I noted about 3 people who did this. There are probably many more who quit but didn't say anything. I added a link entitled "How to edit a wiki". But I believe there are various versions of the welcome template so my link is not on all welcome template versions. For example, the welcome template that JPatt uses didn't incorporate my "How to edit a wiki" link.

Does the newest version of the Wikimedia software allow for WYSIWYG editing? In other words "What you see is what you get".

The newest version of the Wikimedia software does not have the counter at the bottom of the pages. I understand why Andy Schlafly likes the counters at the bottom. I like the counters too. I guess there might be an extension to add the counters to the newest version of Wikimedia. But after all is said and done, having WYSIWYG editing could greatly increase the participation rate at this wiki and lower the rate of people falling out because they don't know how to edit a wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:40, 19 June 2017 (EDT)

=== Here is the welcome to Wikipedia and it is much better and legible ===

[[File:Plate of cookies.jpg|thumb|300px|Some cookies to welcome you! [[File:Face-smile.svg|25px]]]] [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|Welcome to Wikipedia]], Conservative! I am [[User:This lousy T-shirt|This lousy T-shirt]] and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Knox490|your contributions]]. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out [[Wikipedia:Questions]], or feel free to leave me a message on [[User talk:This lousy T-shirt|my talk page]] or type ''{{tl|helpme}}'' at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
* [[Wikipedia:Introduction|Introduction]]
* [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]
* [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]]
* [[Help:Contents|Help pages]]
* [[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ten_Simple_Rules_for_Editing_Wikipedia Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia].
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedian]]! Also, when you post on [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk pages]] you should [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign your name]] using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

I think Conservapedia needs a better greeting. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:02, 19 June 2017 (EDT)
==Donald Trump's tweets==
We have had a lot of discussion about how to cover Donald Trump's twitter account on the main space pages. So, I have started a page [[Debate:Should President Trump stop tweeting?]] and invite interested editors to comment there. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:55, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

== Request for Conservative or another admin ==

You recently deleted the article entitled "Donald Trump's breaking of promises." I am OK with this action, but would you (or another admin) please copy-and-paste the article's content onto [[User:1990'sguy/Sandbox]]? There may be some content in the article worth saving. Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:17, 25 June 2017 (EDT)

:I restored it to your Sandbox, but noticed that it quotes [[anti-Trump]] gasbags like Jason Chaffetz as though they are some kind of authority. The guy cannot even fulfill his own obligation to compete his 2-year term for his constituents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:47, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

::Thank you, Andy. Restoring the content has nothing to do with whether the content is accurate or good. I just want it to see if any of it is salvageable. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:01, 26 June 2017 (EDT)

== BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!! ==

As anyone who is logged in knows, there is a major vandalism wave going on (based on the topics being vandalized, it seems to have originated from the recent dust-up about "fake news", not that it matters.) The only assistant I can see currently aware of this seems to be Pokeria1. He has block powers. But I have attempted to alert him to this. He can't '''possibly''' be unaware of what is going on, since he has reverted my warnings on his talk page.

Can someone put a stop to this? Here is what I put (several times, getting blasted each time) on his talk page:

<big><big><big>BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!</big></big></big>

What the Hell are you doing????? You have block rights!

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=Block]

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:34, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

For the record, I DID respond to your post in the limited amount of time I could before that 2000'sguy person undid the revision, and I even attempted to ask how long I should block him. However, I also made it very clear that I'm extremely reluctant to do it because I fear ultimately being corrupted by that power (I've already witnessed plenty of admins on the forums and other wikis blocking people for the sheer heck of it, or even threatening people to keep them in line, and I want to go out of my way to avoid being like them). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:51, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

:OK, I see it now. In the heat of battle, I did not. My answer to the "how long?" question is:
:*Correct answer: Infinite. That kind of stuff is infinite.
:*Acceptable answer: 1 day. That's enough for admins to notice what happened and take it from there.
:*Crazy answer: However long it takes for me to come over and beat you up. Non-violently, of course. :-)
:Your position on not letting power corrupt you is very similar to mine. See the discussion among Ed Poor, DavidB4, and myself on Ed's talk page. Blocking people for the heck of it, and threatening people, happens elsewhere, and it used to happen here. I think we have improved.

:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 19:21, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== If you see something, say something ==

More precisely: If you see blatant vandalism taking place, and you have block powers, block the perpetrator.

I believe most active users are "assistants", meaning they have the power, and authority, to block vandals. Yesterday there was a huge vandal attack, in which 65 acts of vandalism were committed in about 40 minutes. I saw that an assistant was logged in, and attempted to alert him on his talk page. The vandal reverted that, and I kept trying. The user saw the vandalism to his talk page and reverted it. He even reverted my warning. I sent private mail to Andy. Finally Ed Poor did the deed.

Assistants have the power to block vandals. Use it. That's what it's for. Don't just let vandalism sprees go on. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 18:24, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:I think there are more vandal attacks because liberals are getting desperate. They are losing power and do not like it. They are like cornered rats right now. The engaging in violent tactics, violent demonstrations, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:02, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
::It even happened here this morning, but the two perps (who, based on very similar user names, is most likely the same kid using multiple accounts) got cut off at the pass quickly. If I'd been on line yesterday when said vandalism happened, I would've stopped it right there and then, but no editor with blocking power can be on site 24/7. Best thing to do is pay attention to the Recent changes section and watch what happens. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 20:01, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:::I noticed that incredible spree after the fact--yikes! Sam, I was offline, but that doesn't mean I can't help. I've provided a link on my talk page to send my a text message for a reason too--that's what it's there for. I may not be available, but I would be happy to deal with the issue if I am. Just because I'm not editing doesn't mean I can help for a moment. :) --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:03, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
::::This is similar to when I kept on reverting the several accounts of this "James Wilson" fellow a few weeks ago. It took forever to block him, and he was able to get a lot of pages, including repeatedly vandalizing the [[Taylor Swift]] article and creating frivolous entries. There seems to be plenty enough "assistants" on here, so such long sprees shouldn't be happening so often. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 22:25, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
==Political Directory==
We have a project that started last February, but still needs teamwork to complete. This project accidentally drifted to Archive2, but still has work to be done.

