Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Homosexuality

2014-03-30T01:30:42Z

Fnarrow: Undo revision 1081356 by Mcjcacmc (talk)

{{Homosexuality}}
'''Homosexuality''' is the condition of "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality</ref>

== Causes of homosexuality ==

[[Causes of Homosexuality|Homosexuality has a number of causal factors]] that influence its ultimate origination in individuals; these factors will be addressed shortly. In addition, homosexuality has a variety of effects on individuals and [[society]]. Next, some of the historical events, [[Religion|religious]] matters, and [[law|legal]] matters relating to homosexuality will be covered. Finally, the latter part of the 20th century has seen a [[Homosexuality Research|large body of research]] on the [[Causes of Homosexuality|causes]] and effects of homosexuality.

== Biblical statements concerning homosexuality ==
[[File:Prophet Moses.jpg|thumb|200px|left|The prophet [[Moses]] authored the book of [[Leviticus]] ]]
''For more information please see:'' [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]] and [[Homosexuality and the Bible]] and [[Atheism and homosexuality]]

Below are some [[Bible]] verses that condemn homosexuality:
* [[Leviticus]] 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
* [[Leviticus]] 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their [[blood]] guiltiness is upon them.
* [[Romans]] 1:26-27 - For this reason [[God]] gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%206:9;&version=31; I Corinthians 6:9] (NIV) - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
*[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Timothy%201:8-11;&version=49; I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB)] - "But we know that the [[Mosaic Law|Law]] is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and [[sin|sinners]], for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious [[gospel]] of the blessed [[God]], with which I have been entrusted."

__TOC__

== Homosexuality - Genetics, Religious Upbringing, Culture, Sexual Abuse, and Choice ==

For more information please see: [[Causes of Homosexuality]]

[[Image:325979 dna150.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[Columbia University]] [[psychiatry]] professors Drs. William Byrne and Bruce Parsons stated: "There is no evidence that at present to substantiate a [[biology|biological]] theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of [[psychosocial]] explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data".]]
===Terminology===
Homosexuality is sometimes also defined in terms of an attraction, preference, orientation, or [[sexual identity|identity]]. The term "orientation" is particularly favored by those who are promoting public acceptance of homosexuality.<ref>"Today a person is often said to have a homosexual or a heterosexual orientation, a description intended to defuse some of the long-standing sentiment among many [[Western World|Westerners]] that homosexuality is immoral or [[Pathology|pathological]]." Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed., 2001-2005 [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ho/homosexu.html]</ref>

===Genetics and Claims of the immutability of homosexuality===
''For more information please see'': [[Homosexuality and Genetics]]

A common argument is that an inclination to homosexuality is inborn and immutable. It is widely believed that the public will become more accepting of homosexuality if they are convinced that it is inborn and immutable. For example, [[Neuroscience|neuroscientist]] and homosexual Simon Levay stated: "...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights."<ref>[http://www.truenews.org/Homosexuality/homosexual_myths_and_facts.html Myths and facts about homosexuality]</ref>

[[Causes of Homosexuality|Research into the issue of the origins of homosexuality]] suggests that adoptive brothers are more likely to both be homosexuals than the biological brothers, who share half their [[gene]]s which suggests that homosexuality is not genetically caused. <ref>(''Science'', Vol. 262, page 2063, December 24, 1993)</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp</ref> This data prompted the journal ''Science'' to report "this . . . suggests that there is no genetic component, but rather an environmental component shared in families".<ref>(''Science'', Vol. 262, page 2063, December 24, 1993)</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp</ref> However, in regards to [[psychosocial]] and biological theories in regards to the origin of homosexuality, [[Columbia University]] [[psychiatry]] professors Drs. William Byrne and Bruce Parsons stated in 1994: "There is no evidence that at present to substantiate a [[biology|biological]] theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data".<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>

Dr. Tahir I. Jaz, M.D., Winnipeg, Canada states: "The increasing claims of being "[[Homosexuality and Genetics|born that way]]" parallels the rising political activism of homosexual organizations, who politicize the issue of homosexual origins. In the 1970s, approximately ten percent of homosexuals claimed to be "born homosexual" according to a large scale survey....However, in a survey in the 1980s, with the homosexual rights movement increasingly becoming active, thirty-five percent claimed to be born that way.<ref>http://www.flyfishingdevon.co.uk/salmon/year2/hormones/tahir.htm</ref>

===Religious Upbringing and Culture Can Strongly Affect Rates of Homosexuality===
''For more information please see'': [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]

Dr. Neil Whitehead is a research scientist and [[biochemistry|biochemist]] from [[New Zealand]] and is his wife Briar Whitehead is a writer.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/mygenes.html Book Review: My Genes Made Me Do It: A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation
by Neil and Briar Whitehead]</ref> Dr. Whitehead coauthored a book with with his wife entitled ''My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation'' which argues that there is no [[gene]]tic determinism in regards to homosexuality (homosexuals are "not born that way") and that there is abundant documentation that individuals are able to leave homosexuality and become heterosexuals.<ref>http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm</ref>
[[File:70810564 64d3a67932.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Homosexuality appears to be rare in [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]].]]
Dr. Whitehead and Briar Whitehead declared:
{{Cquote|If homosexuality were significantly influenced by [[gene]]s, it would appear in every culture, but in twenty-nine of seventy-nine cultures surveyed by Ford and Beach in 1952, homosexuality was rare or absent. It was very rare in the Siriono, even though there were no prohibitions on homosexual relationships in that culture. The researcher observed only one man displaying slight homosexual traits but apparently not sexually involved with another man. Homosexuality appears to be rare among [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]] [Orthodox Judaism forbids homosexuality], so much so that learned rabbis, the interpreters of [[Judaism|Jewish]] law, usually allowed men to sleep in the same bed, because likelihood of sexual contact was considered negligible. [[Alfred Kinsey|Kinsey]] also found very low homosexual incidence among Orthodox Jews...

This evidence comes from missionaries who commonly spend 25 years of their lives living in one culture, far more than almost any anthropologist....Overall they can be considered as reliable witnesses. For example, in contrast to groups like the Sambia in the [[New Guinea]] highlands, where homosexuality was compulsory, only about 2-3 percent of Western Dani (also in the New Guinea highlands) practiced it. However, in another group of Dani who were genetically related, homosexuality was totally unknown. Missionaries report that when they were translating the [[Bible]] into Dani for this group, their tribal assistants, who knew their own culture intimately, were nonplused by references to homosexuality in [[Romans]] 1; they did not understand the concept. Another missionary, with the same group for 25 years, overheard many jests and sexually ribald exchanges among the men, but never a single mention of homosexuality in all that time. When Dani went to help with missionary work among the Sambia, they were astounded at some of the homosexual practices they saw for the first time. Although it is always difficult for a foreigner to be completely sure whether a rare and stigmatized behavior exists, it is certainly true that if three such different experiences of homosexuality can occur in groups of people so closely related genetically, genetically enforced homosexuality is an impossibility.<ref>[http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation by Dr Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead - Chapter 6]</ref>}}

=== Religious leader and civil rights leader Martin Luther King viewed homosexuality as a problem ===

The religious leader and [[civil rights]] leader [[Martin Luther King]] (MLK) never championed the [[homosexual agenda]]. In fact, MLK saw homosexuality as probably a culturally induced "problem" and he believed that homosexuals could become [[ex-homosexuals]]. (see: [[Overcoming homosexuality]]).<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/mlk-homosexuality-a-problem-with-a-solution/ MLK: Homosexuality a 'problem' with a 'solution']</ref>

King wrote in a 1958 column: “The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” . “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/mlk-homosexuality-a-problem-with-a-solution/ MLK: Homosexuality a 'problem' with a 'solution']</ref>

===Individuals Raised in Large Cities Versus Individuals Raised in Suburbs, Towns, and Countrysides===
In 1994, the book ''Sex in America: A definitive survey'' by Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann, and Gina Kolata stated the following:
{{Cquote|We discovered that people who were raised in large cities were more likely to be homosexual than people who were raised in suburb, towns, or the countryside. This relationship also showed up in the General Social Survey, an independent national sample.<ref>[http://www.ucmpage.org/articles/jmiles9.html Sex in America: A definitive survey, Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann, and Gina Kolata, Boston, Little, Brown, 1994, page 182]</ref>}}

The aforementioned authors Dr. Whitehead and Briar Whitehead similarly wrote:
{{Cquote|There is a much higher incidence of homosexuality among those who have been raised in large cities, rather than in rural areas, arguing that the environment is much more powerful than genes in the development of homosexuality.<ref>http://www.mygenes.co.nz/summary.htm</ref>}}

===Failure of Experiments to Show Genetic Determinism For Homosexuality===

''For more information please see'': [[Failure of Experiments to Show Genetic Determinism For Homosexuality]]

Dr. Dean Hamer is a researcher often cited to show that there is empirical data supporting the notion of genetic [[determinism]] in regards to homosexuality. News organizations like [[National Public Radio]] and [[Newsweek]] have done news stories regarding his work.<ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html</ref> In respect to the press trumpeting various findings genetics-of-behavior research uncritically the science journal ''Science'' stated the following in 1994:
{{Cquote|Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or [[chromosome|chromosomal]] regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994)]</ref>}}

===Volition as a Causal Factor of Homosexuality - Homosexuality as a Choice===
In regards to the issue of [[Homosexuality and Choice|homosexuality and choice]], given the existence of [[ex-homosexuals]] and given the [[ Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|existence of human cultures where homosexuality has apparently not existed]], the position that homosexuality is ultimately a choice in individuals or at the very least can be a choice in individuals has strong evidential support. In short, there is a strong argument that one can [[Overcoming Homosexuality|leave homosexuality]].

Also, in 2012 ABC News reported concerning actress Cynthia Nixon: "Cynthia Nixon stands by her statement that she is gay by choice, despite the backlash she’s received from members of the gay community."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/01/cynthia-nixon-gay-by-choice/ Cynthia Nixon: Gay by Choice?]</ref> In addition, given that the [[Homosexuality and Health|homosexual population has significantly higher rates of many diseases and the homosexual population also has significantly lower rates of various measures of mental health]] it can be strongly argued that engaging in homosexual acts is a bad choice for individuals. Another other factor that makes engaging in homosexual acts a bad choice for individuals is the significantly higher rates of [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|domestic violence in homosexual couples]]. In addition, according to experts [[Homosexuality and Murders|homosexual murders are relatively or quite common and often homosexual murders are very brutal]]. Also, the [[Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use|homosexual population has a greater propensity to engage in illegal drug use]].

A 2003 poll done by Ellison Research of [[Phoenix]], [[Arizona]] stated that 82% of all [[United States|American]] [[Protestantism|Protestant]] ministers agreed with the statement “homosexuality is a choice people make".<ref>[http://www.greymatterresearch.com/index_files/Homosexuality.htm Opinions about homosexuality - Grey Matter Consulting]</ref>

== Ex-Homosexuals ==
[[Image:St Paul Preaching.jpg|left|thumb|200px|St. [[Paul]] defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)]]
''For more information please see'': [[Ex-Homosexuals]] and [[Overcoming Homosexuality]] and [[Resources on becoming a Christian]]

In regards to the question of whether or not homosexuality is a permanent condition, one of the earliest historical records regarding of the existence of [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexuals]] is a letter of the [[Paul|Apostle Paul]] to the [[Corinth|Corinthian]] [[Christianity|Christian]] church.

The Apostle Paul taught that [[Homosexuality and the Bible|homosexuality is a sin]] when he wrote the following:
{{cquote|Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the [[Kingdom of God|kingdom of God]]. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord [[Jesus Christ]] and by the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit]] of our [[God]]." - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV)}}

Today people still report leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual through their [[Christianity|Christian]] faith.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56481</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19650</ref><ref>http://www.venusmagazine.org/cover_story.html</ref><ref>http://www.frontlinemin.org/wasgay.asp</ref><ref>http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=13784</ref>
[[Image:6a00cdf3a9bf0ecb8f00cd973c56934cd5-500pi.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Ex-Homosexual and ex-"gay rights" leader Michael Glatze speaking to the mother of [[Matthew Shepard]].]]

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]]. Peter LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “[[Reparative Therapy|reparative therapy]]” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2007/09/16/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible/ Landmark study - Change for homosexuals is still possible]</ref>}}

In respect to Peter LaBarbera's statement above regarding homosexuals overcoming homosexuality through the power of God, in 1980 a study was published in the ''American Journal of Psychiatry'' and eleven men participated in this study. The aforementioned study in the ''American Journal of Psychiatry'' stated that eleven homosexual men became heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" through their participation in a [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]] church.<ref>E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, "'Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 137, pp. 1553-1562, 1980</ref> The [[Apostle Paul]] in a letter to the church of [[Corinth]] indicated that [[Christianity|Christians]] were able to overcome being drunkards through the power of [[Jesus Christ]] (I Corinthians 6:9-11).

Dr. Whitehead and Briar Whitehead state in their aforementioned book the following regarding ex-homosexuals [[Overcoming Homosexuality|overcoming homosexuality]]:
{{cquote|The sexology literature reports a huge number of examples of change of all degrees from homosexuality to or toward heterosexuality. These studies have been so numerous that West (a gay man) in 1977 took an entire chapter in his classic book, Homosexuality Re-examined, to review them, and commented: “Although some militant homosexuals find such claims improbable and unpalatable, authenticated accounts have been published of apparently exclusive and long-standing homosexuals unexpectedly changing their orientation.”

West mentions one man who was exclusively homosexual for eight years, then became heterosexual...

Another well known author in the field, Hatterer, who believes in sexual orientation change, said, “I’ve heard of hundreds of ... men who went from a homosexual to a heterosexual adjustment on their own.”<ref>[http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch12.pdf From the book My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation by Dr Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead -Chapter 12]</ref>}}

=== Hate Crime Law Misapplied to Ex-homosexual ===

See: [[Hate Crime Law Misapplied to Ex-homosexual]]

==Anti-Homosexuality Blogs==
Two of the more popular [[Anti-homosexuality blogs|anti-homosexuality blogs]] are [[Americans For Truth]] and [[Gay Christian Movement Watch]]. The blog Americans For Truth is run by [[Peter LaBarbera]] and the blog Gay Christian Movement Watch is run by Pastor D.L. Foster.

==2006 Survey Finds Homosexual Men Seek to Become Ex-homosexuals Often Do So to Heal Emotional Pain or For Spiritual Reasons==
A 2006 survey finds [[Homosexual Men|homosexual men]] [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06071302.html seek to leave homosexual lifestyle to heal emotional pain and for spiritual reasons rather than outside pressure.] In addition, there is [[Homosexuality and Mental Health|other data that supports the above 2006 survey findings]].
[[Image:FacProfilemontoya.jpg‎|right|150px|thumb|Dr. [[Alex D. Montoya]] wrote:"The [[Christianity|Christian]] needs to befriend and witness to the homosexual with such [[love]], [[compassion]], and [[wisdom]] that such will respond to the saving [[grace]] of [[God]]."<ref>[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj11h.pdf The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000), page 169, HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH, Alex D. Montoya (Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries)]</ref>]]

==Homosexuality and the Bible==

''For additional information please see'': [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]] and [[Homosexuality and the Bible]] and [[Atheism and homosexuality]]

In respect to [[Homosexuality and the Bible|homosexuality and the Bible]], sound [[Bible Exegesis|Bible exegesis]] and Bible exposition demonstrates that the Bible condemns homosexuality.<ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/romans_malick.pdf David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599(1993): 327-340]</ref><ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf David E. Malick, “The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 600 (1993): 479-492]</ref><ref>[http://www.phc.edu/gj_haas_hermen.php HERMENEUTICAL ISSUES IN THE USE OF THE BIBLE TO JUSTIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE, Guenther Haas, Redeemer College]</ref><ref>[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj11h.pdf The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000) 155-168 HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH, Alex D. Montoya (Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries)]</ref> In addition, [[Christianity|Christian]] apologist [[JP Holding]] refutes various arguments that assert that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romhom.html</ref><ref>http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gayjude.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html</ref> In his essay which examines the biblical passages regarding homosexuality, Pastor and Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries at [[The Master's Seminary]] Dr. [[Alex D. Montoya]] states that "The [[Christianity|Christian]] needs to befriend and witness to the
homosexual with such [[love]], [[compassion]], and [[wisdom]] that such will respond to the saving [[grace]] of [[God]]."<ref>[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj11h.pdf The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000), page 169, HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH, Alex D. Montoya (Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries)]</ref>

==Biblical City of Sodom, Homosexuality, and Archaeology ==
The [[Bible]] clearly associates the city of [[Sodom]] with homosexuality ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:4-9;&version=49; Genesis 19:4-9]), although [[Sodom|the Bible associates with Sodom other sins as well]]. Claims that the primary reason for Sodom's judgment was inhospitality are not supported by sound [[Bible exegesis]].<ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/480</ref>

The Bible states regarding Sodom:

...the LORD rained on Sodom and [[Gomorrah]] brimstone and fire from the LORD out of [[heaven]], and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:24-25;&version=49; Genesis 19:24-25]
=== Dr. Bryant Wood's Archaeological Investigation in Relation to Sodom ===
[[Image:Martin destruction sodom640x422.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Destruction of [[Sodom]] by [[God]]]]
The following was reported in respect to Dr. [[Bryant Wood]]'s archaeological work in relating to the biblical city of Sodom:
{{cquote|Most intriguing was evidence that a massive fire had destroyed the city. It lay buried under a coating of ash several feet thick. A cemetery one [[kilometer]] outside the city contained charred remains of roofs, posts, and bricks turned red from heat.

Dr. [[Bryant Wood]], in describing these charnel houses, stated that a fire began on the roofs of these buildings. Eventually the burning roof collapsed into the interior and spread inside the building. This was the case in every house they excavated. Such a massive fiery destruction would match the biblical account that the city was destroyed by fire that rained down from heaven. Wood states, "The evidence would suggest that this site of Bab edh-Drha is the biblical city of Sodom."<ref>[http://www.probe.org/content/view/31/77/ Archaeology and the Old Testament by Patrick Zukeran]</ref>}}

Dr. Wood provides some additional material in relation to the find being the biblical city of Sodom.<ref>[http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W0903.pdf The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Part 1 of 2]</ref><ref>[http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W1003.pdf The Discovery of the Sin Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah—Part 2]</ref>

==Homosexuality and Promiscuity ==

''For related information see'': [[Homosexuality and promiscuity]] and [[Homosexuality Statistics]]

A 2004 article by Michael Foust states:
{{cquote|A new study by a group of [[University of Chicago]] researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city's homosexual male population.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in [[Chicago]]'s Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area's homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found.

As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland -- known as Chicago's "gay center" -- have at least one [[Sexually Transmitted Disease|sexually transmitted disease]], researchers said.

The three-year study on the sexual habits of Chicago's citizens will appear in the upcoming book, "The Sexual Organization of The City" (University of Chicago Press), due out this spring.<ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=17458 Baptist Press, MARRIAGE DIGEST: New study: Homosexual men prone to promiscuity by Michael Foust (Posted on Jan 16, 2004)]</ref><ref>[http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/470318chap2.html An excerpt from The Sexual Organization of the City - Chapter 2 - The Chicago Health and Social Life Survey Design - concerning Chicago's "Shoreland" area]</ref>}}

== Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence ==

[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|170px|left|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".]]
For more information please see: [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence]]

Studies report that homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior. For example, a recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>2004 General Social Survey], Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref> According the [[American College of Pediatricians]] who cite several studies, "Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples."<ref>http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50</ref> In addition, the [[American College of Pediatricians]] states the following: "Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years."<ref>http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50</ref>

In June of 2004, the journal ''Nursing Clinics of North America'' reported the following regarding homosexuality and domestic violence:
{{cquote|Domestic abuse is under-reported in the gay community...

Male-on-male same-sex domestic violence also has been reported in couples where one or both persons are [[HIV]]-positive. Intimate partner abuse and violence include humilation, threatening to disclose HIV status, withholding HIV therapy, and harming family members or pets.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15159188 ''Nursing Clinics of North America'' 2004 Jun;39(2):403]</ref>}}

==Homosexuality and Murders==
''For more information please see'': [[Homosexuality and Murders]]

===Commonness of Homosexual Murder===
Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S. who is a former commander of Bronx homicide for the New York City Police Department stated in 1995 concerning [[Homosexuality and Murders|homosexuality and murders]] that homosexual murders are relatively common and these murders may involve male victims murdered by other males or may involve female victims who are in some type of [[lesbianism|lesbian]] relationship and they are murdered by another female.<ref>[http://www.practicalhomicide.com/Research/homoserial.htm Homosexual Serial Murder Investigation By Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S. Former Commander, Bronx Homicide, NYPD]</ref> In 2005, Dr. Harnam Singh, Dr. Luv Sharma, and Dr. Dhattarwal reported in the ''Journal of [[India|Indian]] Academy of Forensic Medicine'' in respect to homosexuality and murders that homosexual murders are quite common and that these murders may involve both sexes either as victims or as assailants.<ref>[http://medind.nic.in/jal/t05/i3/jalt05i3p184.pdf SEX RELATED HOMICIDES AND OFFENDERS -A MEDICO-LEGALISTS VIEW, Dr. Harnam Singh, Dr. Luv Sharma, Dr. S.K.Dhattarwal, ''Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine'', 2005 ; 27 (3). ISSN 0971 -0973]</ref>

===Homosexual Murders and Brutality===
==== Forensic Journal Articles on Homosexual Murders and Overkill====
[[File:11943452 115b299206.jpg|thumbnail|275px|right|The eminent pathologist Dr. [[William Eckert]] wrote concerning homosexual homicides: "Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and [[Lesbianism|lesbian]] murders, is certainly a form of [[sadism|sadistic]] crime."]]
There have been a number of forensic journal articles on the issue of homosexual homicides and overkill.<ref>Tedeschi CG, Eckert W, Tedeschi LG, eds. Forensic medicine; vol 2. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1977:962</ref><ref>[http://medind.nic.in/jal/t05/i3/jalt05i3p184.pdf SEX RELATED HOMICIDES AND OFFENDERS - A MEDICO-LEGALISTS VIEW, Dr. Harnam Singh, Dr. Luv Sharma, Dr. S.K.Dhattarwal, ''Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine'', 2005 ; 27 (3). ISSN 0971 -0973]</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8838474?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9430297?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum</ref><ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8947366?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum</ref>
In 1996, the forensic journal [[The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology]] published an article entitled ''Homicide in homosexual victims: a study of 67 cases from the Broward County, Florida, Medical Examiner's office (1982-1992), with special emphasis on "overkill"''. The abstract for the journal article states:
{{Cquote|Forensic pathologists often state that homosexual homicides are more violent than those with heterosexual victims. Overkill or wounding far beyond that required to cause death is a frequently used descriptor of these deaths. We quantified the number and extent of injuries between homosexual and heterosexual homicide victims to determine whether one group suffered more violence than the other...Homosexual homicides are more violent than heterosexual homicides when one compares the mean number of injuries (fatal sharp, blunt, and total)/case and the extent of injuries on the body.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8838474?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum</ref>}}

==== Dr. William Eckert on Homosexual Homicides and Overkill ====
According to the [[New York Times]], Dr. [[William Eckert]] was a world-renowned authority in the field of pathology and he worked on major murder cases including the assassination of Senator [[Robert F. Kennedy]] and the [[Charles Manson]] murders.<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2DE123FF937A1575AC0A96F958260 ''New York Times'', William Eckert, 73, Medical Sleuth in Major Cases By WILLIAM H. HONAN, September 24, 1999]</ref> Dr. Eckert founded the ''American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology''.<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E2DE123FF937A1575AC0A96F958260 ''New York Times'', William Eckert, 73, Medical Sleuth in Major Cases By WILLIAM H. HONAN, September 24, 1999]</ref> <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992160,00.html Time Magazine, Milestones by By VAL CASTRONOVO, MATTHEW COOPER, AUTUMN DE LEON, DANIEL S. LEVY, LINA LOFARO, CHRIS TAYLOR AND DAVID E. THIGPEN, October 9, 1999]</ref> According to ''[[Time]]'' magazine, Dr. Eckert was a pioneer who encouraged collaborative effort between law-enforcement and [[Forensic Science|forensics]] teams.<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992160,00.html Time Magazine, Milestones by By VAL CASTRONOVO, MATTHEW COOPER, AUTUMN DE LEON, DANIEL S. LEVY, LINA LOFARO, CHRIS TAYLOR AND DAVID E. THIGPEN, October 9, 1999]</ref>
[[Image:0-picture.jpg‎|thumbnail|180px|right|The eminent [[Pathology|pathologists]] [[Bernard Knight]] and [[Pekka Saukko]] stated that it is a fact that some of the most violent homicides seen by pathologists are among male homosexuals.<ref>Knight's Forensic Pathology',(3rd Ed) Saukko P. and B. Knight (2004) Arnold Publishers, London, page 428</ref>]]

Dr. Eckert wrote concerning homosexual murders:
{{cquote|Equally high is the number of homicides, many probably related to transient attachments, which often lead to suspicion, jealousy, and murder. When murder does occur it is exceptionally brutal with an overkill appearance... Overkill, as it is seen in homosexual and [[Lesbianism|lesbian]] murders, is certainly a form of sadistic crime. In these instances multiple stabbing and other brutal injuries...are common findings...<ref>Tedeschi CG, Eckert W, Tedeschi LG, eds. Forensic medicine; vol 2. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1977:962</ref>}}

==== Additional Source on Homosexual Murders and Overkill ====

''The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers'' by Michael Newton reports:
{{cquote|Homosexual slayers clearly have no monopoly on violence, but it is true that their crimes often display extremes of "overkill" and mutilation... On balance, it seems fair to say that while homosexuals sometimes fall prey to "gay bashing" violence by bigoted "straights," they are far more likely to be murdered by another homosexual than in a random [[Hate crime|hate crime]].<ref>The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers by Michael Newton, page 103</ref>}}

The previously cited pathology textbook by Knight and Saukko stated the following: "In addition, quite a number of fatal altercations arise because a heterosexual man becomes violent when importuned by a homosexual."<ref>Knight's Forensic Pathology',(3rd Ed) Saukko P. and B. Knight (2004) Arnold Publishers, London, page 428-429</ref>

== Homosexuality and bestiality ==

=== Prominent homosexual activist and Frank Kameny's comments on bestiality ===

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality and bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]

Homosexual activist Frank Kameny is a fervent [[Atheism|atheist]].<ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2006/11/15/gay-hero-frank-kameny-calls-believers-christianofascists-says-gay-is-moral-and-virtuous-at-task-force-conference/ ‘Gay’ Hero Frank Kameny Calls Believers “Christianofascists”; Library of Congress Honors “Gay Is Godly” Atheist]</ref><ref>Leaders from the 1960s: a biographical sourcebook of American activism By David De Leon, page 253</ref>

On Jun 04, 2008, [[LifeSiteNews]] wrote:
{{cquote|Long-time homosexual activist Frank Kameny’s claim to fame is successfully manipulating the American Psychiatric Association into declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder, and today the Smithsonian honoree is now busily advocating [[bestiality]] "as long as the animal doesn’t mind."

Kameny, 83, has had a long career advocating the removal of any restrictions on human acts long considered by sane societies as obscene, dangerous, and disordered...

Kameny describes his mission as "Americanism in action" by advocating bestiality and encouraging the saturation of American culture with what he calls "more and better and harder-core pornography."

According to [[Americans For Truth|Americans for Truth about Homosexuality]] (AFTAH), Kameny wrote an e-mail to them saying that while he was personally opposed to bestiality, he found it an otherwise "harmless" quirk, so long as it was consensual with the animal involved.

"Bestiality is not my thing," Kameny wrote. "But it seems to be a harmless foible or idiosyncrasy of some people. So, as long as the animal doesn’t mind (and the animal rarely does), I don’t mind, and I don’t see why anyone else should."<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/jun/08060403 Prominent Homosexual Activist Says Bestiality OK “As Long as the Animal Doesn’t Mind”]</ref>}}

=== Homosexuals March in Madrid Cheering Bestiality ===

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality and bestiality]]

On July 14, 2009, in a story entitled ''Homosexuals March in Madrid Cheering Bestiality and Demanding “Affective-Sexual Diversity” in School'', [[LifeSiteNews]] reported concerning a homosexual parade in Spain:
{{cquote|"I like dogs, I like apples, in my bed I sleep with whomever I want," was one of the principal chants in the Gay Pride Parade last week in Madrid, where hundreds of thousands marched through the streets to advocate "gay rights" and homosexualist ideology, according to local media reports.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexuals-march-in-madrid-cheering-bestiality-and-demanding-affective-sex Homosexuals March in Madrid Cheering Bestiality and Demanding “Affective-Sexual Diversity” in School]</ref>}}

==Lesbianism==
[[Image:Schnieders.jpg‎|thumb|150px|Yvette Cantu Schneider and family]]
Women who engage in homosexuality are called ''[[Lesbianism|lesbians]]'' (after the ancient Greek island of [[Lesbos]]). Recently, the former lesbian activist Charlene Cothran left homosexuality and converted her pro-homosexuality magazine to one that helps homosexuals find freedom and deliverance through faith in [[Jesus Christ]].<ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2007/10/11/ex-lesbian-charlene-cothran-tells-aftah-banquet-that-born-gay-claim-is-vicious-lie/ Ex-Lesbian Charlene Cothran Tells AFTAH Banquet that ‘Born Gay’ Claim Is ‘Vicious Lie’]</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQGA-n4JyOY Charlene Cothran - Gay Activist Finds Christ - video]</ref> Lesbian activist Yvette Cantu Schneider also became a Christian and left homosexuality.<ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2007/06/22/ex-lesbian-yvette-schneider-testifies-to-complete-and-permanent-change/ Ex-Lesbian Yvette Schneider Testifies to ‘Complete’ and Permanent Change]</ref>
<ref>[http://familypolicy.net/hope/?p=607 Yvette Cantu Schneider]</ref>

In 2007, [[WorldNetDaily]] published the following regarding a lesbian woman:
{{Cquote|A 53-year-old university professor and campaigner for legalized same-sex marriage in the UK said she was once a married "happy heterosexual" who had no doubts about her sexual orientation, but political activity and involvement in [[feminism|feminist]] causes "changed" her into a lesbian.<ref>[http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56458 Hetero woman: Feminism turned me into lesbian: 'I'd had a very happy marriage and a very good relationship with men']</ref>}}

==Health Effects of Homosexual Lifestyle==
''For more information please see'': [[Homosexuality and health]] and [[Gay bathhouses]]
===AIDS===
[[Image:Biol 01 img0018.jpg|thumb|200px|left|[[Human Immunodeficiency Virus]] attacking T4 [[lymphocyte]]s]]
A review of the history of [[Homosexuality and AIDS|homosexuality and AIDS]], indicates the original spread of [[AIDS]] is generally attributed to the aforementioned promiscuity of homosexual men. Originally the syndrome was called the "gay disease" because the overwhelming majority of patients were homosexual men.

In September of 2010, [[Reuters]] reported: "Nearly one in five gay and bisexual men in 21 major U.S. cities are infected with HIV, and nearly half of them do not know it".<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/23/us-aids-usa-idUSTRE68M3H220100923</ref> A September 2010 report of the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) reported : "Gay, [[bisexual]], and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by [[HIV]] and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States..."<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm</ref>

In August of 2009, LifeSiteNews reported: "An official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced the CDC's estimate Monday that in the United States AIDS is fifty times more prevalent among men who have sex with men ('MSM') than the rest of the population."<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/aug/09082609</ref> This is a dramatic recent increase. In June of 2004, the journal ''Nursing Clinics of North America'' reported that homosexual men and men who have sex with men "are nine times more likely to become infected with [[HIV]] than their heterosexual counterparts".<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15159188 Nursing Clinics of North America North Am. 2004 Jun;39(2):403]</ref> Of newly diagnosed [[HIV]] infections in the [[United States]] during the year 2003, the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) estimated that about 63% were among men who were infected through sexual contact with other men.<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a2.htm</ref>
As of 1998, fifty-four percent of all AIDS cases in the United States were homosexual men, and the CDC stated that nearly ninety percent of these men acquired HIV through sexual activity with other men.<ref>http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0088.html</ref>

In 2004, Jeffrey D. Klausner, Robert Kohn, and Charlotte Kent reported in the journal ''Clinical Infectious Diseases'' the following: "[[Proctitis]], or inflammation of the rectum, is a condition that is not uncommon among men who have sex with men (MSM), and, in HIV-negative men, greatly increases the risk of acquiring [[HIV]] infection. With the recent increases in bacterial sexually transmitted diseases ([[STD]]s) among MSM in the [[United States]] and [[Europe]], there has been a concomitant increase in the number of cases of clinical proctitis."<ref>[http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/2/300.abstract Jeffrey D. Klausner, Robert Kohn, and Charlotte Kent, Etiology of Clinical Proctitis among Men Who Have Sex with Men, Clinical Infectious Diseases 2004;38:300-302]</ref> On March 15, 2004 [[Medscape]] published an article by John G. Bartlett, M.D. entitled ''New Look at "[[Gay Bowel Syndrome]]"'' in which they commented on the aforementioned 2004 journal article ''Etiology of clinical proctitis among men who have sex with men'' published by JD Klausner and C. Kent in the journal ''Clinical Infectious Diseases''. The article in Medscape stated the following:
{{cquote|There were multiple studies of the newly recognized "[[Gay Bowel Syndrome|gay bowel syndrome]]" in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, subsequent attention and study has been sparse, in part attributed to reduced frequency thought to reflect changing practices by gay men in response to the [[HIV]] epidemic. This study clearly indicates that it is still an issue, since the cases were studied in 2001-2002. Also, the etiology is about the same as previously, although [[HSV]] is newly recognized as an important component. This finding not only affects management but also has HIV prevention implications. The authors note that two thirds of the participants were HIV negative and that proctitis increases the risk of HIV by up to 9-fold.<ref>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4</ref>}}

Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website has a duplicate of the aforementioned article by John G. Bartlett, M.D. at Medscape which was entitled ''New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"''.<ref>[http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/literature_review/02-2004/new_look_at_gay_bowel_syndrome.html Johns Hopkins HIV Guide - duplicate of Medscape's New Look at Gay Bowel Syndrome]</ref>

In 2004, the prominent medical website, WebMD, stated the following: "Men who have sex with men and women are a "significant bridge for HIV to women," the CDC's new data suggest."<ref>http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/20061101/hiv-bisexual-bridge-to-women</ref>

==== Teenage AIDS and Teenage homosexuality ====

See: [[Teenage homosexuality]] and [[Teenage AIDS]]

===Homosexuality and MRSA===
[[Image:Mrsa_4.jpg‎|thumbnail|225px|right|In 2008, the ''Annals of Internal Medicine'' reported that infection with multidrug-resistant USA300 MRSA is common among men who have sex with men, and multidrug-resistant MRSA infection might be sexually transmitted in this population.]]
In relation to [[Homosexuality and MRSA|homosexuality and MRSA]], on January 15, 2008 the newspaper [[San Francisco Chronicle]] had a news article entitled ''[[San Francisco]] gay community an epicenter for new strain of virulent staph.''<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/15/MNI5UE0L8.DTL</ref> The [[San Francisco Chronicle]] news article stated the following in regards to homosexuality and [[MRSA]]:
{{Cquote|A new variety of staph bacteria, highly resistant to antibiotics and possibly transmitted by sexual contact, is spreading among gay men in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles, researchers reported Monday.<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/15/MNI5UE0L8.DTL</ref>}}

On February 19, 2008 the ''Annals of Internal Medicine'' published a study regarding antiobiotic resistant staph infection in relation to men who have sex with men and the abstract for the article states the following in relation to homosexuality and MRSA:
{{Cquote|Infection with multidrug-resistant USA300 MRSA is common among men who have sex with men, and multidrug-resistant MRSA infection might be sexually transmitted in this population.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18283202?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum</ref>}}

==== Homosexuality and Syphilis ====
[[Image:Ro0304F8Treponema.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|A [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] analysis suggested that approximately 64 percent of all adult primary and secondary syphilis cases in 2004 were among men who have sex with men.]]
[[Syphilis]] is an infection caused by the [[bacteria]] Treponema pallidum. An early publication to propose the link between homosexuality contributing to the spread of sexually transmitted disease was the [[England|English]] publication '' Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine'' in 1962.<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1896863 A.J. King, The Complications of Homosexuality, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Volume 55 October 1962]</ref> The '' Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine'' made the following statement: "The importance of homosexual practices in the spread of [[Venereal Disease|venereal disease]]s has attracted particular attention recently. It almost seems that these practices are keeping [[syphilis]] alive in this country." <ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1896863 A.J. King, The Complications of Homosexuality, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Volume 55 October 1962]</ref>

The news organization [[Cybercast News Service]] reported the following about [[Homosexuality and Syphilis|homosexuality and syphilis]]:
{{cquote|The federal [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) says homosexual men accounted for 65 percent of the nearly 12,000 cases of syphilis in the United States in 2007, making them the “primary driver” of increased syphilis rates overall.

In a report on sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) issued Tuesday, the government said syphilis, a disease that was almost eliminated as a public health threat less than 10 years ago, is on the rise -- with cases increasing each year since 2000.<ref>[http://cnsnews.com/news/article/homosexual-men-account-65-percent-syphilis-cases-cdc-study-finds Homosexual Men Account for 65 Percent of Syphilis Cases, CDC Study Finds]</ref>}}

===Homosexuality and Gonorrhea===

In relation to [[Homosexuality and Gonorrhea|homosexuality and gonorrhea]], in 2006, the American Association of Family Physicians reported: "Men who have sex with men (MSM) have high rates of gonococcal infection. In [[San Francisco]], more than one half of these infections occur in MSM, and previous cross-sectional studies have reported a prevalence of up to 15.3 percent in this group."<ref>http://www.aafp.org/afp/2007/0615/p1860.html</ref>
[[Image:Neisseriagon.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|[[Gonorrhea]] is a [[sexually transmitted disease]] (STD) caused by the bacterium ''[[Neisseria gonorrhoeae]]''.]]
In 2007, the medical journal ''Sexually Transmitted Diseases'' published an article entitled ''Sexually Transmitted Infections in Western Europe Among HIV-Positive Men Who Have Sex With Men'' which stated the following regarding homosexuality and gonorrhea:
{{cquote|"Since the late 1990s, increases in diagnoses and rates of gonorrhea have been observed across the region, although recently there has been evidence of a levelling off and even a decline in some countries.

In [[Denmark]] (1994–1999), gonorrhea incidence was 6 times higher among known [[HIV]]-positive MSM [men who have sex with men]... A study in a [[Paris|Parisian]] clinic showed that at least one-third (30/92) of MSM diagnosed with gonorrhea between January 1999 and May 2001 were HIV-positive... In [[Sweden]], 5.4% (4/74) of gonorrhea cases were in HIV-positive MSM in 2000. By comparison, at sentinel sites in [[England]] and [[Wales]], 32% (123/381) of MSM with gonorrhea were HIV-positive in 2004.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17495592&ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum ''Sexually transmitted infections in Western Europe among HIV-positive men who have sex with men'',''Sexually Transmitted Diseases'' 2007 Oct;34(10):783-90.]</ref>}}

===Homosexuality and Lymphogranuloma Venereum Outbreaks===
[[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|Lymphogranuloma venereum]] is a [[sexually transmitted disease]] that mainly infects the [[lymphatic system|lymphatics]].<ref>http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic304.htm</ref> According to the recent medical literature, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay_Bowel_Syndrome#Lymphogranuloma_Venereum_Outbreaks_Among_Homosexuals_and_HIV_Infection there have been recent outbreaks of lymphogranuloma venereum in Europe and North America and the outbreaks have been limited to the homosexual community.]
==== Homosexuality and Parasites ====
[[Image:Ehistolytica05.jpg|thumb|right|180px|Throughout the world, high rates of intestinal [[parasite|parasitism]] are found in men who have sex with men.]] Concerning the issue of [[Homosexuality and Parasites|homosexuality and parasites]], anal sex can be an important risk factor for [[Intestines|intestinal]] [[Parasite|parasitism]].<ref>http://www.springerlink.com/content/jx13231641717w48/</ref>

In 2006, the ''[[The Medical Journal of Australia]]'' reported the following:
{{cquote|High rates of intestinal parasitism are found in MSM [men who have sex with men] throughout the world.