A few years ago, some editors copied a lot of political directory information into CP. For example, the state articles list all of the Senators and Congressmen and the infobox has the Senators' telephone numbers. Much of this has changed in the 2014 and 2016 elections. In some cases, like [[Elizabeth Warren]], the junior senator has become the senior senator of the state. I have corrected [[Ohio]], but do not want to fix all of this by myself. Can we organize a work list and cross off each state as it is updated? Please let me know if you want to help. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 09:22, 15 February 2017 (EST)

:I can't say I'm thrilled at the idea, but I can try to chip in a little, as time permits. That's a very good idea, and I'm glad you noticed--I'm just not sure how much time I can contribute. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 11:03, 15 February 2017 (EST)
::In my state even the official state website hasn't been updated in more than two years (it still lists an officer sitting in jail as Secretary of State). I'm sure the lazy government bureaucrats blame Republican budget cuts who took over the legislature in 2014. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|CIA vs Trump. Who's gonna win?]] 21:33, 15 February 2017 (EST)
:::This project is focusing on 1) list of US Congressmen and Senators and 2) Senators in infobox. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:27, 16 February 2017 (EST)

Sources: http://www.house.gov/representatives/ and https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC When you have finished with a state, cross the state name out using <nowiki><s>State</s></nowiki>.
{| class="wikitable"
|
* [[Alabama]]: Dec. 14, 1819
* <s>[[Alaska]]: Jan. 3, 1959</s>
* <s>[[Arizona]]: Feb. 14, 1912</s>
* <s>[[Arkansas]]: Jun. 15, 1836</s>
* <s>[[California]]: Sep. 9, 1850</s>
* <s>[[Colorado]]: Aug. 1, 1876</s>
* <s>[[Connecticut]]: Jan. 9, 1788</s>
* [[Delaware]]: Dec. 7, 1787
* <s>[[Florida]]: Mar. 3, 1845</s>
* <s>[[Georgia]]: Jan. 2, 1788</s>
* <s>[[Hawaii]]: Aug. 21, 1959</s>
* <s>[[Idaho]]: Jul. 3, 1890</s>
* [[Illinois]]: Dec. 3, 1818
* <s>[[Indiana]]: Dec. 11, 1816</s>
* <s>[[Iowa]]: Dec. 28, 1846</s>
* <s>[[Kansas]]: Jan. 29, 1861</s>
* [[Kentucky]]: Jun. 1, 1792
* <s>[[Louisiana]]: Apr. 30, 1812</s>
* <s>[[Maine]]: Mar. 15, 1820</s>
* [[Maryland]]: Apr. 28, 1788
* <s>[[Massachusetts]]: Feb. 6, 1788</s>
* <s>[[Michigan]]: Jan. 26, 1837</s>
* <s>[[Minnesota]]: May 11, 1858</s>
* <s>[[Mississippi]]: Dec. 10, 1817</s>
* [[Missouri]]: Aug. 10, 1821
|
* <s>[[Montana]]: Nov. 8, 1889</s>
* <s>[[Nebraska]]: Mar. 1, 1867</s>
* <s>[[Nevada]]: Oct. 31, 1864</s>
* <s>[[New Hampshire]]: Jun. 21, 1788</s>
* <s>[[New Jersey]]: Dec. 18, 1787</s>
* <s>[[New Mexico]]: Jan. 6, 1912 </s>
* <s>[[New York]]: Jul. 26, 1788</s>
* [[North Carolina]]: Nov. 21, 1789
* <s>[[North Dakota]]: Nov. 2, 1889</s>
* [[Ohio]]: Mar. 1, 1803
* <s>[[Oklahoma]]: Nov. 16, 1907</s>
* <s>[[Oregon]]: Feb. 14, 1859</s>
* <s>[[Pennsylvania]]: Dec. 12, 1787</s>
* <s>[[Rhode Island]]: May 29, 1790</s>
* <s>[[South Carolina]]: May 23, 1788</s>
* <s>[[South Dakota]]: Nov. 2, 1889</s>
* <s>[[Tennessee]]: Jun. 1, 1796</s>
* [[Texas]]: Dec. 29, 1845
* <s>[[Utah]]: Jan. 4, 1896</s>
* [[Vermont]]: Mar. 4, 1791
* [[Virginia]]: Jun. 25, 1788
* <s>[[Washington]]: Nov. 11, 1889</s>
* [[West Virginia]]: Jun. 20, 1863
* [[Wisconsin]]: May 29, 1848
* <s>[[Wyoming]]: Jul. 10, 1890</s>
|}
Many thanks to Pokeria1, AMorrow, and DavidB4 for their help on this project. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 13:44, 16 February 2017 (EST)

'''Since we finished the federal officers faster than I expected, I am proposing a Phase II, where we go back and check the names of the state-wide officers''' listed in each of the above articles. After you have checked an article please change <nowiki><s>state</s> to state</nowiki>. Many thanks! [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 10:59, 17 February 2017 (EST)

==Clean sweep response to Muslim protestors==

I saw this on a woman's Twitter page. She responded to four themes that make up quite a lot of common Muslim protest arguments in such a way as to maximize the exposure of their contradictions. Those who call for more Muslim immigration should be confronted with these short arguments and why they think they don't apply seriously to these all-too-typical Muslim sentiments:

:You call me intolerant because I won't tolerate a religion of intolerance [Muslim activist's sign "Islam will dominate the world"].
:You call me hate-filled because I'm against hate preachers [Muslim activist's sign: "Behead those who insult Islam"].
:You call me extreme because I don't want extremists in my country [Two men dressed in all black except hole for eyes: "God Bless Hitler" in bold red capital letters].
:You call me a supremacist because I won't submit to invaders who believe their law & culture is supreme to ours [Muslims with black parade banner: "Shariah for the UK"].
:I only need to call you one word...Traitor.
[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:24, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

== Recent issue(s) ==

So, with at least a few articles in the past, including the articles on [[Kate Upton]] and earlier [[Taylor Swift]], I am unsure about what direction the site should be taking regarding the topic of women wearing less than modest clothing. Should it be mentioned in the articles, and if so, how should it be done? The Upton situation seems to have at least two Senior Administrators and two Junior Administrators involved, and I think we should talk about how to address the issue, given that this is a conservative-minded encyclopedia and that social conservatism has been a key component of conservatism in the US. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 16:22, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
:The trend of women wearing less modest clothes is a relatively recent development, and it is associated with feminism. I think things like this should be mentioned only if the person in question claims to be religious or traditional. This is just my take, however. We'll see what everyone else has to say. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:32, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
::Your take does make sense, and a claim to be a Christian may imply something of the sort, as [[User:RonaldB]] pointed out. Since it has come up in at least a few articles it is something that really should be addressed. We should be able to do it in an encyclopedic tone, without sounding too preachy. One of the earlier revisions of the Upton article did come off rather preachy. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 16:41, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
:::Yes, regardless of what we do, we should stick to an encyclopedic tone. I don't think we will have to mention these things on articles of people who clearly are secular liberals (unless that they do is blatantly outrageous, like what Miley Cyrus did a while back). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:55, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
::::I stepped in as far as the Kate Upton article because there was a dispute happening and there were nude photographs that she had taken. Plus, she lied about the issue shortly before the cloud website had a data breach which caused her pictures to become public.