[[Amebiasis|Amoebiasis]] has become endemic in MSM in [[Japan]] and causes significant morbidity and mortality; complications such as colitis and liver abscesses occur more frequently in homosexual and bisexual men than in heterosexual men. Similar findings on amoebiasis are reported from [[Taiwan]], with MSM at increased risk for invasive amoebiasis and intestinal colonisation with [[Entamoeba Histolytica|E. histolytica]].<ref>[http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/185_08_161006/sta10803_fm.html ''Letter to the editor - Locally acquired infection with Entamoeba histolytica in men who have sex with men in [[Australia]]'', Damien J Stark, Rashmi Fotedar, John T Ellis and John L Harkness, MJA 2006; 185 (8): 417]</ref>}}

In 2001, The journal ''Internal Medicine (Tokyo, Japan)'' published an article entitled ''Amebiasis in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome'' in which they stated the following the following:
{{cquote|While the overall prevalence of [[amebiasis]] is approximately 4% in the [[United States]], certain high-risk groups have a much higher incidence of infection and [[disease]]. Prevalence of [[Entamoeba Histolytica|E. historylitica]] or [[Entamoeba Dispar|E. dispar]] in the gay population of [[New York City]] and [[San Francisco]] approached 40-50% . Some Japanese literature also showed homosexual contact was an important risk factor for amebic infection.<ref>[http://www.journalarchive.jst.go.jp/jnlpdf.php?cdjournal=internalmedicine1992&cdvol=40&noissue=7&startpage=563&lang=en&from=jnlabstract Amano K, Takeuchi T., ''Amebiasis in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome''. Intern Med. 2001 Jul;40(7):563-4]</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11506293&ordinalpos=11&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Amano K, Takeuchi T., ''Amebiasis in acquired immunodeficiency syndrome''. Intern Med. 2001 Jul;40(7):563-4]</ref>}}

===Higher Rates of Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Lymphogranuloma Venereum, and Amebiases Elaborated===
[[Sexually transmitted disease]]s that cause [[proctitis]] include [[syphilis]], [[gonorrhea]], [[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|lymphogranuloma venereum]], and [[amebiasis]] and as noted earlier the homosexual community has significant problems in regards to these illnesses.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/proctitis/DS00705/DSECTION=3</ref> <ref>http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001139.htm</ref><ref>http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec09/ch130/ch130f.html</ref> In addition, as mentioned earlier proctitis significant risk factor in respect to [[HIV]] infection.<ref>[http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/literature_review/02-2004/new_look_at_gay_bowel_syndrome.html Johns Hopkins HIV Guide - duplicate of Medscape's New Look at Gay Bowel Syndrome]</ref><ref>[http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4 Medscape - New Look at "Gay Bowel Syndrome"]</ref> According to the Mayo Clinic, "proctitis in general mainly affects adult males".<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/proctitis/DS00705</ref>
[[Proctitis]], [[syphilis]], [[gonorrhea]], [[Lymphogranuloma Venereum|lymphogranuloma venereum]], and [[amebiasis]] are all maladies that are associated with [[Gay Bowel Syndrome|gay bowel syndrome]] which why John G. Bartlett, M.D. stated at the Johns Hopkins HIV Guide website and at [[Medscape]] that gay bowel syndrome is still currently an issue.<ref>[http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/literature_review/02-2004/new_look_at_gay_bowel_syndrome.html Johns Hopkins HIV Guide - duplicate of Medscape's New Look at Gay Bowel Syndrome]</ref><ref>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470936_4</ref>

===Homosexuality and Hepatitis===
[[Image:Hepatitis-c(1).gif‎|thumbnail|225px|right|Hepatitis C Virus]]
''For more information please see'': [[Homosexuality and Hepatitis]]

In relation to [[Homosexuality and Hepatitis|homosexuality and hepatitis]], according to the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]] (CDC) both [[Hepatitis]] A and Hepatitis B disproportionately affects men who have sex with men (MSM).<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/msm/hav_msm_fact.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/msm/hbv_msm_fact.htm</ref>

In a 2007 article entitled ''Advances in the Management of Viral Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Infection in HIV-Coinfected Patients'' Vincent V. Soriano, MD, PhD reported in [[Medscape]] the following regarding homosexuality and Hepatitis C viral infections:
{{cquote|Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has not been thought to be efficiently transmitted through sexual contact. However, recent reports of outbreaks of acute hepatitis C among men who have sex with men (MSM) have changed this view. British researchers examined 7223 MSM who attended a single clinic in Brighton, United Kingdom, since 2000. The study investigators reported that highly risky sexual practices along with multiple sex partners explained the increase in episodes of acute HCV infection in this population.<ref>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/554156</ref>}}

Viral hepatitis is one of the illnesses of [[Gay Bowel Syndrome|gay bowel syndrome]].

===Homosexuality and Shigellosis===
[[Image:Gech 0001 0004 0 img0247.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|[[Shigella]] [[bacteria]] cause [[shigellosis]]]]
Men who have sex with men (MSM) [http://www.conservapedia.com/Gay_Bowel_Syndrome#Shigellosis.2C_Proctitis.2C_and_HIV_Infection appear to have a greater incidences of the malady shigellosis]. Shigellosis is a condition associated with [[Gay Bowel Syndrome|gay bowel syndrome]].

===Peter LaBarbera and His Calls to Shut Down Homosexual Bathhouses===

''For more information please see'': [[Gay bathhouses]]

[[Peter LaBarbera]], president of [[Americans for Truth]], stated the following about [[Gay bathhouses|gay bathhouses]]:
{{cquote|Why isn’t there a concerted government effort — akin to the current anti-smoking campaigns — to reign in homosexual promiscuity – beginning with closing down all sex businesses (bathhouses) that facilitate homosexual perversion? (Of course, we favor closing down straight prostitution businesses as well.) We know that bisexual behavior (men on the “down low”) help spread dangerous diseases to the general population: how many deaths and illnesses have to result from “second-hand sodomy” before authorities take corrective action?<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/news/big-city-homosexual-men-are-epicenter-of-new-virulent-mrsa-staff-strain.html</ref>}}

=== Homosexuality and Mental Health ===
[[Image:Desperation_man.jpg‎|thumb|225px|right|Studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems ([[suicide]], [[depression]], [[bulimia]], antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse).<ref>http://www.healthyplace.com/communities/Gender/Site/depression/mental_problems.htm</ref> ]]
In respect to [[Mental Health and Homosexuality|homosexuality and mental health]], studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from psychiatric problems ([[suicide]], [[depression]], [[bulimia]], antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse).<ref>http://www.healthyplace.com/communities/Gender/Site/depression/mental_problems.htm</ref>

For example, a national survey of female homosexuals was published in the ''Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology'' which found that 75 percent of the approximate 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some type, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness.<ref>Book: Disabusing Sexuality By Canon Nathan Karema, page 23</ref>

In contrast to claims by [[gay rights]] activists blaming this heightened incidence of mental issues on discrimination, John R. Diggs, M.D. states the following regarding homosexuality and mental health:
{{Cquote|An extensive study in the [[Netherlands]] undermines the assumption that [[homophobia]] is the cause of increased psychiatric illness among gays and lesbians. The [[Netherlands|Dutch]] have been considerably more accepting of same-sex relationships than other [[Western World|Western countries]] — in fact, same-sex couples now have the legal right to marry in the Netherlands. So a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with homosexual behavior in the Netherlands means that the psychiatric disease cannot so easily be attributed to social rejection and homophobia.<ref>http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html</ref>}}

==== It Gets Better Project ====

''See also:'' [[Atheism and suicide]]

The [[It Gets Better project]] is a misguided liberal project to prevent young homosexuals from committing suicide and it does not encourage young people to become [[ex-homosexuals]]. In January of 2012, [[Vox Day]] reported that two homosexual males who promoted the It Gets Better project committed suicide. (see also: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]).<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/01/it-really-doesnt-get-better.html</ref>

===Homosexuality and Cigarette Smoking===

[[Image:A24987~.jpg‎|thumb|right|175px|The recent medical literature states the homosexual men and lesbians in the [[United States]] have significantly higher rates of cigarrete smoking than [[heterosexuality|heterosexuals]].]]

In relation to [[Homosexuality and Smoking|homosexuality and smoking]], the recent medical literature states the homosexual men and lesbians in the [[United States]] have significantly higher rates of cigarette smoking than [[heterosexuality|heterosexuals]].<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15456993&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus Cigarette smoking among lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: how serious a problem? (United States), Cancer Causes & Control, 2004 Oct;15(8):797-803]</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17018152&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus Gay/Lesbian sexual orientation increases risk for cigarette smoking and heavy drinking among members of a large Northern California health plan, BMC Public Health. 2006 Oct 3;6:241]</ref>

===Homosexuality and Anal Cancer===
In June of 2004, the journal ''Nursing Clinics of North America'' reported the following regarding [[Homosexuality and Anal Cancer|homosexuality and anal cancer]]:
{{cquote|One of the more pressing issues for gay men is anal [[carcinoma]]. Several recent studies have indicated the rate of anal dysplasia to be increasing in men with and without [[HIV]]. Ninety percent of men with HIV have the human papiloma virus ([[HPV]]), while 65% of men without HIV have HPV. HVP type 16 is the most troublesome for developing [[cancer]] and is found in a significant portion of gay men.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15159188 Nursing Clinics of North America North Am. 2004 Jun;39(2):404]</ref>}}

In 1997, [[Concerned Women of America]] reported the following regarding homosexuality and anal cancer:
{{cquote|Homosexual men's practice of anal sex has left many of them victims of anal [[cancer]]. One article in the ''New England Journal of Medicine'' commented, "Our study lends strong support to the hypothesis that homosexual behavior in men increases the risk of anal cancer: 21 of the 57 men with anal cancer (37 percent) reported that they were homosexual or bisexual, in contrast to only one of 64 controls." The [[JAMA|Journal of the American Medical Association]] also published similar findings: "[[Epidemiology|Epidemiological]] studies have shown that risk factors for anal cancer include homosexuality, history of receptive anal intercourse, presence of anal condylomata, and smoking." And the ''International Journal of Cancer'' stated, "Being single and having practised anal intercourse appears to be associated with anal cancer and case reports have suggested a recent increase in the number of cases of anal cancer." Other studies have yielded the same conclusions.<ref>Concerned women of America - former website page</ref>}}

=== Homosexuality and obesity ===

[[File:Stephen-Fry.jpg|thumbnail|250px|right|Stephen Fry is a [[homosexual]] and an [[atheist]]. ]]

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]

[[Peter LaBarbera]] wrote:
{{cquote|The National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys are given to high schoolers, and the [[Centers for Disease Control]] looked at the data from 2001 to 2009 in the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and the cities of Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, New York City, San Francisco and San Diego, locales where the schools permitted questions about homosexual identity/behavior, which isn’t always the case in less “progressive” areas.

Teens who called themselves “gay, lesbian or bisexual,” or who were unsure, as well as those who didn’t use those labels but had sexual contact only with same-sex people or with both sexes, were found to be more likely than heterosexually identified students to engage in seven out of the 10 risk behavior categories. These were: 1) behaviors that contribute to violence; 2) behaviors related to attempted suicide; 3) tobacco use; 4) alcohol use; 5) other drug use; 6) sexual behaviors; and''' 7) weight management.''' (emphasis added)<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2011/06/24/wrong-diagnosis-wrong-cure-harvey-assails-cdcs-pro-gay-youth-spin/#more-9505</ref>}}

Peter LaBarbera also wrote: "Anyone who has researched the subject of homosexuality knows that many of the most staunch advocates of homosexuality are those who hold a decidedly secular outlook." (For more information please see: [[Atheism and obesity]]).<ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2008/05/03/homosexuality-and-atheism/ Homosexuality and atheism]</ref>

==== American Lesbian Women More Than Twice as Likely to Be Obese Than All other Female Sexual Orientation Groups====
[[File:11834504 3cc3c49559.jpg|255px|right|thumbnail|In April of 2007, the ''American Journal of Public Health'' analyzed data from 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and the data suggested that [[United States|American]] lesbian women were 2.69 times more likely to be overweight and 2.47 times more likely to be obese than all other female sexual orientation groups.
<ref name="ajph">[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17463369&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Overweight and Obesity in Sexual-Minority Women: Evidence From Population-Based Data, Ulrike Boehmer, Deborah J. Bowen, Greta R. Bauer, American Journal of Public Health, 2007 Jun;97(6):1134-40. E pub 2007 Apr 26.]</ref>
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/wader/11834504/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
''For more information please see:'' [[Lesbianism and Obesity]]

In 2013, the [[National Institutes of Health]] (NIH) reported that 75% of American [[lesbianism|lesbians]] are [[obese]].<ref>[http://cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-spend-15-million-study-why-lesbians-are-fat Feds Spend $1.5 Million to Study Why Lesbians Are Fat - CNS News]</ref> In addition, in April of 2007 the'' American Journal of Public Health'' analyzed data from 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and the data suggested that [[United States|American]] lesbian women were 2.69 times more likely to be overweight and 2.47 times more likely to be obese than all other female sexual orientation groups.
<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17463369&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Overweight and Obesity in Sexual-Minority Women: Evidence From Population-Based Data, Ulrike Boehmer, Deborah J. Bowen, Greta R. Bauer, American Journal of Public Health, 2007 Jun;97(6):1134-40. E pub 2007 Apr 26.]</ref> The abstract for this study indicated that "lesbians are at greater risk for morbidity and mortality linked to overweight and obesity." <ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17463369&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Overweight and Obesity in Sexual-Minority Women: Evidence From Population-Based Data, Ulrike Boehmer, Deborah J. Bowen, Greta R. Bauer, American Journal of Public Health, 2007 Jun;97(6):1134-40. E pub 2007 Apr 26.]</ref>

In 2009, the ''PubMed'' article abstract for the Polish psychiatry journal ''Psychiatria Polska'' article ''Body Image in [[Homosexual]] Persons'' declared:
{{Cquote|Homosexual women are less concentrated on physical appearance and more satisfied with their bodies while being more tolerant to obesity.... For lesbian women the ideal body image is more massive than for heterosexual women.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19694404?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1</ref>}}

In 2007, a purported [[lesbian]] wrote to [[Andrew Sullivan]], the political commentator and administrator of ''The Daily Dish'' blog:
{{Cquote|And - oh heck, I'll admit it - aesthetics have value, too! As a woman, I may not be as focused on looks as men are predisposed to be, but I sure am tired of seeing so many queer ladies out there who are way past 200 pounds. Way, way past. Sorry, but no amount of "fat acceptance" is going to make that a pleasant sight - gay, straight, butch, femme, male or female.<ref>http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/obesity_and_les.html</ref>}}

===Bible Prohibition Against Homosexuality and Sound Health Practices===
Given the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases associated with homosexuality]], the [[Bible|biblical]] prohibition against homosexuality is arguably one of the many examples where the [http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time.]

==Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use==
''For more information please see:'' [[Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use]] and [[Homosexual activists' ideology and loss of life]]
[[Image:Powder meth foil small.jpg|thumb|right|255px|In 2007, the ''Los Angeles Times'' reported the frequency of [[methamphetamine]] use is twenty times greater among homosexuals than in the general population.]]
In 2007, the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' reported the frequency of [[methamphetamine]] use is twenty times greater among homosexuals than in the general population.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/methuse.html ''More Gay Men Using Meth, Study Finds,''] by R. Rosenblatt, Los Angeles Times, April 11, p. B6.</ref>

In January of 2007, the journal ''AIDS (London, England)'' in an article entitled ''Use of illicit drugs among gay men living with HIV in Sydney'' stated the following: "Higher rates of illicit drug use have been reported among gay men than among similar populations of heterosexual men..."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17159587&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus AIDS (London, England), 2007 Jan;21 Suppl 1:S49-55]</ref>

In June of 2004, the journal ''Nursing Clinics of North America'' reported the following regarding homosexuality and illegal drug use:
{{Cquote|...the increased use of recreational or party drugs such as ectasy, "poppers", and [[methamphetamine]] ("crystal meth") influence unsafe sexual behaviors in gay men. Many of these illicit drugs are used during "circuit parties," in which gay men from various geographical locales congregrate in one large metropolitan community over an extended 2- or 3-day period for the purposes of intense partying and sexual activity.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15159188 Nursing Clinics of North America North Am. 2004 Jun;39(2):403</ref>}}

See also: [[Homosexual circuit parties and disease|homosexual circuit parties and disease]]

==Homosexuality and the Suppression of Religious Liberty==
''For more information please see'': [[Homosexuality and Religious Liberty]]
[[Image:Wicked.jpg|thumb|left|150px|The book ''When the Wicked Seize a City'' recounts how Pastor [[Chuck McIlhenny]] and his church were terrorized by homosexual activists.]]
There have been a notable number of incidents involving the issue of [[Homosexuality and Religious Liberty|homosexuality and the suppresion of religious liberty]] in regards to dissent and the objectionableness of homosexuality.

*Dr. [[Chuck McIlhenny]] served as pastor of San Francisco's First Orthodox [[Presbyterian]] Church for numerous years.<ref>[http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=123 Fighting the good fight in San Francisco]</ref> In 1978 Dr. McIlhenny co-authored a book which recounted how he was threatened and his church and home firebombed by homosexual activists subsequent to a lawsuit he won regarding the church's right to fire its organist who was homosexual.<ref>http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/printerfriendly.asp?ID=10262</ref>Dr. McIlhenny's home was firebombed while his family was sleeping inside.<ref>[http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=123 Fighting the good fight in San Francisco]</ref>

*The [[documentary film]] [[A Nation Adrift]] chronicles some of the events that took place during the [[Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot|Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot]] in [[San Francisco]] in which a angry group of male homosexuals and [[lesbian]]s vandalized church property, assaulted church members, terrorized church congregates, screamed profanity, threw rocks, harassed and scared children, and disrupted a church service.<ref>[[Christianity Today]], November 8, 1993, v37, page 57</ref><ref>[http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/articlesRiotsSep1993.htm The Homosexual and Lesbian Riots of September 19, 1993], David C. Innes, News Release. </ref> <ref>[http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/articlesRiots_Barko_Account.htm The Homosexual and Lesbian Riots], A Member's Perspective, Hap Barko, October 28, 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41037 'Finest video ever produced' about U.S.A.], 'Upbeat, unforgettable evening of entertainment. Feel good about America again', ''WorldNetDaily.com'', January 4, 2007.</ref> See also: [[Homosexual Public Indecency Tolerated in San Francisco]]

*In 2005, [[David Parker]] was arrested and put in handcuffs at his child's school in relation to a lesson promoting homosexuality called the "King & King" being taught to first graders in the [[ Massachusetts]] school. <ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2007/09/28/david-parker-enda-and-the-battle-for-our-childrens-hearts/ David Parker, ‘King and King,’ and the Battle for Our Children’s Hearts and Minds]</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46431 Dad on trial over homosexual book]</ref> David Parker desired parental rights but the principal at Esterbrook Elementary School in Lexington defended the “King & King” lesson and denied parents the right to be informed about it and to opt their kids out. <ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2007/09/28/david-parker-enda-and-the-battle-for-our-childrens-hearts/ David Parker, ‘King and King,’ and the Battle for Our Children’s Hearts and Minds]</ref> The "King and King" violated David Parker and his wife's religious beliefs regarding homosexuality.<ref>[http://americansfortruth.com/2007/09/28/david-parker-enda-and-the-battle-for-our-childrens-hearts/ David Parker, ‘King and King,’ and the Battle for Our Children’s Hearts and Minds]</ref> The Massachusetts anti-[[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]] organization MassResistance has a webpage devoted to the events surrounding the David Parker issue and the ongoing legal battle associated with the matter.<ref>[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/ David Parker -- his arrest, court appearances, abuse by school officials, harassment by pro-gay activists in town, and federal civil rights lawsuit!]</ref>

*In 2004, eleven Christians, who have been dubbed the "[[Philly 11]]", were arrested at a [[Philadelphia]] event promoting homosexual-rights and some of the charges were felonies.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40929</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50409</ref> Among those who were arrested were Arlene Elshinnawy, a 75-year-old grandmother of three, and Linda Beckman, a 70-year-old grandmother of 10 who were arrested for sharing their faith on the public sidewalk.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702</ref> In 2005, after national publicity led to widespread criticism of the arrests (especially the heavy penalties being threatened) a judge dismissed all criminal charges.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50409</ref> In 2006, a United States federal judge ruled the group of homosexuals could not dismiss a lawsuit against the homosexual activist group Philly Pride Presents which was brought against them by the Christian protestors.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50409</ref>
[[Image:HamSquare.jpg|thumbnail|100px|left|[[Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot|Hamilton Square Baptist Church]]]]
*In October of 2001, a 69 year old street preacher named [[Harry Hammond]] from Bournemouth, [[England]] was subjected to assault by an angry crowd of 40 people while he proclaimed his Christian views in the town center which included a call to repentance in respect to homosexuality.<ref>http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm</ref> Mr. Hammond was arrested, prosecuted and fined but no arrests were made in respect to those who assaulted him.<ref>http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm</ref> Appeals to overturn the verdict, which included an appeal to the [[European Court of Human Rights]], were dismissed. <ref>http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm</ref>

*[[WorldNetDaily]] reported the following regarding the famous St. Patrick's Cathedral Incident involving homosexual and [[abortion]] activists:
{{cquote|One infamous incident was the assault on New York’s famed St. Patrick's Cathedral on December 10, 1989. While [[Cardinal John O'Connor]] presided over the 10:15 Sunday morning Mass, a multitude of "pro-choice" and "gay rights" activists protested angrily outside. Some, wearing gold-colored robes similar to clerical vestments, hoisted a large portrait of a pornographically altered frontal nude portrait of [[Jesus]].<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46887</ref>}}

*The [[It Gets Better Project]] is currently a national embarrassment. In 2012, [[homosexual activist]] Dan Savage was supposed to deliver an anti-bullying message to [[high school]] students. However, as many as 100 students walked out on his speech as he shouted vulgarities about the [[Bible]] and mocked [[Christian]]s. <ref name="mocks">[http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/anti-bullying-speaker-curses-mocks-christian-teens.html Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens] Starnes, Todd, FoxNews Radio, April 27, 2012</ref> It was reported that Savage engaged in verbal bullying as well. <ref name="mocks"/>

== Roman Catholic Church, Homosexuality, and the Sexual Molestation of Minors ==

See also: [[Homosexuality and pederasty]]

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the American Roman Catholic bishops and the Vatican had noted a growing problem with clerical sexual abuse in the U.S.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26940</ref> In addition, Ireland and other European countries have experienced problems relating to instances of Roman Catholic priests sexually abusing children.<ref>http://www.daily49er.com/opinion/our-view-catholic-church-needs-administrative-reform-1.2200659</ref>

Catholic League president Bill Donohue declared concerning the scandals of priests molesting minors:
{{cquote|The latest attempt to silence me comes from GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), Call to Action and the Interfaith Alliance. The three left-wing organizations have joined hands demanding that the media "ignore Bill Donohue." Their complaint? My telling the truth about the role homosexual priests have played in the abuse scandal.

The data collected by John Jay College of Criminal Justice show that between 1950 and 2002, 81 percent of the victims were male and 75 percent of them were post-pubescent. In other words, three out of every four victims have been abused by homosexuals. By the way, puberty, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, begins at age 10 for boys.

No problem can be remedied without an accurate diagnosis. And any accurate diagnosis that does not finger the role that homosexuals have played in molesting minors is intellectually dishonest. The cover-up must end. And so must attempts to muzzle my voice. Everything I am saying is what most people already know, but are afraid to say it. It's time for some straight talk.<ref>[http://www.catholicleague.org/attempts-to-censor-donohue-fail/ Attempt to censor Donohue fail]</ref>}}

Bill Donahue published in the [[New York Times]]:
{{cquote|The Times continues to editorialize about the "pedophilia crisis", when all along it's been a homosexual crisis. Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male and most of them are post-pubescent. While homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior, and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/bill-donohue-catholic-sex_n_520187.html</ref>}}

==HIV Infected Adolescents and Young Adults in America and Infection by Older Men ==
''For related information please see'': [[Teenager Homosexuality]] and [[Homosexuality and pederasty]]
[[Image:AIDS_virus.jpg‎|thumbnail|right|225px|Stylized rendering of a cross-section of the [[Human Immunodeficiency Virus]]]]
In 2006, the noted pediatric journal entitled ''Journal of Adolescent Health'' published a position paper entitled ''[[HIV]] infection and [[AIDS]] in adolescents: An update of the position of the Society for Adolescent Medicine''. <ref>Position Paper: ''[[HIV]] infection and [[AIDS]] in adolescents: An update of the position of the Society for Adolescent Medicine''Journal of Adolescent Health 38 (2006) 88–91</ref> The aforementioned 2006 position paper of the Journal of Adolescent Health stated the following: "Among adolescents and young adults with HIV or AIDS, most infections are acquired by having sex with HIV-infected men."<ref>Position Paper: ''[[HIV]] infection and [[AIDS]] in adolescents: An update of the position of the Society for Adolescent Medicine''Journal of Adolescent Health 38 (2006) 88–91]</ref> In addition, the ''Journal of Adolecent Health'' stated the following:
{{cquote|As of December 31, 2003, almost 38,500 cases of AIDS had been reported in adolescents and young adults 13–24 years old in the United States of America. Previous studies demonstrating that the risk of AIDS increased with the age at infection suggest that a large proportion of people developing AIDS in their third decade of life became infected with HIV as teens.<ref>Position Paper: ''[[HIV]] infection and [[AIDS]] in adolescents: An update of the position of the Society for Adolescent Medicine''Journal of Adolescent Health 38 (2006) 88–91]</ref>}}
===Medical Community Negligence and Government Negligence===

''Please see:'' [[Teenage AIDS]] and [[Homosexuality and pederasty]]

===Homosexuality and Older Homosexuals Preying on Vulnerable Youth===

See also: [[Homosexuality and pederasty]]

The pro-homosexuality publication ''The Advocate'' in 1992 made the following admission in regards to homosexuality and HIV infection in American youth:
{{cquote|Gay boys and straight girls who are having sex for money, shelter, love - they are at risk. And our community, the gay and lesbian community - and I particularly fault gay men here - has done nothing to try to help our youth. Gay men view these boys as recreational toys to be used. I have heard many stories of HIV-positive men having unprotected sex with boys. They don’t think it matters.<ref>''America's Worst Kept Secret - AIDS is devastating the Nation's Teenager and Gay Kids are Dying by the Thousands'', Victoria A. BrownsWorth, ''The Advocate'', March 24, 1992, page 41.</ref>}}

In 1991, the medical researcher Kruks reported the following in the ''Journal of Adolescent Health'' regarding homosexuality and HIV infection among youth:
{{cquote|Gay male street youth, as well as nonlesbian female street youths, seem to be particularly vulnerable for emotional as well as sexual exploitation...

These relationships are often extremely damaging for a number of reasons. The "sugar daddy" usually presents himself to the youth in a loving caretaker role. For a street youth who has a past history of rejection and/or abuse, the promise of being loved and cared for is a compelling one. However, these relationships in many ways have similar dynamics to incest.

Many gay youths coming to YSD [Youth Services Dept. of Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Service Center] for services have long histories of being involved in a succession of "sugar daddy" relationships. Each of these is a cycle of falling in love, believing that life will now be wonderful forever and that this older adult truly loves the young person, discovering that in fact it is just sex that the adult wants, feeling the impact of one more betrayal, and ending up on the streets again. The whole cycle last an average of 1-2 months, and the youth often becomes extremely [[suicide|suicidal]] at the end of each cycle.<ref>http://fathersforlife.org/dale/heartbea.html</ref><ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1772888&dopt=AbstractPlus Kruks, G. (1991) Gay and lesbian homeless/street youth: Special issues and concerns. Journal of Adolescent Health. 12: page 518]</ref>}}

In 1995, the medical journal'' Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine'' stated the following:
{{cquote|Another group at high risk for HIV infection is young men reporting sex with other men....Many young gay men tested in homeless youth centers reproted exchanging money or drugs for sex, which may place them at high risk for HIV infection. Young men who are homeless or runaways who barter for sex with same-sex partners may not consider themselves gay and thus may beyond the reach of prevention messages targeting the gay community.<ref>[http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/149/5/521 Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Volume 149, May 1995, page 527]</ref>}}

===Homosexuality and Pedophilia - Journal of Homosexuality, International Lesbian and Gay Federation (ILGA) and NAMBLA ===

''see also:'' [[Homosexuality and pederasty]]

There are notable instances of prominent homosexual organizations being permissive towards pedophilia or condoning/promoting pedophilia. For example, the ''[[Journal of Homosexuality]]'' is a academic journal which has featured material that looks upon pedophilia in a generally approvingly manner.<ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html</ref><ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/arguecase.html</ref> For example, an article by Dr. Brongersma stated that parents should not view a pedophile "as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home..."<ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/arguecase.html</ref>

The International Lesbian and Gay Association was founded in 1978 and is a world-wide network of national and local homosexual groups has more than 620 member organizations.<ref>http://www.ilga.org/</ref> In 1993 the ILGA obtained consultative status on the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) but in 1994 they lost their status due to groups within their membership, most notably the [[North American Man/Boy Love Association]] (NAMBLA) and Vereniging MARTIJN, advocating pedophilia or expressing solidarity with pro-pedophilia groups.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/government-promotion/united-nations/</ref> ILGA expelled the groups associated with pedophilia but they were denied
ECOSOC decided against restoring ILGA’s consultative status in 2002 and once again in January 2006.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/issues/government-promotion/united-nations/</ref> NAMBLA had been a member of the ILGA for a decade before it was expelled by the ILGA. NAMBLA calls itself a homosexual organization.
[[Image:Harry Hay.jpg|thumbnail|120px|Many consider [[Harry Hay]] to be the founder of the American homosexual movement.]]

===Homosexuality and Pedophilia - Other Ties of NAMBLA to the Homosexual Community===

''See also:'' [[Homosexuality and pederasty]]

Steve Baldwin published the following in the [[Regent University]] Law Review regarding homosexuality and pedophilia:
{{cquote|Indeed, some [[NAMBLA]] chapters meet at mainstream gay centers such as Philadelphia’s Gay and Lesbian Community Center. NAMBLA’s meetings and conferences always feature mainstream gay leaders and speakers. For example, Don Kilhefner, of the Los Angeles Gay Community Service Center, gave a speech to Los Angeles NAMBLA members on the subject of "The Significance of Man/Boy Love in the Gay Community.

The most comprehensive gay networking website, the Queer Resource Directory ....links every gay group in the country
including NAMBLA and other homosexual groups that focus on youth. NAMBLA marches in gay pride parades with the consent of the gay leadership. Many of the homosexual movement’s most prominent leaders endorse NAMBLA and its goals. Gay authors and leaders such as [[Allen Ginsberg]], Gayle Rubin, [[Larry Kramer]] (founder of ACT-UP), Pat Califia, Jane Rule, Michael Kearns, and Michel Foucault have all written in favor of either NAMBLA or man-boy relationships. [[Harry Hay]], whom many consider the founder of the American homosexual movement, invited NAMBLA members to march with him in the 1993 "March on Washington" gay rights parade. He also marched in the 1986 Los Angeles gay parade wearing a shirt emblazoned with the words "NAMBLA walks with me."

Leading mainstream homosexual newspapers and magazines such as the Advocate, Edge, Metroline, The Guide, and The San Francisco
Sentinel have not only published pro-NAMBLA articles and columns but also many have editorialized in favor of NAMBLA and sex with children.<ref>http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf</ref>}}

=== Atheism, homosexuality, pederasty and NAMBLA ===

''see also:'' [[Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA]] and [[Homosexuality and pederasty]]

Some of the well known [[atheism|atheist]] advocates of the [[NAMBLA|North American Man-Boy Love Association]] are:

1. The atheist and homosexual [[David Thorstad]] was a founding member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).<ref>http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100822</ref>

2. '''[[Harry Hay]]''' (1912 - 2002) was an [[liberal]] advocate of [[statutory rape]] and the widely acknowledged founder and progenitor of the activist [[homosexual agenda]] in the [[United States]]. Hay joined the [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) in 1934. <ref>''The Boston Phoenix'', [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm The real Harry Hay], Michael Bronski, October 31 - November 7, 2002. </ref> Harry Hay was an [[atheism|atheist]].<ref>http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ss_politics0010_01_07.asp</ref> He was a vociferous advocate of man/boy love. <ref>The American Spectator Special Report, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10450 When Nancy Met Harry], Jeffrey Lord, 10/5/2006.</ref><ref>http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/ss_politics0010_01_07.asp</ref> In 1986, Hay marched in a [[homosexual|gay]] parade wearing a shirt emblazoned with the words "[[NAMBLA]] walks with me."<ref>http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedophilia_homosexuality.pdf</ref>

==== Liberal economist John Maynard Keynes and pederasty ====

''See:'' [[John Maynard Keynes and pederasty]]

== Homosexuality in schools ==

Please see:

* [[Homosexuality in Schools|Homosexuality in Schools]]

* [[State Sponsored Workshop - Educators Teach Kids Homosexual Sex]]

==Homosexual Parenting and the American College of Pediatricians==
In 2004, the [[American College of Pediatricians]] stated the following regarding [[Homosexual Parenting|homosexuality and parenting]]:
{{cquote|Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts...

The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.<ref>http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50</ref>}}

==Homosexuality in the Media==

''For more information please see'': [[Homosexuality in the Media]] and [[Fox News and homosexuality]] and [[Homosexual activists' ideology and loss of life]]
[[Image:Rev. Louis P. Sheldon Photo.jpg|thumb|Reverend [[Louis Sheldon]] is a founder of the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ]]
The [[Traditional Values Coalition]] states the following regarding the reporting of homosexuality and the [[United States]] media:
{{cquote|The [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] has hundreds of members and is heavily funded by Hearst newspapers, Knight-Ridder, [[CBS News]], [[CNN]], Gannett, [[NBC]], [[Los Angeles Times]], [[Fox News]], and more. Major newspapers throughout the U.S. have homosexual activists on their staffs who filter what you read about homosexuality.<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Homosexuality101.pdf</ref>}}

[[Accuracy in Media]] declared concerning the Fox News Channel:
{{cquote|Media organizations which underwrote the convention included NBC News, Times Inc., Turner Broadcasting, Knight-Ridder, the Washington Post and Fox News Network. That’s right - Fox News. This is supposed to be a conservative network. ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and USA Today all sent recruiters to the event, to hire open gays as journalists. Fitzpatrick comments, "By treating the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association as a legitimate counterpart to black and Hispanic journalists’ associations, these media organizations showed that they agree with the notion that homosexuals, a group defined by behavior rather than immutable characteristics, constitute a bona fide minority."<ref>http://ghroll.blogspot.com/2008/03/homosexuality-in-media.html</ref>}}

Previously, the Fox Broadcasting Company website declares concerning the [[National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association]] (NLGJA):
{{cquote|NLGJA Annual Conference and Job Fair
Fox News is a regular exhibitor at these annual Job Fairs. News Corp sponsored the opening reception for first time attendees in 2006, as well as sponsoring workshops on Journalism in various colleges in 2007.<ref>Previous posting on the Fox News website</ref>}}

===Coverage of the Murders of Jesse Dirkhising and Matthew Shephard===

In respect to the issue of homosexuality, the case of [[Matthew Shepard]] [[Hate crime|was likely not a hate crime according to one of the leading police investigators for the murder]].<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=277685&page=3</ref>

== Homosexual Agenda ==

{{main|Homosexual agenda}}

[[United States Supreme Court]] Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote regarding the following regarding homosexuality and the law:
{{cquote|Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.<ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102#dissent1</ref>}}

[[Focus on the Family]] stated the following regarding the issue of the homosexual agenda in respect to the homosexual community:
{{Cquote|It is an agenda that they basically set in the late 1980s, in a book called "After the Ball," where they laid out a six-point plan for how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior — in a decade-long time frame...there is an agenda. They admit it privately, but they will not say that publicly. In their private publications, homosexual activists make it very clear that there is an agenda. The six-point agenda that they laid out in 1989 was explicit...<ref>http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm</ref>}}
[[Image:Kupelianbookcover220.jpg|thumbnail|175px|right|The book ''The Marketing of Evil'' by [[David Kupelian]] describes how [[Harvard]]-educated [[marketing]] professionals Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen were able to change some American's perceptions regarding homosexuality.]]
There were publications in 1987 and 1989 by homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen which outlined a strategy to change America's perception of homosexuality and it included the following six strategies:

# Talk about homosexuals and homosexuality as loudly and often as possible. (Through sheer perseverance the opposition will be worn down).<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3520.html Book Review of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing The Principal Threat To Religious Freedom Today by Alan Sears and Craig Osten]</ref>
# Portray homosexuals as victims, not aggressive challengers..<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3520.html Book Review of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing The Principal Threat To Religious Freedom Today by Alan Sears and Craig Osten]</ref>
# Give homosexual protectors a “just” cause..<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3520.html Book Review of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing The Principal Threat To Religious Freedom Today by Alan Sears and Craig Osten]</ref>
# Make homosexuals look good..<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3520.html Book Review of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing The Principal Threat To Religious Freedom Today by Alan Sears and Craig Osten]</ref>
#Make the "victimizers" look bad..<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3520.html Book Review of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing The Principal Threat To Religious Freedom Today by Alan Sears and Craig Osten]</ref>
#Solicit funds. For example, get corporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause.<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3520.html Book Review of The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing The Principal Threat To Religious Freedom Today by Alan Sears and Craig Osten]</ref>

[[Arguments Against Homosexuality]] are branded by homosexual activists and [[liberals]] as irrational and hateful with the use of terms like "[[homophobia]]". However, this term itself can also be a form of intimidation against opposition. Rather than attack their arguments they use a personal attack, labeling the opposer simply afraid. Pastor Darryl L. Foster, a former homosexual, states that homosexual activists are afraid of the testimony of [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexuals]] to the public at large and that they suffer from "[[Ex-Homosexuals|exgayphobia]]".

See also: [[Homosexual activists' ideology and loss of life]]

===The Marketing of Evil===

The book ''[[The Marketing of Evil]]'' by [[David Kupelian]] describes how [[Harvard]]-educated [[marketing]] professionals Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (who authored the acknowledged public relations [[Bible]] of the homosexual-rights movement ''After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s'') were able to change some American's perceptions regarding homosexuality.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49958</ref>

See also: [[Homosexual activists' ideology and loss of life]]

==Views on Homosexuality==

See: [[Views on Homosexuality]]

== Homosexuality, Marriage and homosexuality laws ==
''For more information please see'': [[Homosexual Marriage]]

For many years, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. However, the organization de-listed homosexuality in 1973.<ref>http://www.apa.org/pi/reslgbc.html</ref> Since the late 1960s, many people, both homosexual and heterosexual, have lobbied for more favorable laws for homosexuals.

Legal "marriage" between same-sex couples is now recognized in [[Canada]], [[Spain]], [[South Africa]], [[Belgium]], [[Israel]] and the [[Netherlands]]. Most other western [[Europe|European]] nations and several US states recognize a more limited [[marriage]] or civil union. 26 US states have passed constitutional amendments banning recognition of same-sex marriages, and [[federal law]] does not recognize [[same-sex "marriage"]].

For more information please see: [[Homosexuality laws]]

== The Homosexuality and Animals Myth==
''For more information please see'': [[Homosexuality in Animals Myth]]

[[Image:Carl wieland.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|Dr. [[Carl Wieland]] - Managing Director of [[Creation Ministries International]].]]
In respect to the [[Homosexuality in Animals Myth|homosexuality and animals myth]], there is currently interest on whether homosexual behavior is or is not [[zoology|zoologically]] "natural." This is largely a sterile debate because behavior is not necessarily moral even if "natural;" because the nature of human beings is not necessarily the same as the nature of other species, and because it is not at all clear when an observed behavior can be counted as "sexual," or as implying a sexual "orientation." Also, [[Creation Ministries International]] wrote on this subject of whether or not there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom: "There is...documented proof of [[cannibalism]] and rape in the animal kingdom, but that doesn’t make it right for humans."<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2774</ref>

A 1996 article, published by an organization committed to the treatment of homosexuality, musters the arguments against interpretation of animal behavior as sanctioning homosexuality.<ref>[http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html The Animal Homosexuality Myth], Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, excerpt from book ''Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same Sex "Marriage" and the Homosexual Movement.''</ref> It notes that "homosexual scientist Simon LeVay" stated that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
{{Cquote|Although homosexual behavior is very common in the [[animal]] world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.}}

In addition, Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, [[Spain]], wrote:
{{Cquote|Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the [[reproduction|reproductive]] instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.<ref>http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html</ref>}}

== Nazi Germany and homosexuality ==

See: [[Nazi Germany and homosexuality]]

== Log Cabin Republican's Purge Mark Foley Picture from Their Website ==

Please see: [[Log Cabin Republican's Purge Mark Foley Picture from Their Website]]

== Claims of Hate Crimes ==
It is claimed that about 1100 [[hate crime]]s against homosexuals or their property occurred in 2004.<ref>[http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/ FBI 2004 hate crime statistics]</ref> But most of those offenses occurred against property rather than individuals, often the result of [[drug]]s or [[alcohol]]. Only a tiny percentage even involved aggravated assault or worse, and those classifications are not based on any proof at trial.<ref>''Id.''</ref><ref>FBI, Crime in the United States 2004, [FBI 2004 crime statistics, [http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/hctable4.htm Table 4 Offense Type by Bias Motivation]</ref> 74% of hate crimes are either crimes against property (e.g., theft, vandalism or graffiti) or a vague "intimidation".<ref>FBI 2004 crime statistics, [http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/#table2_33 Table 2.33]</ref>

The degree of accuracy of statistics regarding homosexual hate crimes is debatable. For example, there are the homosexual hate crime hoaxes where homosexuals [[deceit|deceitfully]] faked hate crimes which never occurred.<ref>Girl Admits She Faked Gay-Bashing Incidents (Another "Hate Crime" Hoax)
The Los Angeles Times, May 9, 2005</ref><ref>http://www.lairdwilcox.com/publish/crywolf.html</ref> An other example would be national statistics in the United States regarding homosexuals committing hate crimes against heterosexuals may be underreported and non-hate crimes against homosexuals are classified as hate crimes when they should not be (see: [[hate crime]]s for further details).

==Homosexuality Statistics - Percentage of Individuals Who Are Homosexuals==
''For additional homosexuality statistics please see'': [[Homosexuality Statistics]]

The [[Traditional Values Coalition]] stated the following regarding homosexuality statistics:
{{Cquote|A NEWLY RELEASED REPORT from the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics reveals that only 2.3% of the population considers themselves homosexual. The statistics come from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and are based on 12,571 interviews with men and women ages 15-44 years of age. (The findings were reported in [[WorldNetDaily]], September 16, 2005).<ref>http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php</ref>}}

There have been a [[Homosexuality_Statistics|number of studies inside and outside the United States which have estimated the percentage of homosexuals in the human populations they studied]].

== History of homosexuality ==

''For additional information please see:'' [[History of homosexuality]]

As alluded to earlier, one of the most interesting matters regarding the [[History of homosexuality|history of homosexuality]] is that it has been rare in a number of cultures or been absent in some cultures. For example, Dr. Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead state regarding various cultures: "If homosexuality were significantly influenced by [[gene]]s, it would appear in every culture, but in twenty-nine of seventy-nine cultures surveyed by Ford and Beach in 1952, homosexuality was rare or absent."<ref>[http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm My Genes Made Me Do it - a scientific look at sexual orientation by Dr Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead - Chapter 6]</ref>

Two areas of historical inquiry in relation to ancient occurences of homosexuality which have been studied by historians are [[Roman Homosexuality|Roman homosexuality]] and [[Greek Homosexuality|Greek homosexuality]].