::::You have to draw the line somewhere and I drew the line at nude. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
When I was in high school, I volunteered to help in the school library. We had a periodical collection, and students would have to request a specific magazine issue, and then the student assistant would go into the back room, pull the issue and have the student sign it out. The most requested magazines were ''Car and Driver'' followed by the ''National Geographic'' issues which photos of native African women. We can discuss these subjects with an encyclopedic tone and without including examples. In contrast, Wikipedia works extensively to collect as many nude photos as possible and is not family friendly. We don't want Conservapedia to appeal to the crowd that reads ''National Geographic'' for just those few special photos. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 18:05, 14 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::It sounds like everyone basically agrees on this anyway, but I'll chime in. I agree that we should keep such content to a minimum. If such information can be used to prove hypocrisy, then it might be worth carefully mentioning. However, in general, that's just a part of the secular world now. Let's keep it out of here, unless perhaps if it is beneficial to prove a different point. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 21:04, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

I'm thinking that there's an agreement about how to handle this particular issue from now on. Although, I still regret my rash judgment and current inability to correct it at this time. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 23:02, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

== Sam Chui's Little Theorem ==

I wasn't able to find anything on the internet related to [[Sam Chui's Little Theorem]]. And there are no citations in the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 07:01, 19 August 2017 (EDT)
:Appears to be a private gag between half a dozen 14-year olds from math camp. No encyclopaedic value, no educational value and, frankly, unfunny to boot. They have had their few days of glory, now burn it with fire. [[User:NeilWalker|NeilWalker]] ([[User talk:NeilWalker|talk]]) 07:57, 19 August 2017 (EDT)
::I deleted the article.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:12, 19 August 2017 (EDT)
== User:GinnyS ==
I see that someone today blocked User:GinnyS for violating the 90%/10% rule. Just so that the record is clear, since she created her account, GinnyS had 49 talk page edits and 22 article page edits leading to a 69%/31% ratio, which is seems to meet the rule's requirements. While today's exchange was intemperate, we do want users to feel free to raise concerns to ensure that what is posted matches the sources provided. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:50, 27 August 2017 (EDT)
:"Ginny" was a man.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

== Block flood ==

Apologies for the block flood--I got the process derailed onto the wrong account (main rather than bot). I will try to be more careful in the future. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:07, 8 September 2017 (EDT)

== Conservative of the Year 2017 ==

I created the article where we list the nominations for [[Conservative of the Year 2017]]. Feel free to add solid conservatives to the list who deserve mention. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:18, 8 November 2017 (EST)

== New essay, need contributors ==

I have created a new essay: http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Virtue:_Christian_vs_secular

I would welcome contributions from other CP users. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 11:28, 28 December 2017 (EST)

== Conservatism sells: The growth of followers of conservatives on Twitter ==

See [[Essay:Top conservatives on Twitter]] for current number of followers of top Twitter users considered to be conservative. Of those Twitter posters whose accounts on that page are still active, none lost in their total number of followers over the whole year of 2017.