For information concerning modern homosexuality see:

*[[Homosexuality Statistics|Homosexuality statistics]]

*[[Homosexuality and health|Homosexuality and disease]]

*[[Homosexuality and Religious Liberty]]

*[[Homosexuality in the media]]

*[[Views on Homosexuality]]

== See also ==
*[[Arguments Against Homosexuality]]
*[[Articles on Homosexuality]]
*[[Bisexuality]] - ''The orientation of being sexually attracted to members of both sexes.''
*[[Causes of Homosexuality]]
*[[Gender identity disorder]]
*[[History of homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexual activists and abortion]]
*[[Homosexuality and English Speaking Countries]]
*[[Homosexuality in the military]]
*[[Homosexuality laws]]
*[[Homosexuality quotes]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]
*[[Homosexuality Statistics]]
*[[Homosexual logic]]
*[[Homosexual politics]]
*[[Overcoming Homosexuality]]

== Further Reading ==
*Bummi Niyonu Anderson, Out of Darkness Into His Marvelous Light ISBN 0-9715323-7-0
*David Kupelian, ''The Marketing Of Evil'' ISBN 9781581824599
*[[Louis Sheldon]], ''The Agenda: The [[Homosexual]] Plan to Change America'' - ISBN 1591857961
*Dr. [[Chuck McIlhenny]], ''When the Wicked Seize a City'' - ISBN 0595154328

==External links==

'''Video:'''
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUW-AvGnhf0 Ex-homosexual Pastor DL Foster]

'''Articles:'''

*[http://thegoodpoliticalshepherd.com/is-homosexuality-still-a-sin-what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality.html Is Homosexuality Still a Sin? What does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?]
*[http://carm.org/homosexuality Homosexuality]
* [http://bible.org/article/homosexuality-christian-perspective Homosexuality: The Christian Perspective]
* [http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/homosex.htm On the Impossibility of Same-Sex Marriage] - William E. May, Michael J. McGivney Professor of Moral Theology, John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic University of America
*[http://henrymakow.com/2013/03/how-america-went-gay.html How America Went Gay] - Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
*[http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/downloads/std0703brody.pdf Assessing the role of anal intercourse in the epidemiology of AIDS in Africa] - cites material concerning [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]]

'''Homosexuality news:'''

*[http://www.christianpost.com/topics/homosexuality Homosexuality news]
*[http://www.americansfortruth.com/index.php Americans For Truth]
*[http://gcmwatch.com/ Gay Christian Movement Watch]

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

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Sin]]
[[Category:Sexuality]]

Neil deGrasse Tyson

2014-03-05T16:31:59Z

Fnarrow:

'''Neil deGrasse Tyson''' is an astrophyicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium. Like Doctor [[Richard Dawkins]], he is a very public figure, having been featured on various mainstream media programs such as the [[History Channel]], where he has promoted his his atheistic and scientific views. He is the director of the Hayden Planetarium <ref>[http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/about/message]</ref> and a member of the Planetary Society, but is not a professor. In 2014, Tyson was the host of 'Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey' <ref>[http://www.cosmosontv.com/]</ref> which is an updated version of [[Carl Sagan|Carl Sagan's]] 1980 documentary entitled Cosmos: A Personal Voyage.

He describes himself as agnostic<ref>[http://bigthink.com/think-tank/neil-degrasse-tyson-atheist-or-agnostic]</ref>.

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tyson, Neil deGrasse}}
[[Category:Agnostics]]

Causes of Homosexuality

2014-02-02T19:32:16Z

Fnarrow: Undo revision 1075625 by Badgoy (talk) spam

[[File:70810564 64d3a67932.jpg|alt=Causes of homosexuality|right|275px|thumb|Homosexuality is rare in [[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jews]]. For more information please see: [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]].]]

The '''causes of [[homosexuality]]''' are attributable to man's sinful nature, nurture and environment, and personal choice. How important each factor is, though, is an issue that is debated. Those from the most [[liberal]] school usually assume a philosophy of determinism, treating homosexuality as an identity or orientation which one has no choice over, and which cannot be changed. This belief is then used to justify acting it out.<ref>Sylvia Thorson-Smith, ''Reconciling the broken silence'', p. 30</ref> The contrasting and warranted position is that homosexuality is a choice, that of yielding to ultimately harmful desires, and which choice is partly affected by nurture and environment.

==Causes of homosexuality - Biblical explanation ==

The [[Bible]], being the most comprehensive transcendent moral authority, abundantly deals with human nature and behavior and consistently manifests that the nature of man has not changed since [[the Fall]]. So the Bible is certainly the preeminent authoritative source when it comes to providing a framework when determining the causes of homosexuality. Man is shown to have been created as a perfectly made being (Gn. 1:31) - yet not as a robot - but as a being designed to be able to make choices, which thereby allowed him to distort his perfection. God from the beginning also joined male and female in life-long marriage, and placed a priority on the family, and provided laws, as needed, for its health and preservation and that of society, while aberrations result from failure to abide by them. ''For more information please see:'' [[Homosexuality and the Bible]] and [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]''

===Nature of man and causes of homosexuality ===
In the beginning, man disobeyed his Creator, and as part of the punishment for so doing both mankind and that which he was given stewardship of was negatively affected. In addition to physical decay and the suffering and natural death of living creatures being introduced into the world, (Gn. 2:17; 3:17-19; Rm. 5:12,17; 6:23; ) the Fall resulted in the nature of man demonstrating a certain proclivity to sin. However, this does not determine that a man must practice a certain sin, nor does it justify man giving into this attraction to sin, as God also gave man ability to resist sin. (Gn. 4:7)<ref>http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/Homosexuality.pdf</ref>

Certain negative physical effects of sin are also seen as being progressive, as with time more diseases and other aberrations seemed to have occurred, and laws against incest later became necessary. In addition, as men continued to act contrary to the basic moral laws which they knew innately and through creation, conscience and oral tradition, a formal body of law was given through [[Moses]], which detailed and codified the immutable morality God enjoins upon man. (Ex. 20; Dt. 4:8,9; Lv. 18; Gal. 3:19) Addition laws include ceremonial laws which the [[New Testament]] reveals were typological. ''For more information please see:'' [[Leviticus 18]].''

As regards homosexuality, from the beginning of the Bible and throughout, it consistently teaches that God only sexually joined opposite genders together, sanctifying them in marriage, having created men and women uniquely compatible and complementary.(Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4; 1Cor. 11:8-12)<ref>http://www.cbmw.org/Articles/</ref>

In contrast to what God had ordained by design and decree, homosexuality is one of many sins which are a result of man yielding to his sinful nature, and is a form of fornication, although a most perverse kind. The prohibition of it is given along with sexual relations with animals, (Lv. 18:23) and is clearly condemned wherever it is manifestly dealt with. (Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Mk. 7:21; Rm. 1:20-27; 1Cor. 6:9; 1Tim. 1:10)

The Bible, as well as history, also evidences that while there are three areas in which man sins, those of lust for pleasure, possessions and power, (1Jn. 2:16) individuals may differ as regards which type of sins present the greatest temptation for them, with genetics playing at least a part in that. That judgment upon a people who gave into a specific sin could result in a genetic predisposition to that same sin among their offspring may be speculated, but it is not proven.

===Environment===

The Bible provides a clear link between the adherence of a family or a nation to the laws of God and the moral choices of offspring. (Prov. 22:6) The Bible also positively examples close father-son and familial relationships, and may be seen to partially implicate detachment with rebellion. (Gn. 37-50; 2 Sam. 13-18) Studies today have shown that [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality]].

The record of [[Sodom]], as well as accounts of nations elsewhere, testify that living within the environment of people where [[iniquity]] abounds is conducive to furthering the same iniquity among succeeding generations, resulting in the necessity of Divine judgment when nations became given over to such. (Lv. 18:24; 20:22; Dt. 18:12; 28; Jer. 14:9,10; Rm. 2:2)

In Genesis 19, the city of Sodom is revealed as a place in which men sexually lusted after men, from which the term "sodomy" was derived (like as homosexuals use the term "gay", although this is contradictory in the end), and Jude 7 refers to Sodom and its region being given to fornication, including that of unnatural relations.

In Ezekiel 16:49 the general iniquity of Sodom and its "sisters" is given as "pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness" and general indifference to the needy. The next verse proceeds to inform that "the Sodomites were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." The word for ''abomination'' here is ''tô‛êbah'', which is not the word often used for ritual uncleanness, but is often used for sexual sin, in particular sexual sins and including sodomy. (Lv.18:22; 26-27,29,30; 20:13; Dt. 23:18; 24:4 1Ki. 14:24; Ezek. 22:11; 33:26) Sodom is also associated more with sexual sins than with any other ''physical'' type of sin.

What the Bible, as well as secular history, reveals is that prevalent homosexuality is concomitant with pride, affluence, increased free time, and selfish indulgence and carelessness.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html Homosexual relations and the Bible: see Genesis 19 to Ezekiel 16:49]</ref> Therefore, rebellion against God's laws and order and the resultant environmental factors are seen to be a cause in promoting sensuality and homosexuality.

===Idolatry and judgment===
[[Image:Martin destruction sodom640x422.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|Destruction of [[Sodom]] by [[God]] - [[Benjamin Martin]]]]

In [[Romans 1]], God, through the [[apostle Paul]], condemns both male and female homoeroticism, which, as a cultural practice, is shown to be a manifestation and a result of idolatry, in which man progressively acted contrary to that which God has revealed by creation, by design and normality. This is morality which is confirmed by written decree (the Law), as the next chapter declares. As a result of this continued rebellion, which was partly manifest in God being reduced to an image like unto corruptible creatures (like as today with homosexuals construing Christ to be homosexual, or sanctioning it, as well as nature effectively being worshiped), "God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves." (v. 24)

It is also stated that a certain afflictive punishment(s) of the body were incurred by those men who engaged in relations with each other. (v. 27) Unless repentance takes place, worse consequences will follow. (Rv. 21:28)

While some seek to render this chapter as only condemning homosexual relations when done as part of idolatry, the condemnation is not due to its association with paganism, rather as it inherently contrary to that which God ordained, then it is a manifestation of false religion, regardless of its form, though in ancient times in which religion was an inseparable part of culture, then formal idolatry was what was more manifested. Romans 1 proceeds to show that homosexuality is not alone as a fruit of idolatry, but that this particular pernicious physical sin is one of many inherently evil things. (Rm. 1:28-32) ''For more information please see:'' [[Romans 1]].

In summary, God's eternal power is manifest in His [[creation]] (Romans 1:18-20). Nonetheless, certain people chose to worship the creature more than the Creator (Romans 1:21-25). Therefore, God gave them up to homosexuality and other sins and gave them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:26-32). As an example of the truth of this teaching, [[feminist]]s, wishing to deny the [[Women#New_Testament_statements_on_the_role_of_women|God-given role of women]], often engage in [[goddess]] worship and other forms of [[idolatry]]<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/goddess.html "Probe Ministries: Goddess Worship," by Russ Wise]</ref> and as a consequence are often given up to lesbianism.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56458 Hetero woman: Feminism turned me into a lesbian], from [[WorldNetDaily]]</ref>

=== Conclusion of Biblical explanation ===

What is revealed in the Bible is that homosexuality is a practice due to man yielding to his sinful nature and disobeying the good laws of God, and misusing, among other things, his sexual abilities. This disobedience itself is idolatry (whatever holds your chief allegiance is your god, at least at that time), while continued idolatry results in homosexuality as a practice, as God delivers one over to perverse desires. In addition, individual and societal disobedience to the laws of God creates an environment which is conducive to perpetuating and further intensifying iniquity, which if continued, in time requires judgment. Studies today have shown that [[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality|Religious upbringing and culture can strongly affect rates of homosexuality]].

== Modern studies concerning the causes of homosexuality ==

Some studies indicate environmental factors can be involved in persons becoming homosexuals. Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse state in ''Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church's moral debate'' (and a main source for this section),
<blockquote>
The origins of homosexuality are not clearly understood by scientists, and the topic is a subject of hot debate. Theories and and empirical studies, which often contrast sharply, abound. The theories about the [[etiology]] of homosexuality fall into two very large categories: theories that point to nature (that is, biological variables) and theories that point to nurture (that is, the influence of experience, of psychological variables." (p. 52).
</blockquote>

Those who emphasize nurture, sometimes known as the ''[[psychoanalysis|psychoanalytical theory]]'', see powerful psychological forces at work, shaping and molding children from their birth, while those who emphasize nature contend that early homosexual traits attest to a biological cause. (p. 53)

Despite many psychological studies which indicate that the parent-child relationship, early childhood development, early homosexual experiences, and childhood abuse foster homosexuality, liberals tend to reject the environmental aspect, and favor a biological influence.<ref>David G. Myers, ''A level of explanations view'', Psychology of Christianity: four views. pp. 54-83</ref> This is then used to render homosexuals to be slaves to genes, and justified in acting it out.

==Environment and nurture==
[[Image:325979 dna150.jpg|thumbnail|150px|left|[[Columbia University]] [[psychiatry]] professors Drs. William Byrne and Bruce Parsons stated: "There is no evidence that at present to substantiate a [[biology|biological]] theory. [T]he appeal of current biological explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of [[psychosocial]] explanations than from a substantiating body of [[Experimental science|experimental]] data".<ref>http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf</ref>]]

That homosexuality is affected by environment and nurture has been the historical secular position.

In his 1980 work ''Overcoming Homosexuality'', Robert Kronemeyer writes: "With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither inherited nor the result of some glandular disturbance or the scrambling of genes or chromosomes. Homosexuals are made, not born 'that way.' I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early painful experiences and that it can be unlearned. For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy, it is 'curable.'<ref>Robert Kronemeyer, ''Overcoming Homosexuality'', p. 7 (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1980)</ref>

Similarly, in a 1989 ''[[USA Today]]'' article, [[San Francisco]] State University professor of psychology John DeCecco, and the former editor of the 25-volume, ''Journal of Homosexuality'', stated, "The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish". Homosexuality is "a behavior, not a condition," and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits."<ref>Kim Painter, ''A Biological Theory for Sexual Preference'', USA Today, 1 January 1989, p. 4D</ref>

===Parental relationships with offspring===

The psychoanalytical theory is the historical position, which implicates a detached, rejecting or absent father, often along with a close bond to the mother, as working, on the conscious and unconscious level, against a secure sexual identity. Also contributing to this can be a so called [[Emotional Incest Syndrome]], for example when a mother who has animosity toward the father, or men in general, and who works to present him negatively, and to make the child side with her.

One of the earliest studies supporting this position was that of Irving Bieber and associates.<ref>Bieber, ''Homsexuality: A psychoanalytical study of male homosexuality'' (1962)</ref> Comparison of 106 homosexuals with 100 male heterosexuals showed that mothers of the former had enmeshed seductive type relationships with their sons, while their fathers were detached, distant or rejecting. This study was contested by some who charged the researchers with bias, but a further study by Ray B. Evans, which also compared homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported similar results, this time among self-identified homosexuals who had never sought treatment.<ref>Ray b. Evans, "Childhood parental relationships of homosexual men", ''Journal of Consulting and clinical psychology'', 33. (1969), pp. 129-33.</ref>

Based upon his work with 200 male homosexuals, Gerard van den Aardweg stated that 79 percent described their mother as "overanxious", or "overconcerned" about them; their safety, health, and being overly sentimental when they met with some hardship, as well as manifesting other aspects of over-mothering. In addition, in 71 percent of homosexual cases, "the most important factor was the father's detachedness or nonparticipation in the son's upbringing. The fathers of 38 percent of the men were so hypercritical that the sons were made to feel either rejected and/or inferior. <ref>Gerard van den Aardweg, ''on the origins and treatment of homosexuality'' (1985), pp.184-85.</ref>

Another study of about 1500 homosexuals showed much less influence by the mother, while far more reported an unaffectionate or detached father, and approximately half of homosexuals reported they had negative feelings toward their fathers, versus 29 percent of heterosexuals.<ref>Bell, Weinberg, Hammersmith, ''Sexual preference: Its development in men and women'' (1981).</ref>

While these factors are conducive to homosexuality, it should be stressed that these do not ensure that children raised this way will become homosexual, nor are these factors alone in influencing it.

===Sexual abuse===

Childhood sexual abuse is well attested to demonstrate a correlation to the incidence of homosexuality among those affected by it. A large national survey of almost 35,000 Americans showed that more than three times as many men and women who had been sexually abused as children became homosexuals, versus that of heterosexuals.<ref>7.4 percent or homosexual men and 3.1 percent of females, versus 2.0 percent of heterosexual men and 0.8 percent women.</ref><ref>Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, and Michaels, ''The social organization of homosexuality:...'', (1994) p. 344</ref> Another study reported that 58 percent of male adolescents who later became homosexuals suffered sexual abuse as children, while 90 percent who did not suffer sexual abuse identified themselves as heterosexuals.<ref>Sheir and Johnson, ''Sexual victimization of boys:... (1988) pp. 1189-93</ref> In addition, 43 percent of male homosexuals reported sexual activity with another male during the ages of 10-12, versus 9 percent of heterosexuals.<ref>Manosevitz, "Early sexual behavior in adult homosexual and heterosexual males", ''Journal of abnormal psychology'', 76 (1970), 396-402.</ref>

===Educational indoctrination===
As part of the liberal ideology in modern [[education]], and as a result of psychological tactics used by homosexual [[activist]]s, schools have increasingly fostered the promotion of homosexuality, whether as part of official policy through homosexual activists working with or in schools. As a form of indoctrination which begins at the kindergarten level, homosexuality is treated as healthy and normal, with students at very impressionable ages sometimes being influenced to experiment with homosexual behavior. This is often done under the rubric of [[HIV]] instruction of preventing [[suicide]] by homosexuals, and preventing ''[[homophobia]]''. <ref>[http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=12546&department=MEDIA&categoryid=family CWA: School Tells Kids to Hide Pro-‘Gay’ Propaganda From Parents], Concerned Women for America, 3/13/2007</ref><ref>[http://www.missionamerica.com/agenda.php Fighting the Gay Agenda in Schools Articles], Mission America</ref><ref>[http://www.chroniclewatch.com/2009/06/17/indoctrination-of-youth/ Roberto Santiago, The Indoctrination of our Youth],The Chronicle Watch, June 17, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.missionamerica.com/oldagenda26.php GLSEN, Corruption and Crime], Mission America</ref> <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127050 'Hate' laws could label 5-year-olds 'offenders'] WorldNetDaily, March 05, 2010</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126233 'Czar' sees transgender school goals in reach], WorldNetDaily, February 25, 2010</ref><ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54683 District gags 14-year-olds after 'gay' indoctrination], WorldNetDaily, March 13, 2007</ref>

==Biological research on the causes of homosexuality ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]] and [[Homosexuality and Genetics]].

The belief that homosexuality has a biological cause can be traced back to the preliminary findings of neuroscientist Dr. Simon LeVay. In 1991 LeVay's studied the brains of 41 cadavers which included 19 homosexual males, and claimed that "a tiny area believed to control sexual activity [the hypothalamus] was less than half the size in the gay men than in the heterosexuals."<ref>Charlene Crabb, ''Are Some Men Born to Be Homosexual?'', U. S. News & World Report, 9 September 1991, p. 58</ref><ref>S. LeVay, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science 253 (1991), pp. 1034-37</ref> This study was immediately seized upon by many as proof that homosexuality was biologically determined.

However, further scrutiny showed this hasty conclusion as lacking in warrant.

*1. The range of sizes of the hypothalamic region varied and was inconsistent. The region at subject was the same size in a few homosexual men as that of the heterosexuals, while in a few other heterosexuals this region was a small as that of a homosexual.
*2. The fact that all 19 of the homosexual men had died of [[AIDS]] could easily have accounted for or contributed to the differences.
*3. It has not been determined if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause rather than the effect of homosexual activity. "Researchers have found that when people who become blind begin to learn Braille, the area of the brain controlling the reading finger actual grows larger."<ref>Reported in D. Gelman "Born or Bred?" Newsweek, 24 February 1992, pp. 46-53</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html</ref>
*4. Levay's study was based study was based upon a supposed sexual functional correlation between the SDN-POA brain center in male rats and a brain center called INAH3 in humans, but which assumption was shown to be false.<ref>http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron4.html</ref>
*5. The sexual history of the "heterosexual" men was not known, and Levay's samples included 16 brains from men whose sexual orientation was unknown.<ref>[http://www.equip.org/PDF/DH055-1.pdf Joseph P. Gudel, ''HOMOSEXUALITY: Fact and Fiction'']</ref>
*6. And as William Byne noted, LeVay’s work "has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray".<ref>Byne, William (1994), “The Biological Evidence Challenged,” Scientific American, May, 1994, 270: p. 53</ref>.
*7. The conclusions were that which were sought by the researcher. Dr. LeVay, a homosexual himself, confessed that his study was not entirely a dispassionate scientific endeavor,<ref>Simon LeVay on The Phil Donahue Show, ''Genetically Gay: Born Gay or Become Gay?'', January 3, 1992</ref> He also later stated, "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay."<ref>Byrd, A. Dean, Shirley E. Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson (2001), ''Homosexuality: The Innate-Immutability Argument Finds No Basis in Science'', The Salt Lake Tribune</ref><ref>http://www.sltrib.com/2001/may/05272001/commenta/100523.htm</ref>

Two prominent geneticists, Paul Billings and Jonathan Beckwith, commenting on the quality of the LeVay research, stated that LeVay, "could not really be certain about his subject's sexual preferences, since they were dead", and that his "research design and subject sample did not allow others to determine whether it was sexual behavior, drug use, or disease history that was correlated with the observed differences among the subjects' brains." And in addition, it was very likely that LeVay's method of defining homosexuality would "create inaccurate or inconsistent study groups." <ref>P. Billings and J. Beckwith, "Born Gay?" Technology Review, July 1993, p. 60,61</ref>

Another study, published in ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America'', examined the ''anterior commissure'' (a structure that divides the left and right halves of the brain) of male heterosexuals and homosexual men, most of whom died of AIDS. The study shows that the anterior commissure was larger in women and in 27 of the 30 homosexual men than in heterosexual men.<ref>L. Allen, et al., ''Sexual Orientation and the Size of the Anterior Commissure in the Human Brain,'' Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 89, no. 15 (1992), pp. 7199-7202</ref>.

Here again, how AIDS might have factored in this difference is an issue, and the findings of this study were overall in contradiction to another study published in 1988, which found, in part, that the anterior commissure was larger in men than in women.<ref>S. Demeter et al., "Morphometric analysis of the human corpus callosum and anterior commissure," Human Neurobiology 6 1988), pp. 219-26</ref>

A 1991 study of twins by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard was also promoted as establishing biological determination of homosexuality, but which conclusion was also soon found to be lacking in warrant, and contrary to other studies.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html</ref><ref>[http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron4.html Dr. Paul Cameron, ''Born WHAT Way?'']</ref>

That blood chemistry as well as brains can change over time in response to environment and lifestyle has been documented by studies.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bioresearch.html</ref><ref>Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, ''The Biology of Homosexuality: Science or Politics?''</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bioresearch.html</ref>
[[File:Richard Dawkins pic.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|thumbnail|260px|right|The [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] speculates that a "gay gene" causes homosexuality, but science has not discovered such a gene.<ref>[http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/richard-dawkins-explains-how-the-gay-gene-was-preserved/ Richard Dawkins speculates that gene for homosexuality exists]</ref> ]]

=== Causes of homosexuality and origins paradigms ===

In 1993, Professor [[Miron Baron]], M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at [[Columbia University]], wrote in [[BMJ]] (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the theory of [[evolution]] and the notion of [[gene|genetic]] [[determinism]] concerning [[homosexuality]]. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, [[homosexuality and genetics|genetically determined homosexuality]] would have become [[extinct]] long ago because of reduced reproduction."<ref>[http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1678219 BMJ. 1993 August 7; 307(6900): 337–338.]</ref> In the United States, [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals are more likely to believe in the theory of evolution]].<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and [[Views on Homosexuality|liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality]].<ref>http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=764</ref> Given Dr. [[Miron Baron]]'s commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.

==Conclusions==

Sociologist Steven Goldberg, Ph.D. states,
<blockquote>
Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists...such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.
</blockquote>

Goldberg also expressed, "Gay criticism has not addressed the classic family configuration"; it has merely "asserted away the considerable evidence" for the existence of family factors. Studies which attempt to disprove the existence of the classic family pattern in homosexuality are "convincing only to those with a need to believe." <ref>S. Goldberg, ''When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False'' (1994), Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books</ref>

Psychiatrists Friedman and Downey: "Despite recent neurobiological findings suggesting homosexuality is genetically-biologically determined, credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality." <ref>R. Friedman, M.D. and J. Downey, M.D., ''Journal of Neuropsychiatry'', vol. 5, No. 2, Spring l993</ref>

Psychiatrist and author Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. concludes,
<blockquote>
Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development.<ref>J. Satinover, M.D., ''Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth'', (1996). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books</ref></blockquote>

Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons, researchers at the New York State Psychiatric Institute,having carefully analyzed all the major biological studies of homosexuality, found none that definitively supported a biological theory of causation. "Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised." Archives of General Psychiatry 50, no.3. (1993)

Other similarly express that nurture and choice factor as being mostly or wholly determinative.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/homorig.html On the Origins of Homosexuality:
Is a Person "Born that Way"?]</ref>

===Indications of onset homosexuality===

Childhood manifestations of gender non-conformity such as consistent preference by a boy for the clothing, company and play things (dolls, etc.) of girls over that of boys is generally seen as predisposing such to homosexuality.<ref>Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse, ''Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church's moral debate'', pp. 52-92</ref> However, this is not always the case, and many children who manifest gender non-conformity are simply trying to discover what gender is.

==Homosexuality as a choice==
The Bible shows that while nurture and environment can make one more predisposed to certain types of behavior, man's sinful nature can also deceive one into believing that sinful behaviors are not sin, while yielding to sin reduces ones ability to resist it. Secular studies also indicate that most homosexuals have been attracted to the opposite gender.

A research project (2004) of Robert Goetze identified 84 articles or books that contain some relevance to the possibility of sexual orientation change. Of the data reported, 31 of the 84 studies showed a quantitative outcome of individuals able to change sexual orientation.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2553</ref>

Ironically, the homosexuals themselves argued back in 1971 that homosexuality is "merely a preference, orientation, or propensity"<ref name="RainbowHistory">{{cite web |title=The Rainbow History Project|url=http://www.rainbowhistory.org/html/apazap.htm}}</ref>. One homosexual received the question on this topic in the CBS documentary from 1967: "Most homosexuals if they had a chance [i.e. choice] to be a heterosexual, would they? Well, I have a friend who took a poll of 300 people on that very question, he asked them: If you were able to take a pill to change yourself from homosexual to heterosexual, would you do it? And something like 95% of men said: “No.”"<ref name="CBS">{{cite web |title=Time Capsule: Mike Wallace tells truth about homosexuality in 1967 documentary |publisher=CBS |page=02min:58sec |url=http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/time-capsule-mike-wallace-tells-truth-about-homosexuality-in-1967-documenta}}</ref>

Romana Schlesinger, a prominent gay activist and organizer of [[Gay pride|Gay parades]] in Slovakia, referred to homosexuality as to 'way of living' (lifestyle) in an interview.<ref>{{cite web
|title=Schlesinger: Prestaňme sa točiť okolo hriechu
|author=Michal Piško
|publisher=sme.sk
|date=08-June-2012
|url=http://www.sme.sk/c/6410997/schlesinger-prestanme-sa-tocit-okolo-hriechu.html
|quote= Takisto by som nesúhlasila s tým, aby homosexuálny učiteľ presviedčal, že homosexualita je jediný správny spôsob života. (In the same way I would not agree that the homosexual lifestyle is the only correct one.)
|accessdate=10-February-2013
|language=Slovak}}</ref>

===Former homosexuals===
[[Image:St Paul Preaching.jpg|left|thumb|200px|St. [[Paul]] defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)]]
''For more information please see'': [[Ex-Homosexuals]] and [[Overcoming Homosexuality]]

One of the earliest historical records of the existence of [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexuals]] is found in the letter of the [[Paul|Apostle Paul]] to the [[Corinth|Corinthian]] [[Christianity|Christian]] church (approx. 59 AD).
{{cquote|Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the [[Kingdom of God|kingdom of God]]? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such '''were''' some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit]] of our [[God]]. - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV)}}

Today people still report leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual by being born again through repentance and faith in the Lord [[Jesus Christ]].<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56481</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19650</ref><ref>http://www.cwfa.org/articles/4216/CFI/cfreport/index.htm</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.aspid=25145</ref><ref>http://www.witnessfortheworld.org/blkexgbks.html</ref> <ref>http://www.frontlinemin.org/wasgay.asp</ref><ref>http://www.charismamag.com/display.php?id=9019</ref><ref>http://www.apocalipsis.org/testimony.htm</ref><ref>http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=13784</ref>

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual agenda]]. Peter LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “[[Reparative Therapy|reparative therapy]]” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians can move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible.html</ref>}}

==Additional sources concerning the causes of homosexuality ==

There has been much work done since the latter part of the 20th century. Below are some resources in regards to the various causes of homosexuality:

*[[Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality]]
*[[Sexual Abuse Being a Contributing Factor for Homosexuality]]
*[[Homosexuality and Choice]]
*[[Homosexuality and Genetics]]
*[[Homosexuality in animals myth]]
*[[Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science]]
*[http://www.mygenes.co.nz/download.htm My genes made me do it!]

==See Also==
*[[Resources on becoming a Christian]]
*[[ABC Theory of Emotion]]
*[[Defensive detachment]]
*[[Ex-Homosexuals]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]
*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]
*[[Homosexuality Research]]
*[[Homosexuality Statistics]]
*[[Teenager Homosexuality]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.allaboutworldview.org/causes-of-homosexuality-faq.htm What are some of the causes of homosexuality?]
*[http://ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/streams-of-life/SL2W0803.pdf What Causes Homosexuality] by Dr. John F. Ankerberg
* [http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/genetics_of_homosexuality.html Rich Deem, ''Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay? The Biological Basis for Sexual Orientation]

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

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2014-01-22T23:31:33Z

Fnarrow: Undo revision 1074545 by Admora (talk)

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

'''Barack Hussein Obama II''' (reportedly born in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]] on August 4, 1961) is the 44th President of the [[United States]]. Through heavy use of [[early voting]] by the Democrat political machine, Obama was elected president in 2008 with 365 [[electoral vote]]s and 53% of the popular vote. In 2012 he was elected to a second term with 332 electoral votes and 51% of the popular vote. Promoted heavily by [[liberals]], as demonstrated by his unjustified receipt of the 2009 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]], Obama won the presidency despite a short and unremarkable political career by outspending his opponent, [[John McCain]], by hundreds of millions of dollars in 2008<ref>[http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contriball.php?cycle=2008 Candidate Comparison: Top Contributors 2008 Cycle]. OpenSecrets.org.</ref>, and spending more than a billion dollars from special interests to attain reelection in 2012.<ref>[http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.php 2012 Presidential Race]. OpenSecrets.org [http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/indus.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638 Opensecrets.org Barack Obama], 33% Individual contributions, 67% large and corporate.</ref>

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

Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. During his campaigns Obama said that he intended to "[[Redistribution of wealth|spread the wealth around]]" and has been portrayed as saying that entrepreneurs and employers deserve no credit for building their businesses.<ref>Zuckerman, M.B. (2010, July 16). [http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/07/16/obamas-anti-business-policies-are-our-economic-katrina Obama's Anti-business Policies are our Economic Katrina]. ''U.S. News''. Barnes, F. (2009, July 22). [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp An Anti-Business President]. ''The Weekly Standard''. Vol. 14, No. 38 Shedlock, M. (2010, August 20). [http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/small-businesses-are-not-hiring-why.html Small Businesses are not hiring. Why should they?] Globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com. Wright, C.E. (2012, February 12). [http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/dear_mr_president_why_we_are_n.html Dear Mr. President: Why we are not hiring]. ''American Thinker''.</ref> On March 1, 2013 Obama issued [[Executive Order|executive orders]] to implement his [[Budget sequester|sequester]] of budget cuts which<ref>http://weaselzippers.us/2013/02/27/dnc-boosts-obama-sequester-job-loss-threat-of-750000-to-2-million</ref> has been widely criticized for destroying jobs in what was an anemic and fragile recovery.<ref>[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-02-26/news/chi-20130226-foys_briefs_1_sequester-president-obama-press-secretary-jay-carney President Obama's sequester,] ''Chicago Tribune'', February 26, 2013.</ref>

Warren L. Dean Jr., an adjunct professor of law at [[Georgetown University Law Center]], wrote:
*{{obama income inequality}}

Former [[Democrat]] Presidential candidate [[Joe Lieberman]] endorsed Obama's opponent in 2008 and has declined to endorse Obama for the [[Presidential Election 2012|2012 presidential election]].<ref>Lillis, M. (2012, April 22). [http://thehill.com/video/campaign/222929-lieberman-declines-to-endorse-in-presidential-race Sen. Lieberman declines to endorse in presidential race]. ''The Hill''.</ref>

Following the 2011 debt ceiling standoff between Obama and House Republicans,<ref name=Swann-Aug>{{cite web|url=http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgraded_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8 |title=United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered to 'AA+' on Political Risks and Rising Debt Burden; Outlook Negative |publisher= [[Standard & Poor's]] |date=August 5, 2011 |accessdate=April 3, 2013}}</ref> the United States Government's credit rating was, for the first time in its history, downgraded from AAA to AA+, and [[poverty]]<ref>[http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/pov09fig04.pdf Figure 4: Number in Poverty and Poverty Rate: 1959-2009]. ''U.S. Census Bureau''. Current Population Survey, 1960 to 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplements.</ref> increased markedly. By and large his programs, said to combat the recession, unemployment, slow growth, and deficits, have failed<ref>"The vast majority (73%) of respondents reported the fiscal stimulus enacted in February 2009 has had no impact on employment to date. While 68% also believe a jobs bill, such as the one recently enacted into law, will have no impact on payrolls, 30% do believe it will boost payrolls moderately". [http://www.nabe.com/press/ind1004.pdf Industry Survey], ''National Association for Business Economics'', April 2010, p. 2.</ref> leaving the the country saddled with a $16 trillion [[national debt]] and climbing.<ref>Under Obama the U.S. National Debt has tripled. Source: [https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=86836 U.S. Treasury]; Federal Reserve Board.</ref> One of his most well known tactics is blaming someone else, such as George W. Bush, for all his failures instead of taking responsibility. Also on the domestic front, Obama passed an expensive [[health care]] bill in 2010 with no national concensus or [[bipartisan]] support and 34 Democrats dissenting. Recently, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] wrote an open letter to [[John Boehner]], the Speaker of the House, outlining the effects of repealing [[Obamacare]] and explaining why net loss of over 100 billion dollars would occur from the repeal. [http://cbo.gov/publication/43471]

Americans deaths in [[Afghanistan]] have more than doubled under Obama's leadership compared with the preceding eight years of George Bush, according to the Congressional Research Service <ref>Chesser, S.G. (2012, July 12). [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41084.pdf Afghanistan Casualties: Military Forces and Civilians - CRS Report for Congress]. Pg. 3. ''Congressional Research Service'''.</ref> Against his own Defense Secretary's advice, Obama [[Libyan uprising 2011|attacked Libya]] - a possible violation of the [[War Powers Act]]. After he he took credit for the killing of [[September 11th]] mastermind terrorist [[Osama bin Laden]], the [[U.S. State Department]] warned of increased risk to the lives and safety of Americans.<ref>''KABC-TV/DT'' (2011, July 27). [http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8273909 Risk of anti-US violence up after Osama bin Laden's death]. On ''ABC7 News''.</ref> Bin Laden's successor, [[Ayman al-Zawahiri]] confirmed the [[Benghazi Attack]] which killed four State Department employees, was motivated by revenge.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-attack-jihadists/index.html Pro-al Qaeda group seen behind deadly Benghazi attack], By Nic Robertson, Paul Cruickshank and Tim Lister, CNN, September 13, 2012.</ref> Bin Laden's killing, however had negligible impact on Obama's approval ratings.<ref>''Gallup''. [http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval].</ref>

Obama's bizarre gaffes are frequent and embarrassing, but typically unreported by the [[liberal media]]. Many hardworking American businessmen took offense to a 2012 campaign speech about the economy where he says "You didn't build that." Obama offended [[Poland]] by referring to the [[Nazi]] death camps there as "Polish death camps." Later Obama apologized.<ref>Sink, J. (2012, June 1). [http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/230419-obama-letter-says-he-regrets-polish-death-camp-gaffe Obama apologizes in writing for 'Polish death camp' verbal gaffe].''The Hill''.</ref> Even the ''New York Times'' was critical of Obama's incessant boasting about the killing of bin Laden.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/us/politics/critics-pounce-on-obamas-trumpeting-of-bin-laden-death.html?_r=0 Obama Trumpets Killing of Bin Laden, and Critics Pounce], By PETER BAKER and MICHAEL D. SHEAR, April 27, 2012.</ref>

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

The original claims that Obama was born in Kenya come from the Obamas themselves. In 1991, Obama's literary agent, Acton & Dystel, published a promotional booklet that stated that Obama was born in Kenya. <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii</ref><ref>http://www.examiner.com/article/publisher-s-1991-booklet-says-barack-obama-was-born-kenya</ref> The claim that Obama was born in Kenya remained on the agent's web site until 2007. <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/Obama-pamphlet-in-use-2007</ref> Internet archives confirm this information. <ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001/http://www.dystel.com/clientlist.html</ref> In addition to the information from literary agents, Michelle Obama stated in an interview that Kenya is Obama's "homeland".<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLzJz2A2N1c</ref>

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

===Early Life===
Obama's birth parents divorced in 1963 when his mother discovered Barack Obama Sr. was already married to a woman living in Kenya.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2024819/Barack-Obamas-father-Bigamist-drunk-wife-beater.html Barack Obama's father: Bigamist, drunk and wife-beater], By Ian Birrell, 12 August 2011. dailymail.co.uk This is one of the first misleading statements about Barack Obama when he was introduced to America as Keynote Speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Advance publicity billed him as the "son of Kenyan economist" when infact Obama Sr. was forced out of the graduate program at Harvard because of his bigamy. He returned to Kenya. Obama at the age 9 once briefly met his father who served in the corrupt Kenyan socialist regime's Department of [[Economic Planning]]. Obama Sr. killed himself in a drunken car accident.</ref> When Obama was 2 years old his mother married Lolo Soetoro, an [[Indonesian]] geologist. At age 6 his mother and adoptive father took him to Jakarta, Indonesia for 4 years while his mother pursued a Ph.D. in Anthropology requiring fieldwork there.<ref name="db mother">{{cite web|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/a-singular-woman-by-janny-scott-review-by-stacy-schiff/#|work=The Daily Beast|format=HTML|language=English|title=Dreams of His Mother|author=Stacy Schiff}}</ref> His mother then abandoned him in Hawaii with his grandparents (Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who had moved to Hawaii in 1959) <ref name=revealed>Malveaux, Suzanne (2008, August 20). "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/20/se.02.html Barack Obama Revealed]." ''CNN''.</ref> so she could return to Indonesia after her divorce. Obama's grandfather arranged for his friend, the noted communist writer [[Frank Marshall Davis]], to serve as a mentor and role model for an impressionable African-American youth.

Other siblings of Obama's include his half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng and 7 other children born to his father by 4 different women.<ref name=raisingobama>Purdum, Todd (2008, March). "[http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/03/obama200803 Raising Obama]." ''Vanity Fair''.</ref> For much of his early life, prior to his transfer to Columbia University, he went by his nickname, "Barry." In the summer of 1988, before attending Harvard Law School (he'd just been accepted), he visited Kogelo, Kenya, to learn more about his father's family. When his mother died in 1995, he and his sister Maya scattered her ashes over Hawaii's south shore.<ref name=revealed />

===Personal Life===
[[Image:Michelle Obama.jpg|frame|right|Michelle (Robinson) Obama, wife of Barack Obama.]]
Barack Obama met his future wife, an attorney named Michelle Robinson, herself a recent Harvard Law School graduate, while he was an intern and she was on staff at Sidley Austin LLP, a prestigious corporate law firm.<ref name=msnbc /> Dispite company policy prohibiting relations between staff and interns, the two started dating. The two continued dating long-distance while he finished law school, and on October 18, 1992,<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/obama-anniversary-20-years-married_n_1935840.html Huffington Post says it was October 3, 1992.]</ref> were married by Reverend [[Jeremiah Wright]] at Trinity United Church.<ref name=revealed /> In 1999, their first child was born, Malia, and in 2001, another daughter, Natasha (often called Sasha).<ref name=msnbc />

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

===Education===
At age 6, Obama attended schools in Indonesia, the first a Catholic School while he was in Kindergarten, and later a public school. The school had mostly Muslim students (since most Indonesians are Muslim). In ''Dreams from My Father'', Obama writes, "In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to my mother that I had made faces during [[Koran]]ic studies."<ref>''Dreams from My Father'', by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996. [http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Dreams_From_My_Father_Principles_+_Values.htm]</ref> ''Insight Magazine'' first reported [[Hillary Clinton]]'s organization had "questions about Obama’s Muslim background: ''Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a [[Madrassa]] as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage?"''<ref>[http://www.debbieschlussel.com/2899/hillary-clinton-agrees-with-schlussel-obama-suspicious-deceptive-on-muslim-background/ Hillary Clinton Agrees With Schlussel: Obama Suspicious, Deceptive on Muslim Background], By Debbie Schlussel, January 19, 2007.</ref>

In 1971, at age 10, Barack Obama moved to Hawaii, and his grandparents helped him gain entrance to the prestigious Punahou Academy in Honolulu where he began substance abuse and illegal drugs.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/obama-pot-smoking-details_n_1545904.html Obama Pot-Smoking Details Revealed In David Maraniss Book], ''The Huffington Post'', By Luke Johnson, 05/25/2012 . </ref> He was accepted through a scholarship for disadvantaged minorities while he was in 5th grade.<ref name=revealed /> At this elite high school with 1,200 students he was just 1 of 3 black students, and couldn't make the starting lineup of the state champion basketball team his senior year. He wrote a poem for the school's literary magazine, ''Ka Wai Ola''.<ref name=raisingobama />

In 1979, he began a 2-year stint at Occidental College college in Los Angeles,<ref name=msnbc /> and then transferred to Columbia University in New York, which he graduated from in 1983.<ref name=pragmatic>Scott, Janny (2007, July 30). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd]." ''New York Times''.</ref> During this time he published an anti-military tirade embracing Soviet General Secretary [[Leonid Brezhnev]]'s <ref>Obama supported CPSU General Secretary Brezhnev's foreign policy over both Presidents [[Jimmy Carter]] and Ronald Reagan's decision to deploy the MX Missile in Europe. [http://www.csmonitor.com/1981/1124/112439.html Brezhnev offers Schmidt moratorium on nuclear missiles], Elizabeth Pond, ''CS Monitor'', November 24, 1981. See also [http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nytint/docs/obama-s-1983-college-magazine-article/original.pdf Breaking the War Mentality], Barack Obama, Columbia ''Sundial'', March 10, 1983.</ref> proposal for a nuclear freeze in the campus newspaper and allegedly spoke at an Anti-Apartheid rally,<ref name=revealed /> although several prominent student leaders said they did not remember him there. Professor Michael L. Baron was impressed by Obama and wrote him a recommendation for Harvard Law School.<ref name=differs>Scott, J. (2007, October 30). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=all Obama's Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say]." ''New York Times''.</ref> In the winter of 1988 Barack Obama decided to attend Harvard Law School, and left Chicago for Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his 2nd year a power struggle broke out among the dominant white liberals over control of the ''Harvard Law Review''. Obama was elected its first black president as a compromise candidate largely with help of conservatives following a "marathon voting session" in which he finally won on the 19th ballot.<ref name=raisingobama /> This led to national attention and numerous job offers, which Obama passed up, at age 30, to pursue his political career in Chicago.<ref name=msnbc /><ref name=revealed />

===Early Employment===
====1983-1984, Financial Analyst and Writer====
In 1984 Obama worked as a writer and financial analyst for Business International Corporation to help pay off some of his student loans. Business International Corporation was a small newsletter-publishing and research firm which aided multinational companies understand overseas markets. Obama served as a writer/researcher for a company reference service, Financing Foreign Operations, and wrote for their newsletter, ''Business International Money Report''. His supervisor was Cathy Lazere. <ref name=differs /><ref>Henig, J. (2008, June 21). "[http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obama-polishes-his-resume-2/ Obama Polishes His Resume]." ''FactCheck.org''. [http://www.analyzethis.net/2005/07/09/barack-obama-embellishes-his-resume/ Barack Obama Embellishes His Resume] ''analyzethis.net''. </ref>
====1984-1988, Community Organizer====
In 1984, Obama was hired by the New York Public Interest Research Group, a non-profit organization promoting environmental, consumer, and government reforms. He also was paid just under $10,000 annually as a full-time organizer for Harlem's City College to mobilize student volunteers.<ref name=differs />

From 1985-88, Obama worked as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago <ref>The Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC)</ref> funded with a $25,000 grant by [[Bill Ayers]]' Woods Fund. The ''New York Times'' reported he was paid $1,000 a year, with $2,000 extra for a car<ref name=revealed /><ref name=streetwise>Scott, Janny (2007, September 9). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html?pagewanted=all In 2000, a Streetwise Veteran Schooled a Bold Young Obama]." ''New York Times''.</ref> however stories vary wildly. Jerry Kellman, who hired him, says it was "$10,000 a year and a $2,000 car allowance". Obama himself gave different numbers; his memoir says $10,000 (as well as the car), in his Wesleyan speech he gave it as "$12,000 a year plus $2,000 for an old, beat-up car", and when he announced his candidacy for president, it was "a group of churches had offered me a job as a community organizer for $13,000 a year".