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size:98%; margin:left;"
|+ Promoters of conservatism with large gains of followers on Twitter, 2016-7 (top 20 each category)
|+
!Twitter poster
!Increase in followers 2016
!% in- crs. in fol- low ers
!Increase in followers 2017
!% in- crs. in fol- low ers
!Increase in followers Dec. 17 2018
!% in- crs. in fol- low ers
|-
|align="left"|Pres. (or-Elect) [[Donald J. Trump]]
|align="right"|+13,053,000
|align="right"|+237%
|align="right"|+26,905,000
|align="right"|+145%
|align="right"|+10,520,000
|align="right"|+23%
|-
|align="left"|Dr. [[Ben Carson]]
|align="right"|+1,475,000
|align="right"|+136%
|align="right"|0
|align="right"|+0%
|align="right"|91,000
|align="right"|+3%
|-
|align="left"|[[Michelle Malkin]]
|align="right"|+943,000
|align="right"|+105%
|align="right"|+328,000
|align="right"|+18%
|align="right"|-26,000
|align="right"|-1%
|-
|align="left"|[[Sean Hannity]]
|align="right"|+697,000
|align="right"|+56%
|align="right"|+1,266,000
|align="right"|+65%
|align="right"|+643,000
|align="right"|+20%
|-
|align="left"|[[Laura Ingraham]]
|align="right"|+550,000
|align="right"|+89%
|align="right"|+819,000
|align="right"|+73%
|align="right"|+575,000
|align="right"|+30%
|-
|align="left"|[[Ann Coulter]]
|align="right"|+463,000
|align="right"|+63%
|align="right"|+632,000
|align="right"|+53%
|align="right"|+279,000
|align="right"|+15%
|-
|align="left"|Judge [[Jeanine Pirro]]
|align="right"|+292,000
|align="right"|+222%
|align="right"|+479,500
|align="right"|+113%
|align="right"|+387,000
|align="right"|+43%
|-
|align="left"|[[Franklin Graham]]
|align="right"|+277,000
|align="right"|+59%
|align="right"|+565,000
|align="right"|+76%
|align="right"|+489,000
|align="right"|+37%
|-
|align="left"|[[Sarah Palin]]
|align="right"|+226,000
|align="right"|+20%
|align="right"|+139,000
|align="right"|+10%
|align="right"|+16,000
|align="right"|+1%
|-
|align="left"|[[Tucker Carlson]]
|align="right"|+224,000
|align="right"|+89%
|align="right"|+943,000
|align="right"|+198%
|align="right"|+930,000
|align="right"|+65%
|-
|align="left"|[[Steven Crowder]]
|align="right"|+180,000
|align="right"|+122%
|align="right"|+177,000
|align="right"|+54%
|align="right"|+151,000
|align="right"|+30%
|-
|align="left"|[[Dinesh D'Souza]]
|align="right"|+166,000
|align="right"|+69%
|align="right"|+313,000
|align="right"|+77%
|align="right"|+362,000
|align="right"|+50%
|-
|align="left"|[[Mark Levin]]
|align="right"|+157,000
|align="right"|+30%
|align="right"|+346,000
|align="right"|+50%
|align="right"|+398,000
|align="right"|+39%
|-
|align="left"|[[James O'Keefe]]
|align="right"|+147,000
|align="right"|+198%
|align="right"|+136,000
|align="right"|+62%
|align="right"|+125,000
|align="right"|+35%
|-
|align="left"|[[Katie Pavlich]]
|align="right"|+145,000
|align="right"|+70%
|align="right"|+111,900
|align="right"|+32%
|align="right"|+131,000
|align="right"|+28%
|-
|align="left"|[[Allen West]]
|align="right"|+137,000
|align="right"|+29%
|align="right"|+132,000
|align="right"|+22%
|align="right"|+15,000
|align="right"|+2%
|-
|align="left"|Dr. [[Charles Krauthammer]]
|align="right"|+121,000
|align="right"|+20%
|align="right"|+135,000
|align="right"|+18%
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|-
|align="left"|[[Monica Crowley]]
|align="right"|+114,000
|align="right"|+42%
|align="right"|+84,000
|align="right"|+22%
|align="right"|+51,000
|align="right"|+11%
|-
|align="left"|[[Linda Suhler]], Ph. D.
|align="right"|+90,000
|align="right"|+48%
|align="right"|+73,000
|align="right"|+26%
|align="right"|+24,800
|align="right"|+7%
|-
|align="left"|Gov. [[Greg Abbott]]
|align="right"|+65,000
|align="right"|+40%
|align="right"|+129,300
|align="right"|+57%
|align="right"|+40,300
|align="right"|+11%
|-
|align="left"|[[John Nolte]]
|align="right"|+46,000
|align="right"|+74%
|align="right"|+41,800
|align="right"|+38%
|align="right"|+8,900
|align="right"|+6%
|-
|align="left"|[[Dennis Prager]]
|align="right"|+28,000
|align="right"|+50%
|align="right"|+51,300
|align="right"|+60%
|align="right"|+47,100
|align="right"|+35%
|-
|align="left"|[[Hugh Hewitt]]
|align="right"|+42,000
|align="right"|+47%
|align="right"|+29,100
|align="right"|+22%
|align="right"|+10,500
|align="right"|+7%
|-
|align="left"|[[Nikki Haley]]
|align="right"|+57,000
|align="right"|+47%
|align="right"|+746,000
|align="right"|+417%
|align="right"|+725,000
|align="right"|+78%
|-
|align="left"|Sen. [[Tim Scott]]
|align="right"|+51,000
|align="right"|+45%
|align="right"|+177,200
|align="right"|+108%
|align="right"|+39,000
|align="right"|+11%
|-
|align="left"|[[Kellyanne Conway]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+1,376,000
|align="right"|+232%
|align="right"|+532,000
|align="right"|+27%
|-
|align="left"|Sher. [[David Clarke]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+540,000
|align="right"|+123%
|align="right"|-36,000
|align="right"|-4%
|-
|align="left"|[[Dan Scavino]], Jr.
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+196,000
|align="right"|+74%
|align="right"|+41,000
|align="right"|+9%
|-
|align="left"|[[Bill Mitchell]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+143,500
|align="right"|+85%
|align="right"|+89,000
|align="right"|+29%
|-
|align="left"|[[Wayne Dupree]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+136,100
|align="right"|+91%
|align="right"|+23,500
|align="right"|+8%
|-
|align="left"|[[Larry Kudlow]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+76,700
|align="right"|+73%
|align="right"|+53,800
|align="right"|+30%
|-
|align="left"|[[Kayleigh McEnany]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+39,100
|align="right"|+57%
|align="right"|+34,000
|align="right"|+31%
|-
|align="left"|[[Sarah Sanders]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+1,206,000
|align="right"|+43%
|-
|align="left"|[[Candace Owens]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+634,000 +
|align="right"|+192% +
|-
|align="left"|[[Charlie Kirk]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+564,000
|align="right"|+208%
|-
|align="left"|[[Diamond and Silk]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+473,000
|align="right"|+99%
|-
|align="left"|[[Sebastian Gorka]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+175,000 +
|align="right"|+36% +
|-
|align="left"|[[John Bolton]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+168,000
|align="right"|+65%
|-
|align="left"|[[Chuck Woolery]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+158,000
|align="right"|+47%
|-
|align="left"|[[Alana Mastrangelo]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+67,400
|align="right"|+85%
|-
|align="left"|[[Liz Wheeler]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+102,000
|align="right"|+72%
|-
|align="left"|[[Sean Davis]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+52,600
|align="right"|+62%
|-
|align="left"|Rep. [[Mark Meadows]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+100,000 +
|align="right"|+51% +
|-
|align="left"|[[Charles V. Payne]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+99,300
|align="right"|+49%
|-
|align="left"|[[Tim Young]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+58,700
|align="right"|+43%
|-
|align="left"|[[Dylan Wheeler]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+100,200
|align="right"|+41%
|-
|align="left"|[[Buck Sexton]]
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|
|align="right"|+47,300
|align="right"|+38%
|}

[[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:40, 1 January 2018 (EST)

==Twitter reactions on the news==

I try to produce web pages at Conservapedia that are useful, or even seem like they may be useful but at the time can't put my finger on what they may be useful for.

This is one of those times when a use has become uncovered. Several news events involving the top Twitterers took place this month, and now we can see its effect on their followers.

[https://twitter.com/BrittPettibone Brittany Pettibone] was detained three days and then turned away from the United Kingdom for loving Great Britain when it was populated by the British. Her Twitter followers rose from 110,000 followers on March 2, 2018 to 133,000 on March 23, 2018 (+ 21%).

[https://twitter.com/scrowder Steven Crowder] was suspended from Twitter seven days for uploading a comic video, and meanwhile Louis Farrakhan's Twitter account uploaded many videos with anti-Jewish remarks and was left alone. Crowder's Twitter followers rose from 549,000 followers on March 2 to 583,000 on March 23, 2018 (+ 6%).

Not to leave out events about other Twitter users, [[Paul Nehlen]], a competitor in Paul Ryan's Congressional race was removed from Twitter over a certain picture he had posted. Eventually you stop pursuing Twitter's rationales for removal of conservatives and just assume they are false.

And [https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton John Bolton], who was recently added by President Trump to his National Security team, had his Twitter followers rise from 264,000 on March 2 to 290,000 on March 23 (+ 10%). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 20:10, 23 March 2018 (EDT)

:Specifically regarding Bolton, he now has nearly 306,000 followers as of the time I'm writing this. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:19, 28 March 2018 (EDT)

:The month is not yet over and The Broward-County/Democrat-Party-disregard-of-gun-laws diversion circus swept in [http://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle Laura Ingraham] this month to attack her for making a random remark about it in passing: Her Twitter followers rose from 2,111,000 on March 2 to 2,177,000 on March 31 (+ 3%). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 14:39, 31 March 2018 (EDT)

Conservative commentators [https://twitter.com/DiamondandSilk Diamond and Silk] caught Facebook shadow-banning their account and after months of inquiry received a reply April 5, 2018 regarding their Facebook page, "your content and your brand has been determined unsafe to the community."

The two women replied: "So our questions to Facebook (Mark Zuckerberg) are:
*1. What is unsafe about two Blk-women supporting the @POTUS @realDonaldTrump?
*2. Our FB page has been created since December 2014, when exactly did the content and the brand become unsafe to the community?
*3. When you say "community" are you referring to the Millions who liked and followed our page?
*4. What content on our page was in violation?
*5. If our content and brand was so unsafe to the community, why is the option for us to boost our content and spend money with FB to enhance our brand page still available? Maybe FB should give us a refund since FB censored our reach.
*6. Lastly, didn't FB violate their own policy when FB stopped sending notifications to the Millions of people who liked and followed our brand page?

"This is deliberate bias censorship and discrimination. These tactics are unacceptable and we want answers!"

On March 2, Diamond and Silk had 584,000 followers on Twitter. On April 8, their readership had grown to 621,000 (+ 6%) [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:00, 8 April 2018 (EDT)


The House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee on April 11, 2018 interviewed Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg in the halls of Congress, and some of the members of Congress actually held up a poster-sized photograph of Diamond and Silk and asked him if he recognized them or knew about the removal of their account from Facebook. Zuckerberg tried to change the subject to a more general question, but eventually replied that the removal was an error.

Diamond and Silks' followers on Twitter rose from 584,000 on March 2 by 84,000 to 668,000 on April 18 (+ 14%). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 17:20, 18 April 2018 (EDT)

===Someone or more than one person is targeting top conservatives on Twitter===

[http://twitter.com/WayneDupreeShow Wayne Dupree] is now claiming that he has noticed shadow-banning on his Twitter account. That makes seven top conservatives on Twitter members being targeted in an attempt to marginalize them: Brittany Pettibone, Steven Crowder, Paul Nehlen, Laura Ingraham, Diamond and Silk, Wayne Dupree and Feisty☀️FL [FL = Floridian] (@Feisty_FL).

[http://twitter.com/IngrahamAngle [[Laura Ingraham]]] was able to get some publicity and conservative support regarding the boycott staged against her advertisers regarding her having showed skepticism against the attempt to add new gun-restriction laws to those laws that are already not being implemented. Her followers on Twitter rose from 2,111,000 on March 2 to 2,239,000 on April 18, a rise of 128,000 (+ 6%). [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 17:20, 18 April 2018 (EDT)

==April Fool's joke==

The ''Titanic'': built by experts. Ark: built by [[best of the public]]. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 09:05, 28 March 2018 (EDT)

== How would you guys convince an athiest about God? ==

Purely hypothetical, but I’m curious so see all the different tactics. [[User:GoodWeather|GoodWeather]] ([[User talk:GoodWeather|talk]]) 18:39, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

:The problem with your question is that it assumes atheists need to be convinced about the existence of God. God's existence is already obvious to everyone (see Romans 1:18-23, Psalm 14:1). The problem with atheists is not that they're unconvinced of God, it's that they reject God and His Word outright. Also, I can't convince anyone to submit God -- that's something God in His grace (alone) does to those He chooses to show mercy. If it weren't for God's opening up of the eyes of believers, none of us would submit to Him (see Romans 8:7-8, for example). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:57, 15 May 2018 (EDT)

::The "tactic" against you, "GoodWeather" is to boot you off the site, along with your many socks, for trolling, harassment, and outright lying. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 01:48, 16 May 2018 (EDT)

:::Another atheist who received [[atheist indoctrination]] in a poorly run public school. The telltale sign is that he cannot spell the word atheist correctly.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:56, 16 May 2018 (EDT)

::::It's a pity that Chawcer, who had geneyus, was so unedicated as well. He's the wuss speller I know of. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 10:31, 26 May 2018 (EDT)
:::::1990sguy nails it. If you're a sceptic, you're already decieved (see 2 Tim 2:26). IMHO, one should begin by desiring to free their mind from Satanic enslavement, and that would put you on the path of the knowledge of God. It's not always a straight line from disbelief to belief. You need a desire to free yourself from deception to start. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 15:29, 26 May 2018 (EDT)

== Twitter prune ==

I read in passing that Twitter was going to start pruning non-responsive accounts soon. I read the same thing about two months ago, and yet I didn't notice any difference in the follower count of conservatives that couldn't be explained by summer vacations.

But if so, this may mark the first time in about three years that conservatives will see a real downward "trend" (actually a one-time brief decrease). Who knows which accounts will be affected, how long it will take for them to recover from these corrections, and whether these removals will be administered fairly. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 04:22, 13 July 2018 (EDT)

:So far the purged accounts among conservatives with the largest number of followers have been mostly chicken feed:

::Donald Trump: -0.04%
::Sean Hannity: -2.0%
::Sarah Sanders: -0.1%
::Ben and Candy Carson: -3.4%
::Laura Ingraham: -0.3%

::Kellyanne Conway: -0.04%
::Michelle Malkin: -1.7%
::Tucker Carlson: -0.4%
::Ann Coulter: -0.9%
::Franklin Graham: -0.15%

::Sarah Palin: -3.9%

:I read in articles about the inflation of Twitter accounts that journalists reporting on it expected some political figures with a large popularity to have 40 or 50 percent inactive or fake followers. This brief survey shows this is not the case with conservative figures with large popularity.

:I think the reason for the faint exception in Ben and Candy Carson's and Sarah Palin's case, is that they had been inactive for a long period of time, so the people who subscribed to their accounts were going to wait until those conservatives posted "in person" rather than by their staffs, and when their feeds weren't being written by their staffs either, the zero newsfeed made their accounts easy to maintain (that is, not taking up any space) nor allowing any opportunity for those Twitter figures to say things with which these followers might disagree and cause them to unsubscribe.

:On the other hand, I also think these pruned subscribers possibly heard about these popular conservatives' Twitter accounts and made an impulse decision to subscribe to them due to their popularity, but weren't necessarily very committed to Twitter as a whole. Hence they left to do other things, but still holding out hope for the popular figures to come back (I am willing to bet that Rush Limbaugh is among these), they never deleted their account, but only monitored it sporadically.

:Now you know that these things are going on, don't be discouraged from politics or feel you have to keep silent if you notice it happening elsewhere or hear complaints of your fellow conservatives or sneers by liberals about decreasing follower counts. You're welcome. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 03:38, 14 July 2018 (EDT)

==Shadowban evidence==
There is an online shadowban detector that I found today. To catch Twitter in the act before they find out about it and possibly change their search algorithms (they have done this for a different tool), I entered all 100 names on my Top Conservatives on Twitter list because I believe that time may be of the essence.

[https://twitter.com/PoliticalShort Nick Short] 139,500 followers 
[https://twitter.com/BrittPettibone Brittany Pettibone] 137,800 followers 
[https://twitter.com/TheMarkPantano Mark Pantano] 119,500 followers 
[https://twitter.com/Rockprincess818 RockPrincess] 104,400 
[https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit Jim Hoft] 101,900 followers 
[https://twitter.com/JBurtonXP Jack Burton] 71,500 followers 
[https://twitter.com/Feisty_FL Feisty☀️FL] 18,920 followers 

These are "quality" shadowbanned. I guess because they don't have enough liberal "quality". [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 00:58, 27 July 2018 (EDT)

:Twitter spoke out yesterday about accusations of shadowbanning:

::"ACTUALLY what we do doesn't TECHNICALLY qualify as "shadowbanning." We just make certain users harder to see based on our totally opaque, uncontestable, unilaterally-determined definition of 'relevance.'"