Ryan Lizza at ''The New Republic'' reported that "Jean Rudd of the Woods Fund...had provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama". Ari Berman reported in ''The Nation'' that the "[Woods Fund] gave a $25,000 grant to the Developing Communities Project, which hired Obama". CBS Channel 2 in Chicago ran a story with a document showing that Obama's proposed salary in 1987 was $25,000, a number that the Obama campaign confirmed while insisting at the same time his original salary was $13,000.<ref>[http://theobamafile.com/obamaworks.htm Community Organizing], The Obama File. http://theobamafile.com.</ref>

During this time Obama joined Reverend Wright's Trinity United Church because in the words of Suzanne Malveaux of ''CNN'', "It was the church to join if you wanted to be one of Chicago's black movers and shakers." At the time, community organizing involved close affiliation with churches, which was how Obama met Wright. Obama abandoned the fight against asbestos contamination in the Altgeld Gardens housing project to pursue personal interests and a career by enrollment at Harvard Law School in the winter of 1988.<ref name=revealed />
====1988-1996, Law Practice====
In 1988 Obama gained work as a Summer Associate at one of the most prestigious corporate law firms in the world, Sidley Austin LLP<ref name=austin>Lattman, P. (2007, May 11). "[http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/05/11/sidley-austin-when-barack-met-michelle/ When Barack Met Michelle]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref><ref name=revealed />, owned by Newton Minow, thanks to the recommendation of Minow's daughter Martha, a professor at Harvard Law School. It was at Minow's law firm that Obama would meet Michelle Robinson, his future wife.<ref name=raisingobama /> From 1993-96 he practiced civil rights law including suing Citibank to force them into making [[Subprime loan|subprime mortgage]]s to unqualified minority borrowers.<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/03/community-reinvestment-act-mortgages-housing-opinions-contributors-peter-schweizer.html A Poisonous Cocktail: Expanding the Community Reinvestment Act], Peter Schweizer, ''Forbes'', 10.05.09. In ''Selma S. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank'', lead attorney Obama alleged that although his clients had been denied mortgages "because of delinquent credit obligations and adverse credit," they were really victims of institutional racism. The suit was brought about by the Community Reinvestment Act, so called affirmative action mortgage lending. The plaintiffs won $60,000, Obama and two other attorneys were paid $950,000.</ref> After graduating from Harvard he was hired by Miner, Barnhill, & Galland, a small politically-connected law firm.<ref name=austin /> It was at Miner, Barnhill, & Galland that he would meet influential real estate developer Tony Rezko.<ref name=revealed />
====1991-1992, Project Vote====
In 1991 Obama was recruited by Sandy Newman to head the Chicago chapter of Project Vote!<ref name=revealed />, and in 1992 was the Executive Director, overseeing a voter registration drive which registered 125,000 black voters and was credited with defeating an incumbent Democrat in the primary and electing U.S. Senator Carol Mosely Braun.<ref name=raisingobama /><ref name=pragmatic />

====1992-2004, Lecturer at University of Chicago====
Obama taught part-time at the University of Chicago Law School<ref name=raisingobama /> from 1992-2004. Though Obama erroneously describes himself as a "constitutional law professor"<ref>http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-complains-of-being-constrained-by-a-system-founding-father-put-place</ref>, he was actually only a senior lecturer and the class he taught the most times was called "Current Issues in Racism and the Law".<ref>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/20/obamas-favorite-course-to-teach-at-the-university-of-chicago-revealed/</ref> He was a Lecturer from 1992-96, teaching 3 courses per year<cite>, and a senior lecturer from 1996-2004. After Obama was criticized for lying about his job title, the University of Chicago released a statement stating that senior lecturers are considered Law School faculty and regarded as professors but not full-time or tenured. Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time, tenured track position several times during this period but declined each time.<ref>"[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media Media Inquiries: Statement Regarding Barack Obama]." ''University of Chicago Law School''.</ref>

====1995, Author====
In 1995 Obama published ''Dreams From My Father'' about his life and family background.<ref name=msnbc />

===Personal Awards===
====2009 Nobel Peace Prize====
On October 9, 2009 Barack H. Obama became the third sitting U.S. President<ref name=wilsons>Wilson, Scott (2009, October 10). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100900914.html President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize]. ''Washington Post''.</ref> to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "''for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples''".<ref>NobelPrize.org (2009, October 9). "[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html The Nobel Prize for 2009: Press Release]." Oslo, Norway. Accessed May 13, 2012.</ref> Obama stated that he was "surprised and deeply humbled" to receive the unexpected award,<ref>(2009, October 9). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-09/world/nobel.peace.prize_1_norwegian-nobel-committee-international-diplomacy-and-cooperation-nuclear-weapons?_s=PM:WORLD Obama: Nobel Peace Prize is 'Call to Action']." ''CNN''.</ref> and also said, "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who have inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace".<ref name=wilsons /> The award was widely criticized given Obama's then lack of accomplishments.<ref>Chazan, G. & MacDonald, A. (2009, October 11). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html Nobel Committee's Decision Courts Controversy]." ''Wall Street Journal''. (2009, October 9). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/obamas-peace-prize-draws-criticism-liberals/ Obama's Peace Prize Draws Criticism, Even From Some Liberals]." ''Associated Press''.</ref>

==1996-2003, Illinois State Senate==
===1996 Election===
{{main article|Radical roots of Barack Hussein Obama}}
In 1995 a cadre of like minded individuals gathered for a fundraising event in the early career of Barack Obama hosted by [[Weather Underground]] (WUO) [[terrorist]] [[William Ayers|William "Bill" Ayers]]. Besides Obama, those in attendance were Ayers wife [[Bernardine Dohrn]],<ref>Georgie Anne Geyer and Keyes Beach "Cuba: School for U.S. Radicals", ''Chicago Daily News/Chicago Sun-Times'' five part series October 1970, excerpted in [http://foia.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/weather/weath1c.pdf FBI file Weather Underground Organization (Weatherman),] Part 1c pp. 5-7 pdf (113-115 in original). [http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/clandestine-agents-of-the-cuban-government-ayers-dohrn-myers/]</ref> and Carl Davidson, veterans of [[guerrilla warfare]] training in [[Cuba]] just prior 1968 Democratic National Convention riots. Ayers and Dohrn have taken credit for, and never denied, bombing the [[U.S. Capitol]], the [[Pentagon]] and the [[State Department]].

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

====Knocking Candidates Off the Ballot====
Barack Obama ran for the Illinois state senate in 1996. He was initially supported by incumbent [[Alice Palmer]], who declared she would run for the U.S. Congress. However, when her bid for Congress failed on November 28, 1995, she tried to run for her old seat in the March 1996 election. Her supporters asked Obama to step aside, although whether this was with her permission remains uncertain.<ref name=pragmatic /> Not only did Obama not step down, he gathered a team of high-priced lawyers, including fellow Harvard Law School graduate Thomas Johnson, to challenge his opponent's petition signatures on technicalities after the filing deadline had passed. Such tactics are legal and frequently used in Chicago; in 2006 they eliminated 67 of the 245 aldermanic candidates;<ref name=bareknuckle>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (2007, April 4). "[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-0704030881apr04-archive,0,1523598,full.story Barack Obama: Showing His Bare Knuckles]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> yet nevertheless led to the term "hardball" by the ''New York Times''<ref name=pragmatic /> and "cutthroat" by David Mendel as reported by both ''CNN''<ref name=revealed /> and ''MSNBC''.<ref name=msnbc /> The ''Chicago Tribune'' declared Obama had mastered "the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics", noting "The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it."<ref name=bareknuckle /> As one of Obama's four opponents, eliminated through his ballot challenges, would put it: {{cquote|"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"
-Gha-is Askia, 1996 Illinois Senate candidate<ref>Jackson, David & Long, Ray (2007, April 3). "[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story Obama Knows His Way Around a Ballot]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref>}} Mark Ewell, another candidate, filed 1,286 signatures, and Obama's challenges left him 86 short of the minimum requirement (757<ref name=spivak>Spivak, Todd (2008, February 28). "[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/ Barack Obama and Me]." ''Houston Press''.</ref>). Ewell filed a federal lawsuit contesting the election board's decision but Tom Johnson intervened, and Ewell's case was dismissed just a few days later. Ewell and other Obama opponents were using early 1995 polling sheets to verify signatures of registered voters, but city authorities had just purged 15,871 unqualified people from the 13th district list, and Obama's challenges used the more recent, updated list. Askia was left 69 signatures short of the requirement. If names were printed instead of signed in cursive, they were declared invalid. If they were good but the person registering the signatures wasn't a registered voter (e.g. underage) they were invalid.<ref name=hardball>Griffin, Drew & Johnston, Kathleen (2008, May 29). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2008-05-29/politics/obamas.first.campaign_1_obama-campaign-barack-obama-chicago-politics?_s=PM:POLITICS Obama Played Hardball in First Chicago Campaign]." ''CNN''.</ref> Palmer had according to Obama campaign consult Ronald Davis, used two children to help gather her petition signatures. To this day Palmer denies the challenges were valid, and maintains she could have overcome the objections with more time and resources.<ref name=bareknuckle /> Thanks to his lawyers, Obama would win the election without a single other candidate on the ballot.

===2000 Election===
: ''Main Article: [[Illinois 1st congressional district election, 2000]]''
In 2000, Obama lost his only political election when he chose to run against experienced incumbent and former [[Black Panther]] and Bobby L. Rush for the U.S. Congress in a 65% black district. Rush's name recognition began at 90%, Obama's at 11%. Michelle Obama opposed taking on an such an iconic figure dear to the community and threatened divorce.<ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2145035/Michelle-Obama-prepared-divorce-papers-separate-Barack-leaving-suicidal.html New book claims Michelle Obama prepared divorce papers to separate from Barack], By Daniel Bates, 16 May 2012. dailymail.co.uk</ref> Establishment Democrats considered Obama "a white man in blackface".<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/choice-2012/transcript-29/ PBS Frontline Transcript, The Choice 2012.</ref> Rush said of Obama, “He went to Harvard and became an educated fool,” adding, “We’re not impressed with these folks with these eastern elite degrees.”<ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/28/bobby-rush-in-2000-obamas-a-harvard-educated-fool-who-thinks-he-knows-all-about-the-civil-rights-protests/ Bobby Rush in 2000: Obama a Harvard ‘educated fool’ who ‘thinks he knows all about’ the ‘civil rights protests’], Daily Caller, 03/28/2012.</ref>Todd Spivak would give voice to this impression of Obama, noting that{{cquote|"My view of Obama then wasn't all that different from the image he projects now....One thing I can say is, I never heard him launch into the preacher-man voice he now employs during speeches. He sounded vanilla, and activists in his mostly black district often chided him for it."<ref name=spivak />}}Rush would go on to win the Primary with 61.02% of the vote; Obama received 30.36%.<ref name=streetwise /> The loss led to Obama considering dropping out of politics altogether, particularly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, since his name sounds similar to "Osama bin Laden".<ref name=msnbc />

===State Senate Voting Record===
[[File:O-2002-antiwar-rally-davidson.jpg|right|thumb|250px| Obama speaking at the October 2002 [[War on Terror|anti-War rally]] in Chicago organized by [[Carl Davidson]].<ref>Davidson is a longtime [[Mao]]ist and champion of the ''Thought of Mao Tse Tung.'' Davidson's anti-Trotskyite polemic, [http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=10925 ''Left in Form, Right in Essence''] defends Maoist doctrine. </ref> Unlike Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, Obama took the rather unpopular position against "dumb wars".]]
Obama entered the Illinois Senate promising change to a corrupt system. He mixed often radical votes with more pragmatic agreements. Possibly one of his most radical votes was against requiring medical care for aborted children who survive [[abortion|the procedure]] - in fact the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council ascribed him a 100% rating for his consistently pro-choice votes.<ref name="cbs illinois">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml|title=Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics|work=CBS|format=HTML|language=English|last=Clark|first=Amy S.|date=Jan. 17, 2007}}</ref> He was criticized for using the statehouse as a stepping stone for a more illustrious career: Steven J. Rauschenberger, a [[Republican]], said prior to Obama's election as president: “He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn’t Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator.”<ref name="nyt illinois">{{cite web|work=The New York Times|title=In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd|last=Scott|first=Janny|format=HTML|language=English|date=July 30, 2007|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html}}</ref>

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

Obama established himself as a chief spokesperson in opposition to the [[War on Terror]] during an October 2002 rally at Federal Plaza in Chicago<ref>The rally was organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq (CAWI) later renamed Chicagoans Against War and Injustice. [http://www.noiraqwar-chicago.org/?page_id=2 About CAWI] by Carl Davidson, Nov 02 2006. Retrieved from Chicagoans Against War and Injustice, March 15, 2010.</ref> [[community organizing|organized]] by veteran [[Mao]]ist and webmaster of [[Progressives for Obama]],<ref>[http://www.linkedin.com/in/carldavidson Carl Davidson,] LinkedIn.com, retrieved March 13, 2010.</ref> [[Carl Davidson]].

===2003 Emil Jones Deal===
: ''Main Article: [[2003 Barack Obama deal with Emil Jones]]''
When Illinois' U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald announced he would be retiring in April 2003, Obama jumped at the opportunity, declaring that he would be a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2004.<ref name=msnbc /> To boost his chances Obama approached the newly crowned president of the Illinois Senate, Emil Jones Jr., with a proposal. According to Jones, whom Obama has since called his "godfather"<ref name=godfather>''Associated Press'' (2009, June 18). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-3983147.html Obama's Political 'Godfather' In Illinois]."</ref> the conversation went as follows:
{{cquote|"After I was elected president, in 2003, he came to see me, a couple months later. And he said to me, he said, ‘You’re the senate president now, and with that, you have a lot of pow-er.’ And I told Barack, ‘You think I got a lot of pow-er now?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah, you got a lot of pow-er.’ And I said, ‘What kind of pow-er do I have?’ He said, ‘You have the pow-er to make a United States sen-a-tor!’ I said to Barack, I said, ‘That sounds good!’ I said, ‘I haven’t even thought of that.’ I said, ‘Do you have someone in mind you think I could make?,’ and he said, ‘Yeah. Me.’ "<ref name=raisingobama /><ref name=pragmatic />}}
Because of the deal, Obama's entire Illinois Senate legislative record was, as longtime Obama reporter Todd Spivak put it, built in a single year. During his 7th and final year in the Illinois Senate, Obama sponsored an incredible 26 bills into law, including many he now points to when criticized as inexperienced<ref name=spivak /> - as ''CNN's'' Suzanne Malveaux observed, "With help from on high, Obama got his name on hundreds of bills that he pushed through."<ref name=revealed /> Jones not only had Obama craft legislation addressing daily tragedies to raise his political profile<ref name=godfather />, he also appointed Obama head of almost all high-profile legislation in the Illinois Senate, angering other state legislators with more seniority who'd spent years supporting the bills.<ref name=spivak /> Illinois State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of the famous racial profiling bill requiring videotaped confessions in police interrogations, complained bitterly about Jones' decision.<ref name=revealed /><ref name=intheblack>Spivak, Todd (2004, March 25). "[http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-922-in-the-black.html In the Black]." ''Illinois Times''.</ref> Jones' influence had a major impact on Obama's chances in the 2004 elections, preventing major political players from backing Obama's opponents. To quote Emil Jones,{{cquote|"He knew if he had me in the run for the Senate, it would put a block on the current mayor. The current mayor and the father of the controller, which was Dan Hynes, they were roommates in Springfield when the mayor was a state senator, so they had a relationship. Another big financial backer for the governor was Blair Hull. Barack knew if he had me it would checkmate the governor, ’cause the governor couldn’t come out and go with Blair Hull, ’cause the governor needs me. Same with the mayor. So he had analyzed and figured all of that out. He knew I could help him with labor support. And I could put a checkmate on some of the local politicians that didn’t know him, but they couldn’t really go against me."
-Emil Jones<ref name=raisingobama />}}

==2004-2008, U.S. Senate==
:''See also: [[Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Hussein_Obama#U.S._Senate_.282004-2008.29|Barack Obama:U.S. Senate (2004-2008)]], [[United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004]]''
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|left|Senator Barack Obama]]
===2004 Primary Election===
Despite initially trailing in the polls to frontrunner [[Blair Hull]]<ref name=intheblack />, Obama greatly benefited from what the ''Chicago Tribune'' called "the most inglorious campaign implosion in Illinois political history"<ref name=mendell>Mendell, David (2004, March 17). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-03-17/news/0403170332_1_blair-hull-gery-chico-blacks-and-liberal-whites Obama Routs Democratic Foes]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> when pressure from journalists and opposing candidates, just weeks before the election, forced the unsealing of Hull's messy divorce files.<ref name=blairhull>Voegeli, William (2004, March 19). "[http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.339/pub_detail.asp The Rise and Fall of Blair Hull]." ''The Claremont Institute''.</ref> The files revealed Hull's ex-wife's accusations of verbal and physical abuse.<ref name=spivak /> Hull would afterwards criticize the media, stating, "As for the press, I will never read the newspaper the same way again."<ref name=mendell /> Obama would go on to win the Primary with 53% of the vote.<ref name=blairhull /> Obama's unexpected victory led to him being termed a "rising star" by the media.<ref>Howlett, Debbie (2004, March 18). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-03-18-obama-usat_x.htm Dems See a Rising Star in Illinois Senate Candidate]." ''USA Today''.</ref>
===2004 General Election, Jack Ryan===
Once again Obama found himself trailing to popular frontrunner [[Jack Ryan]], and once again a candidate's campaign imploded thanks to media intervention. In an unprecedented move, the ''Chicago Tribune'' and local TV station WLS sued to force the unsealing of Ryan's divorce files, despite opposition from both Ryan and his wife, Jeri Ryan, who in the files accused Jack Ryan of trying to coerce her to perform sex acts in public. Though Ryan advisors told him he could still win if using a negative attack on Obama, Ryan refused to engage in what he considered dirty politics.<ref name=abandon>''Associated Press'' (2004, June 26). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/2004-06-25-ryan_x.htm Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid]."</ref> Ryan then dropped out of the race (per request by the Illinois GOP<ref name=idealist>Sangwan, Rahul (2004, October 1). "[http://www.dartmouthindependent.com/archives/2004/10/jack_ryan_81_th.html Jack Ryan '81: The Conservative Idealist]." ''Dartmouth Independent''.</ref>), following which the Illinois GOP scrambled to find a replacement, leaving Obama uncontested for weeks to campaign and build up public support. On top of all this, Obama was selected to give the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (July 27<ref>''Washington Post'' (2004, June 26). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html Illinois Senate Candidate Barack Obama]."</ref>), catapulting him into the national spotlight, and leading to further media publicity terming him a "rising star".<ref>Page, Susan & Despoignes, Peronet (2004, July 28). "[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-28-obama-speech_x.htm Rising Star Brings Democrats to Their Feet]." ''USA Today''.</ref>
===2004 General Election, Alan Keyes===
: ''Main Article: [[Obama born alive controversy]]''
After a number of candidates including former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka declined to run<ref>''CNN'' (2004, August 9). "[http://articles.cnn.com/2004-08-09/politics/il.keyes_1_senate-candidate-senate-race-illinois-senate?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS Keyes Challenges Obama for Illinois Senate Seat]."</ref>, the Illinois GOP finally settled on fiery [[Alan Keyes]], a former Ambassador to the Economic and Social Counsel of the United Nations<ref name=spivak />, with less than 3 months left before the November 2004 election.<ref name=msnbc /> His sudden entrance into the state for the election was initially attacked in the press as "carpetbagging".<ref>''Chicago Tribune''. "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-08-06/news/0408060313_1_mr-keyes-judy-baar-topinka-alan-keyes The GOP's Rent-A-Senator]." ''Washington Post'' (2004, August 9). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50885-2004Aug8.html Mr. Keyes the Carpetbagger].</ref><ref name=pearson>Pearson, Rick (2004, September 5). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-09-05/news/0409050304_1_selfish-hedonist-alan-keyes-illinois-republican-party Keyes, State GOP Gearing Up Blame Campaign]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> Keyes repeatedly claimed his primary motivation for entering a race he had seemingly no chance of winning was his disgust at Obama's votes on the popular [[Born Alive]] bills.<ref>Keyes, Alan (2004, August 18). "[http://www.mail-archive.com/newsandviews@chuckmuth.com/msg00699.html How You Can Help Alan Keyes for Senate!]." ''Keyes2004 Inc.''</ref> Keyes, from his first day of arriving in Illinois (August 9, 2004)<ref name=assails>''Associated Press'' (2004, August 9). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ Keyes Assails Obama's Abortion Views]."</ref>, accused Obama of having voted against bills mandating medical care for newborn children, and supporting "infanticide" (the term twice used in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act<ref>''United States Congress'' (2003, March 13). "[http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/2003s3.html S.3: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003]."</ref>) where hospitals left newborn infants to die like garbage.<ref>Smiley, Tavis (2004, August 31). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=341 Alan Keyes on the Tavis Smiley Show]." ''NPR''. ''CBS2 Chicago'' (2004, August 30). "[http://www.keyesarchives.com/transcript.php?id=337 Alan Keyes on CBS2 Chicago This Morning]." This Morning.</ref> Obama in a debate on October 13, 2004, defended himself against Keyes' accusations of infanticide by claiming that Illinois law was already sufficient.<ref>''Chicago Tribune'' (2004, October 13). "[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-10-13/news/0410140004_1_alan-keyes-senate-race-first-of-three-debates Debate or Discussion?]"</ref>