:I was just pulling your leg; that was a satire written by Jack Burton above. He actually may not even know that he himself is shadowbanned. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 19:57, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

::BTW FYI, I checked, and the Conservapedia Twitter account (@Jay_pe) is not shadowbanned. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 23:22, 28 July 2018 (EDT)

== Yay! HTTPS! ==

I'm glad we managed to get HTTPS set up! I know it's a bit of a nuisance, but it is a good idea! It seems the PayPal plugin is still using HTTP, but this is still better than before! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:28, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
:It does seem that the favicon on the home page is not loading correctly, also. It seems to work elsewhere just fine. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:52, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
::For the record, the favicon doesn't show up at all on Chrome (and I don't think it ever has). This might be something that should be fixed. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:00, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
:::Scratch that--it's working now. I don't know if the issue got fixed, or it was a temporary glitch. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:02, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
:::That's odd... I use Firefox, Opera, Vivaldi, and a number of other browsers but not chrome. I'd never noticed. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:04, 5 August 2018 (EDT)
::::I see what you mean. I tried it in a chrome install, and couldn't see it either. Do we need to add it as a Base64 Encoded Image or some other such nonsense to get it to work? --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:08, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

:::::I really should stop edit flooding here, but one more thing. Someone else with a similar problem said the following:
:::::{{cquote|Instead of using the filename favicon.ico for my icon, I renamed it to something else, ie myIcon.ico. Then I just used [this]:

:::::<nowiki><link rel="shortcut icon" href="myIcon.ico" type="image/x-icon" /></nowiki>}}

:::::The full discussion I'm talking about is found [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16375592/favicon-not-showing-up-in-google-chrome here]. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 18:13, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

== requested article: Trumponomics ==

Article request: [[Trumponomics]]. It would be a nice complementary article to our [[Obamunism]] article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:40, 5 August 2018 (EDT)

== HTTP -->HTTPS URL update project ==

The Web is changing a great deal. One of these changes is the shift from the [[HyperText Transfer Protocol]] to [[HyperText Transfer Protocol Secure]] (which we have recently done in part here at CP as well). While HTTPS is not perfect (and it will continue to be less than ideal at least until/unless we get DNSSEC) this is a good move, as it provides some security and privacy using TLS. 

The problem for us is that we now have a great deal of links which still refer to the old protocol. 1990'sguy pointed out this issue and suggested that I use my bot to update our links. I don't have the ability to automatically test URLs for TLS support, so I'm making a list of URLs to be updated. If there are any websites linked to anywhere on CP which have upgraded to HTTPS but are still linked to under HTTP, please add them to [[User:DavidB4-bot/HTTPS URL update project|the list]]. I will then attempt to verify that they are using sufficiently complete HTTPS configurations, and then do my best to apply the change to all CP articles and perhaps some other pages as well. 

I have never done this before, so it may take a little time and fine-tuning to get it right. Also, it will take time to process these updates on all 46,236+ articles, plus a yet undecided number of other pages. Thank you for your patience and assistance! Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:03, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

:''And if this all sounds like nonsense, doesn't make sense, or doesn't seem to matter, that's fine. Just let me know if anything catches fire, and other than that, I'll try to stay out of the way and not break anything.'' --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:15, 11 September 2018 (EDT)

==Overflow business==

Conservapedia has already reached 686,043,027 visits. It was a only a short time ago that I heard this site had reached 600,000,000 visits. Andy deserves a lot of credit and should be proud for having built such a successful conservative website under his helm. Thanks, Andy! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 15:17, 18 October 2018 (EDT)
=== Conservapedia - Alexa rankings ===
[[File:Conservapedia v Rush page views.png|thumbnail|400px|center|November 2007 Conservapedia vs. Rush Limbaugh]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Alexa.jpg||thumbnail|400px|center|April 2008]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:ConservapediaAlexaMay2010.jpg|thumbnail|400px|center|May 2010]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Conservapedia web traffic in 2010 and 2011.png|thumbnail|400px|center|2011 and 2012]]
{{Clear}}
[[File:Conservapedia - Alexa ranking - December 23 2018.png|thumbnail|400px|center|12-23-2018]]

== Hi everyone ==

I'm new here. Is there anything important I should know before doing stuff? How do I add images to articles? How do I get around CAPTCHA's? Thanks, [[User:Edenfaithful|Edenfaithful]] ([[User talk:Edenfaithful|talk]]) 09:24, 25 December 2018 (EST)

User:Edenfaithful

2018-12-25T14:11:53Z

Edenfaithful: add

My son, do not despise the Lord’s discipline,
and do not resent his rebuke,
because the Lord disciplines those he loves,
as a father the son he delights in.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

2018-12-25T14:08:42Z

Edenfaithful: truth

[[File:Ocasio Cortez.jpeg|right|275px|thumb|Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]]
'''Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez''' is an [[anti-Semitic]] [[progressive]] [[Communist]] [[racist]], [[Soros]] mercenary and outspoken advocate of a proven [[democide|democidal]] ideology. She is a member of the [[Congressional Progressive Caucus]]. Ocasio-Cortez has been mentioned as a presidential candidate in 2028.<ref>https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2018/12/08/ocasio-cortez-for-2028-359210</ref>

Ocasio-Cortez is considered by [[mainstream media]] as the embodiment of a rising generation of [[Millennial]]s to occupy the [[liberal]] movement.<ref>https://youtu.be/rjpXAJ3hEBo</ref><ref>https://youtu.be/SyqcaemuDQI</ref> Her rise to power illustrated the increasing economic illiteracy of the Left.<ref>Bradley, Anne Rathbone (November 14, 2018). [https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/416681-ocasio-cortezs-rise-reveals-rampant-economic-illiteracy-in-us Ocasio-Cortez's rise reveals rampant economic illiteracy in US]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved November 17, 2018.</ref> She wants to kill the American economy with a government-forced redistribution of wealth to benefit her and other extremists.

[[Tom Perez]], who rigged the [[Superdelegate]] nomination of [[Hillary Clinton]] and his own election as DNC chair to slap down the uppity [[African American]] frontrunner [[Keith Ellison]],<ref>Ellison was the top fundraiser and had the support of Senate Minority Leader [[Chuck Schumer]] (New York), Sens. [[Bernie Sanders]] (I-Vt.) and [[Elizabeth Warren]] (D-Mass.), Reps. [[John Lewis]] (Georgia) and [[Tulsi Gabbard]] (Hawaii), and Minnesota Gov. [[Mark Dayton]]. The [[AFL-CIO]], [[AFSCME]], Communications Workers of America, and UNITE HERE also backed Ellison before the Democratic party etablishment assigned Ellison a seat at the back of the bus. https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265725/perez-gains-ellison-dnc-race-matthew-vadum</ref> has anointed Ocasio-Cortez as "the future of the Democratic Party." Critics describe her commitment to [[Democratic Socialism]] as a the views of a simpleton and naive.

==Background==
===Rich kid===
Although Ocasio-Cortez pretends to speak for and come from [[poverty]], she grew up in the [[white privilege]]d suburb of Westchester County with a median household income of $83,000 – one of the highest in the country. Westchester County is the home of the [[Clinton]] and [[Rockefeller]] estates.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5905247/amp/Girl-Bronx-Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez-actually-grew-wealthy-Westchester-County.html</ref>

===Sanders retread===
Ocasio-Cortez is the quintessential wide-eyed liberal.<ref>https://youtu.be/bSbP3hIP90I</ref> Early on, her website was a redirect page for the group [[Brand New Congress]], archives in the [[Wayback Machine]] show.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20170828110100/https://ocasio2018.com/ Brand New Congress home page via ocasio2018 .com]</ref> Ocasio-Cortez is largely viewed as a [[Bernie Sanders]] retread. She has appeared on a podcast with another [[far left]] activist who stated that Jews "should get the f*** out of Palestine."<ref>Mikelionis, Lukas (September 22, 2018). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/22/ocasio-cortez-appeared-on-podcast-hosted-by-activist-who-said-jews-should-get-f-out-palestine.html Ocasio-Cortez appeared on podcast hosted by activist who said 'Jews should get the f--- out of Palestine']. ''Fox News''. Retrieved September 22, 2018.</ref> In November 2018, she tried and failed to name the three branches of government.<ref>Rodriguez, Katherine (November 19, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/11/19/watch-ocasio-cortez-fails-name-three-branches-government/ WATCH: Ocasio-Cortez Fails to Name Three Branches of Government]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 19, 2018.</ref>

===2018 election===
Ocasio-Cortez defeated [[incumbent]] Democrat Joe Crowley in the 2018 nominating [[primary]] for [[New York]]'s 14th congressional district with a 12% turnout. Primary victory is tantamount to general election victory in this district, meaning 7 out of 8 people she represents did not vote for her, yet the media proclaimed her as representative of a generation.<ref>https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/19/opinions/democrats-need-reform-new-york-primary-weaver/index.html</ref> Crowley had been the leading contender to succeed [[Nancy Pelosi]] as [[House of Representatives|House]] Democratic Party leader.<ref>https://dailycaller.com/2018/07/30/soros-uygur-ocasio-cortez/</ref> Elected to Congress, Ocasio-Cortez immediately began wasting taxpayer money.<ref>Kirkwood, R. Cort (November 14, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/30640-ocasio-cortez-in-town-one-day-begins-wasting-taxpayer-money Ocasio-Cortez in Washington One Day, Begins Wasting Taxpayer Money]. ''The New American''. Retrieved November 14, 2018.</ref>

After having offed Pelosi's successor, the Democrats had no one to succeed her. But that didn't stop Ocasio-Cortez from trying to off Pelosi, as well.<ref>https://youtu.be/ecaY9nQkI40</ref> Socialism can only tear down; Socialism had never built anything that can endure.

==Democratic socialism==
[[File:Trump-jr.-ocasio-cortez.jpg|right|300px|]]
===On the issues===
Ocasio-Cortez' advocacy of [[Medicare for All]], free college tuition and housing would cost $42 Trillion, two-and-one-half times the nation's total [[economic]] output, or [[GDP]], experts say.<ref>https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-big-idea/2018/8/7/17658574/democratic-socialism-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes</ref>

The [[United States]] has the world's largest economic output at $17 Trillion with 6% of the [[planet]]'s population producing 25% of the planet's total economic output. In an interview with Chris Cuomo of [[CNN]], Ocasio-Cortez gave no indication of understanding, or proposals on how to increase total U.S. GDP by 250%, as well as the consumption of the world's resources and increased [[carbon emission]]s necessary to produce $42 Trillion in total output, to fulfill any of her proposals.

The question of what other people would live on – the people who are not beneficiaries of Ocasio-Cortez's proposals, was never addressed.

She has publicly admitted to using [[climate change]] politics to push her broader socialist and SJW politics.<ref>Murphy, James (December 8, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/30849-ocasio-cortez-sees-climate-change-politics-as-means-to-transform-america Ocasio-Cortez Sees Climate Change Politics as Means to Transform America]. ''The New American''. Retrieved December 10, 2018.</ref>

===Funeral costs and voter registration===
Ocasio-Cortez did however, question the reported figures of the cost of U.S. [[healthcare]], claiming the numbers do not include the funeral costs of the uninsured.<ref>https://www.dailywire.com/news/34265/ocasio-cortez-socialized-medicine-cheap-people-ryan-saavedra?amp</ref> Ocasio-Cortez did not explain how a deceased person would be a recurring cost to the U.S. healthcare system either.

In addition to a deceased persons voting, a deceased retiree theoretically could remain a cost burden to the [[Social Security]] system.<ref>https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-answers/report-death-to-social-security/</ref> If survivors or heirs hold a Social Security recipient's debit card and pin number, that deceased person could continue for decades voting and drawing [[entitlement]] benefits.

There is no uniform system of reporting deaths to both the Social Security Administration and to election registrars simultaneously, an issue with potentially tens of billions of dollars in savings, which Social Democrats have shown no interest in.<ref>https://nypost.com/2016/10/23/theres-a-grave-voting-issue-in-new-york-city/amp/</ref> The savings could be used to fund funeral costs by means testing.

==116th Congress==
Upon election Ocasio-Cortez immediately began [[panhandling]] for cash to meet her personal expenses. On financial disclosure forms Ocasio-Cortez reported she had between $15,000-$50,000 in cash in personal savings.<ref>https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1940870002</ref> What promises were made in exchange for personal cash contributions were never reported.

Ocasio-Cortez raised $1.8 million in a district where she recieved 78% of the vote, meaning she has plenty of cash to dole out to other Democrat House members to buy thier support, loyalty, and favors.<ref>https://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary?cycle=2018&id=NY14</ref> Her Republican opponent spent $1935 on the election.

===Fundraising===
Ocasio-Cortez is a case study in what is wrong with campaign finance laws. Cortez sits in a safe district, meaning she was virtually elected in the primary. The [[liberal media]] turned her into a fundraising magnet - for money she didn't need in a district she ran in virtually unopposed.

Campaign "war chests," as they are called, are not to be used for the candidate's personal enrichment. Some candidates raise more money than they need, others have difficulty attracting donations even in their own districts, let alone from outside [[lobbyist]]s in [[Washington]]. Under existing regulations, candidates and members are free to donate to each other. Congresspeople become laundry machines for disguised donors. Instead of a member taking bribes from outside interests, they are "owned" by a fellow member, where any pretense of equality between the people's elected representatives is a charade. At 29 years old, Ocasio-Cortez was already barnstorming across the country raising money and helping other Democrats get elected,<ref>https://m.newstimes.com/news/article/Democratic-socialists-are-conquering-the-left-13146775.php</ref> for which they are indebted to her, before she was even elected.

===NeverPelosi===
Ocasio-Cortez is a [[nihilist]] who tried to overthrow [[Nancy Pelosi]].

At the very moment [[California]] was consumed by the worst wildfires in history, Ocasio-Cortez led a mob of [[tree hugger]]s in a takeover of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Capital Hill office.

The wildfires killed scores of people and left tens of thousands homeless. The fires were fueled by bad forestry management and a failure to remove dead trees.

===Holocaust denialism===
:{{Main article|Holocaust denial}}
Ocasio-Cortez compared illegal [[Central America]]n migrants in Mexico seeking to enter the United States to [[Holocaust]] victims.

Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, chairman of the National Yiddish Theatre-Folksbiene said that {{quotebox|“Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has enunciated a [[blood libel]] by designating members of the [[Israel Defense Forces]], demonstrably amongst the most [[moral]] on earth, as [[murderer]]s for defending the state against [[nihilist]]ic [[terrorist]]s, as ‘murderers,’ and enunciating other assorted calumnies against the [[Jew]]ish state."}}

===Ethics violations and abuse of power===
Before taking office, Ocasio-Cortez was embroiled in allegations of violating House Ethics Rules and federal law. Ocasio-Cortez threatened a private citizen and political opponent with [[subpoena]]s and investigation. The House Rules Manuel states, {{quotebox|“Members…are not to take or withhold any official action on the basis of the campaign contributions or support of the involved individuals, or their partisan affiliation. Members and staff are likewise prohibited from threatening punitive action on the basis of such considerations.”<ref>[https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/2008_House_Ethics_Manual.pdf Page 150]</ref>}} What's more, Ocasio-Cortez may have violated 42 [[U.S. Code]] § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights: {{quotebox|"Every person who, under color of any [[statute]], ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the [[District of Columbia]], subjects, or causes to be subjected, any [[citizen]] of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the [[Constitution]] and [[law]]s, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia." (R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)<ref>https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983</ref>}}

===Green New Deal===
Ocasio-Cortez took part in the Dump Pelosi Movement and led protests into her Capital Hill office where 150 people were arrested. In exchange for her vote for Pelosi as Speaker, Pelosi threw the progressives a bone by promising the establishment of a new select committee on a [[Green New Deal]], a plan to transform the economy away from [[fossil fuel]]s. This likely would result in a [[Yellow Vest movement]] such as [[France]] experienced.

Select committees typically have [[subpoena]] power. Members could presumably wield subpoenas to investigate oil and gas companies. No sooner than the vote was taken, Pelosi's flunky [[Steny Hoyer]] moved to strip the new select committee's subpoena power. Hoyer has accepted more than a quarter of a million dollars from the fossil fuel industry.

==Controversies==
Former [[President Obama]] endorsed Ocasio-Cortez while former Democratic party [[Vice President]]ial candidate [[Joe Lieberman]] said if Ocasio-Cortez and [[Democratic socialism]] is the future of the Democratic party, the party doesn't have much of a future.<ref>[https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/18/lieberman_if_ocasio-cortez_is_the_new_face_of_the_democratic_party_party_doesnt_have_bright_future.html]</ref>

Ocasio-Cortez has made numerous blatantly false statements,<ref>Shaw, Adam (August 14, 2018). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/14/ocasio-cortez-claims-have-fact-checkers-working-overtime.html Ocasio-Cortez claims have fact-checkers working overtime]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved August 14, 2018.</ref> so extreme that even ''The Washington Post'' pointed them out.<ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/10/fact-checking-alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-media-blitz/</ref><ref>Caralle, Katelyn (August 10, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/socialist-upstart-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-gets-fact-checked-by-the-washington-post Socialist upstart Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gets fact-checked by the Washington Post]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved August 11, 2018.</ref><ref>Athey, Amber (August 10, 2018). [https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/10/washington-post-fact-check-ocasio-cortez/ Washington Post Conducts Massive Fact Check on Ocasio-Cortez]. ''The Daily Caller''. Retrieved August 11, 2018.</ref>

Ocasio-Cortez believes debating issues of public policy is [[sexist]].<ref>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/please-dont-invite-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-to-a-debate-unless-she-has-formally-invited-you-to-send-an-invitation</ref> Ocasio-Cortez has banned the press from attending public speaking events.<ref>Starr, Penny (August 17, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/17/ocasio-cortez-blocks-access-campaign-event/ Ocasio-Cortez Blocks Press Access to Campaign Event]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 17, 2018.</ref><ref>Pappas, Alex (August 17, 2018). [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/17/ocasio-cortez-bans-press-from-covering-campaign-event.html Ocasio-Cortez bans press from covering campaign event]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved August 17, 2018.</ref>

Her campaign spent nearly $4,000 on [[Uber]] after she blamed the company for taxi driver suicides.<ref>Cawthorne, Cameron (August 24, 2018). [https://freebeacon.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-campaign-spends-nearly-4000-uber-blaming-companys-success-taxi-driver-suicides/ Ocasio-Cortez Campaign Spends Nearly $4,000 on Uber After Blaming Company’s Success for Taxi Driver Suicides]. ''The Washington Free Beacon''. Retrieved August 24, 2018.</ref> She has engaged in other examples of [[liberal hypocrisy]].<ref>Kirkwood, R. Cort (August 25, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/29875-hypocrisy-economic-illiteracy-alexandria-ocasio-cortez Hypocrisy + Economic Illiteracy = Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]. ''The New American''. Retrieved August 25, 2018.</ref>

Ocasio-Cortez could not restrain her racist attitudes toward white males in critizing the NeverPelosi movement.<ref>[https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/amp25093451/nancy-pelosi-speaker-democrat-opposition-tim-ryan-seth-moulton/ Nancy Pelosi's Democratic Opposition in Speaker Race Is Led by #FiveWhiteGuys Esquire, Esquire]</ref><ref>https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/19/ocasio-cortez-males-democrats-pelosi/</ref>

==See also==
*[[Road to Serfdom]]
*[[Liberal stupidity]]
*[[Xenophobia]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria}}
[[Category:Democrats]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
[[Category:Democratic Socialists]]
[[Category:Anti-Constitutionalists]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Latinos]]