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

===U.S. Senate Voting Record===
Obama's incomplete term in the U.S. Senate was largely unoteworthy. In voting against raising the [[debt limit]] in 2006 Obama famously said, "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. ... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."<ref>''Washington Post'' FACT CHECKER, [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/annotating-obamas-2006-speech-against-boosting-the-debt-limit/2013/01/14/aa8cf8c4-5e9b-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_blog.html Annotating Obama’s 2006 speech against boosting the debt limit], Glenn Kessler, 01/15/2013.</ref><ref>Kaplan, R. (2011, April 11). [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/obama-once-opposed-debt-ceiling-hike/237129/ Obama Once Opposed Debt Ceiling Hike]. ''The Atlantic''.</ref> In 2008 as candidate for president Obama called George W. Bush's request to raise the debt limit "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic".<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q Obama says adding $4 trillion to debt is unpatriotic.] Youtbue.</ref>

The ''National Journal'' ranked him the most liberal senator in 2007.<ref name="ranked">{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502163_162-3775451-502163.html|title=National Journal: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007|author=Brian Montopoli|date=January 31, 2008|work=CBS}}</ref>

Obama frequently used the [[filibuster]] to obstruct the operations of government,<ref>O'Keefe, E. (2010, February 4). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303801_pf.html Obama criticizes Senate Republicans for delaying confirmation votes]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> and voted against the [[minimum wage]] bill<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007. [http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref> he introduced because it included a provision to pay active duty U.S. troops. He voted for the $700 billion TARP program to bailout the big banks after receiving more than $120,000 in contributions from [[Fannie Mae]], a government sponsored entity<ref>more than any other political candidate for office since 1989. [http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers], By Lindsay Renick Mayer, September 11, 2008. opensecrets.org</ref> taken into conservatorship for mismanaging its affairs and responsible for all the big bank's problems.

According to Opensecrets.org, of the 671,269 contributions to Obama during his time in the Senate, [[Goldman Sachs]], JP Morgan, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley were among the top 20 biggest money donors to his campaigns. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00009638&cycle=2008][http://www.votesmart.org/finance.php?can_id=9490] All four subsequently received approximately $70 billion in taxpayer assisted [[bailout]] money from the [[TARP]] program he voted for.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/10/14/business/14bailout.graphic2.html ''Beneficiary Banks'', New York Times. 2008-10-14.]</ref> UBS AG, a foreign bank and the 12th largest donor to Obama,<ref>http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638</ref> was fined $780 billion in February 2009 in a U.S. Federal Court on charges it helped thousands of Americans evade taxes.<ref>[http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20090219/FREE/902199983 ''UBS fined $780 million in tax evasion scandal,''] Investment News, February 19, 2009.</ref>

==2008 Presidential Election==
{{main article|Barack Hussein Obama 2008 Presidential campaign}}
Unlike Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, Obama's hands were not stained with a vote for the Iraqi war resolution, as he was not in the Senate at the time; a minority of Democrats who wanted to punish candidates for exhibiting [[bi-partisan]]ship began calling for his candidacy after liberals lauded his 2004 [[Democratic National Convention]] speech.
====Primary Election====
In 2007-08, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton competed for the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton cleverly resurrected the "Born Alive" controversy surrounding Obama that had lain largely dormant since 2004 (notwithstanding the continuing mentions by Jill Stanek), by accusing Obama of not being pro-choice for voting "Present" on a number of abortion-related bills<ref>Bettelheim, Adriel (2008, February 13). "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/feb/13/obamas-present-tension/ Obama's 'Present' Tension]." ''PolitiFact''.</ref> - including the Born Alive ones,<ref name=clinton>Berman, Russell (2008, January 17). "[http://www.nysun.com/national/clinton-obama-should-vote-no-on-abortion-issue/69700/ Clinton: Obama Should Vote 'No' On Abortion Issue She Backed]." ''New York Sun''. Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=all It's Not Just 'Ayes' and 'Nays': Obama's Votes in Illinois Echo]." ''New York Times''.</ref> and cowardly ducking the votes.<ref>''Politi-Fact''. "[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/13/hillary-clinton/yes-but-its-complicated/ Response to Hillary Clinton Comment for January 21st, 2008]." Truth-o-Meter. Dorning, Mike (2007, December 20). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/criticism_of_obama_present_vot.html Clinton Camp Criticizes Obama 'Present' Votes]." The Swamp. ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> This led to criticism of Obama by two pro-choice organizations, Emily's List, and the National Organization for Women.<ref>Dorning, Mike (2008, January 14). "[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/obama_campaign_mounts_defense.html The Swamp: Obama Campaign Defends His Abortion-Rights Record]." ''Chicago Tribune''. Dorn, Michael (2008, February 6). "[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html Obama's Voting Record on Abortion]." ''Washington Post''. Newton-Small, Jay (2008, January 14). "[http://swampland.time.com/2008/01/14/obama_campaign_defends_present/ Obama Campaign Defends 'Present' Abortion Votes]." ''Time Magazine''.</ref> However, Pam Sutherland, the long-time head of Illinois Planned Parenthood, came to Obama's aid, criticizing Clinton for making the attack, and stating repeatedly that Obama's present votes were part of a broader strategy used by Planned Parenthood to keep Illinois voters from knowing their state senators were voting against the controversial and popular bills.<ref>Hernandez, Raymond & Drew, Christopher (2007, December 20). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20cnd-obama.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin Obama's Vote in Illinois Was Often Just 'Present']." ''New York Times''. Follmer, Max (2008, March 28). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/14/obama-emphasizes-prochoic_n_81460.html Obama Emphasizes Pro-Choice Voting Record as Clinton Questions 'Present' Votes]." ''Huffington Post''.</ref>
{{cquote|"He came to me and said: ‘My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women. A ‘present’ vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted. What it did was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. A ‘present’ vote would protect them. Your senator voted ‘present.’ Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."
-Pam Sutherland, President/CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, 1980-2012<ref>Davis, Teddy (2007, July 17). "[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/07/obama-abortion/ Obama Abortion Dodges Blessed by Planned Parenthood], ''ABC News''.</ref>}}As the contest in Iowa drew near and the former First Lady's inevitability was being usurped by a challenger, Hillary Clinton organizers began circulating rumors that Obama was secretly a Muslim.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/barackemail/ Obama Under the Clinton Microscope], By JEFF ZELENY, ''New York Times'', December 10, 2007; [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/06/clinton-volunteers-anti-obama-e-mail-causes-stir/ Clinton volunteer's sending of anti-Obama e-mail causes stir]. December 6, 2007. CNN; [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=92143 Hillary Clinton Press Release - Sen. Obama Rewrites History], December 2, 2007, references Obama in the Muslim school in Indonesia in 3rd grade, quoting the ''The Los Angeles Times'', 3/15/07; [http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/americas/article1995587.ece Obama ‘was educated in madrassa’], Tim Reid and Tom Baldwin, ''The Times'' (London), January 20, 2007.</ref> Clinton also made the claim repeatedly that while Obama was leading in Delegates she was winning the Popular Vote<ref>Koffler, Daniel (2008, May 28). "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-koffler/hillary-clinton-and-the-p_b_103913.html Hillary Clinton and the Popular Vote: Not Wrong, but Meaningless]." ''Huffington Post''. Barone, Michael (2008, March 28). "[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/barone/2008/03/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Vote]." ''U.S. News''.</ref>, though this was in part because Obama hadn't been registered in Michigan.<ref>Romano, Andrew (2008, August 2). "[http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/stumper/2008/06/02/clinton-s-popular-vote-claim-close-but-not-quite.html Clinton's Popular Vote Claim? Close--But Not Quite*]." ''Newsweek''. ''RealClearPolitics''. "[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html 2008 Democratic Popular Vote]."</ref> Obama's advantage with super-delegates over Clinton was about 2-to-1.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Superdelegate endorsements for Friday 6/6|work=Democratic Convention Watch|url=http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for-friday.html}}</ref> Obama was able to attract the support of [[liberals]] by pointing out that he had come out against the [[Iraq War]] "from the beginning" whereas Clinton had voted in favor of the war in 2002.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-31-democrats-debate_N.htm|title=Obama, Clinton stress differences on Iraq, issues|author=David Jackson|work=USA Today|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> On June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton withdrew from the Primaries, conceding the race and endorsing her opponent<ref>''Associated Press''. "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24993082/ns/politics-decision_08/t/clinton-ends-historic-bid-endorses-obama/ Clinton Ends Historic Bid, Endorses Obama]."</ref>, when Obama passed the 2,118 Delegates required; winning 2,201 delegates to Clinton's 1,896.<ref>''CNN''. "[http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#D Election Center 2008].</ref>

====Born Alive Record Resurfaces====
On June 30, 2008, Obama's voting record on the "Born Alive" bills came once more to the forefront when CNN gave voice to the growing controversy and revealed the defense Obama had been using since 2004-2008, that the Illinois bills he'd voted against were different from the federal bill, was false, since he'd brought up for a vote a bill word for word identical to the federal bill in the Health and Human Services Committee he chaired, and voted against it, defeating it.<ref>''CNN''. "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY How He Really Voted on Abortion: Obama's Record Under Attack]." ''The Situation Room''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by Jill Stanek. ''CNN''. "[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0806/30/sitroom.02.html Transcripts: June 30, 2008]." The Situation Room.</ref> This led in August to a confrontation between Obama and the [[NRLC]].<ref>''National Right to Life Committee''. "[http://www.nrlc.org/news/2008/NRL08/ObamaCoverup.html Obama Cover-up Revealed on Born-Alive Abortion Survivor's Bill]." NRL News, Vol. 35, Issue 7-8, pg. 5.</ref> After Obama accused critics of 'lying'<ref>Brody, David (2008, August 16). "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skq5M1Ksp_c McCain/Obama Forum]." ''CNN''. Uploaded to ''YouTube'' by Jill Stanek. David Brody (August 16, 2008). "[http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/08/16/obama-gets-heated-on-born-alive-infant-protection-act.aspx Obama Gets Heated on Born Alive Infant Protection Act]." ''CBN News''. The Brody File.</ref> the NRLC challenged the assertion, and the Obama campaign conceded he "misspoke" and had voted against an identical bill to the "federal bill that everybody supported" but focused on Obama's new claim, that Illinois law was already sufficient to protect newborn children.<ref>Berman, Russell (2008, August 18). "[http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/ Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record]." ''New York Sun''.</ref> The NRLC promptly declared "Senator Barack Obama's four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel."<ref>Johnson, Douglas (2008, August 18). "[http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm Obama Cover-up on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Continues to Unravel After Sen. Obama Says NRLC is 'Lying']." ''National Right to Life Committee''.</ref>
====Jeremiah Wright====
:''See also: [[Barack Obama and Liberation Theology]]''
One major dilemma that arose for Obama during his campaign was his connection to his preacher [[Jeremiah Wright]]. Obama and his wife (raised a Baptist) were members of the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1776246/posts</ref> in Chicago, a church that embraced [[black liberation theology]] and its emphasis on empowering so-called "oppressed groups" against "establishment forces". This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays as ministers.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> Church pastor Jeremiah Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statement "G-d damn America," and in describing the September 11th attacks, "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being [[anti-Semitic]]."

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

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

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

==2009-2013, U.S. Presidency==
{{main article|Obama administration}}
[[File:Obama and George H. W. Bush.jpg|thumb|right|300px|President Barack Obama meets with former President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office, Feb. 15, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).]]
Five years into Obama's presidency the number of people holding jobs still was 3 million below the all time high of 138 million<ref>The effectiveness of [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|Stimulus]] and deficits: [http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=112811 Job growth under President Obama's first term;] Source: United States Department of Labor.</ref> workers - despite an increase of 10 million people in population over the same period of time.<ref>[https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=112809 U.S. Population growth during Obama's first four years in office.] Source: U.S. Census Bureau.</ref> Under Obama and Senate Democrats<ref>The Democratic controlled Senate did not propose, vote on, or pass a budget for nearly five years. [http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/23/politics/senate-budget-bill/index.html Senate passes its first budget proposal in four years,] Ted Barrett and Alison Harding, CNN, March 23, 2013.</ref> budget management, the United States suffered its largest [[Federal budget deficit|deficit]]s<ref>Edwards, B. et. al. (2009, November 6). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10708/11-06-mbr.htm Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2009]. ''Congressional Budget Office''. Delisle, E.C. et. al. (2010, November 5). [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/118xx/doc11873/NovemberMBR.pdf Monthly Budget Review: Fiscal Year 2010]. ''Congressional Budget Office''.</ref> in history and its credit-worthiness downgraded from Standard & Poors. Obama assured Americans that unemployment would not rise above 8% if his [[economic stimulus]] program was adopted, however it rose and stagnated in the 8-10% range<ref>Di Leo, L & Lynch, S.N. (2010, August 20). [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439172480870774.html Jobless Claims Jump in New Sign Recovery is Sputtering]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref><ref>Bureau of Labor Statistics. [http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS11300000&years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1&from_month=2 Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject: Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey]. ''United States Department of Labor''. Data extracted on: July 19, 2010 (4:31:11 PM).</ref> for the entirety of his first term.

Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen, writing in the [[Wall Street Journal]], noted, "Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship." The commentators also note Obama's approach to governance has encouraged radical leftists to pursue a similar strategy on his behalf. Mary Frances Berry, former head of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, acknowledged that the [[Obama administration]] has taken to polarizing America around the issue of race as a means of diverting attention from other issues, saying, "Having one's opponent [[race card|rebut charges of racism]] is far better than discussing [[Unemployment|joblessness]]."<ref>Berry, M.F. (2010, July 20). [http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html Energy Arena, Driving the Conversation: Contracting Out U.S. Security? And will Branding Tea Party Racist Work?] ''Politico''.</ref> Caddell and Schoen, who worked for President Carter and Clinton, respectively, further stated, "Mr. Obama has also cynically [[class warfare|divided the country on class lines]]. He has taken to playing the populist card time and time again. He bashes Wall Street and insurance companies whenever convenient to advance his programs, yet he has been eager to accept campaign contributions and negotiate with these very same banks and [[corporation]]s behind closed doors in order to advance his political agenda... President Obama's divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture."<ref>Caddell, P.H. & Schoen, D.E. (2010, July 28). [http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703700904575391553798363586.html Our Divisive President]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref>
===Domestic policy===
====Economic policy====
[[File:Keynes.jpg|thumbnail|right|190px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of discredited [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]]<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
</ref> ]]
{{see also|Obamunism|American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009}}
Critics of the Obama administration have coined the word "[[Obamunism]]" to describe Barack Obama's [[socialism|socialistic]] and "[[fascism]] light" [[economic planning]] policies.<ref>[[Benito Mussolini]] defined fascism as the wedding of state and corporate powers. Accordingly, trend forecaster [[Gerald Celente]] labels [[Obama administration corporate bailouts|Obama's corporate bailouts]] as being "fascism light" in nature.</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/daily-intel/2009/07/20/obamunism-inc|work=The Big Money|publisher=WashingtonPost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obamunism, Inc.|author=David Sessions|date=July 20, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smallbusinessadvocate.com/small-business-interviews/gerald-celente-6944|author=Jim Blasingame|title=Is the government creating a bailout bubble?}}</ref> Obamunism can also refer to Obama's [[Obama administration fiscal policy|ruinous fiscal policies]] and [[Obama administration monetary policy|reckless monetary policies]].<ref name="gerard">{{cite web|url=http://seekingalpha.com/article/120883-monetary-policynot-obama-s-stimulusis-what-needs-watching|title=Monetary Policy-Not Obama's Stimulus-Is What Needs Watching|author=Gerard Jackson|date=February 16, 2009|work=Seeking Alpha}}</ref><ref name="bam">{{cite web|work=New York Post|date=May 17, 2009|url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/05172009/postopinion/editorials/bams_wise_words_169731.htm|title=BAM'S WISE WORDS}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/|title=Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures|work=The Foundry|publisher=The Heritage Foundation|author=Conn Carroll|date=March 24th, 2009}}</ref> As seen in his own actions, Barack Obama instructed his advisors to find loopholes that would enable the president to act as a [[dictator]] by pushing through legislation and increases in spending without congressional authority.<ref>Naked Emperor News (2011, October 12). [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/executive-dictatorship-obama-instructs-advisers-to-push-through-stimulus-projects-without-pesky-congressional-authorization/ Exclusive Dictatorship: Obama Instructs Advisors to Push Through Stimulus Projects Without Pesky 'Congressional Authorization']. ''The Blaze''.</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Jeffrey Tucker]] wrote, "President Obama's economic policy has been catastrophic for liberty, enterprise, and the American dream—the very archetype of what not to do to end recession." [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1118186176/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=anncoulter-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1118186176]
=====Stimulus=====
:''See also: [[Recovery Summer]]''
In early 2009, Obama lobbied Congress and the public to pass a sweeping Stimulus package<ref>(2009, January 3). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Obama Urges Congress to Pass Stimulus Plan]." ''Associated Press''. Parsons, C. & Nicholas, P. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28479998/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-urges-congress-pass-stimulus-plan/ Barack Obama Sternly Urges Congress to Pass Economic Stimulus]." ''Chicago Tribune''.</ref> known as ''The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'' (H.R. 1).<ref>"[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1: Bill Text Versions: H.R. 1]." 111th Congress (2009-2010). ''Library of Congress''. "[http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204335,00.html The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Information Center]." ''IRS''.</ref> The report of the Congressional Budget Office mandated by law stated that the legislation would ultimately harm the economy.<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, February 4). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/ CBO: Obama Stimulus Harmful Over Long Haul]." ''U.S. News''.</ref> Contrary to his promise of bipartisanship,<ref>Dinan, S. (2009, March 28). "[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/28/mccain-obama-breaks-campaign-promises-shuns-bipart/?page=all McCain: Obama Breaks Promise of Bipartisanship]." ''Washington Times''.</ref> the bill passed the House 244-188 on January 28, 2009 with 11 Democrats voting with the entire Republican caucus against,<ref>Calmes, J. (2009, January 28). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html House Passes Stimulus Plan With No G.O.P. Votes]." ''New York Times''.</ref> and received just 3 Republican votes when passing the Senate 61-37.<ref>Herszenhorn, D.M. (2009, February 10). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/washington/11web-stim.html Senate Approves Stimulus Plan]." ''New York Times''.</ref> One third of the massive $838 billion bill consisted of [[Backdoor_spending_authority#Backdoor_tax_expenditures|backdoor tax expenditures]]<ref>(2009, February 11). "Senate Passes $838 Billion Stimulus Bill]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> and the rest direct [[new spending]] on "just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years."<ref>(2009, January 28). "[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html A 40-Year Wish List]." ''Wall Street Journal''.</ref> In responding to criticism of the broken bipartisanship promise at the time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously quipped, "We won the election. We wrote the bill."<ref>Kane, P. (2009, January 23). "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203961.html Stimulus Plan Meets More GOP Resistance]." ''Washington Post''.</ref> On February 18, 2009, the Stimulus was signed into law by Obama.<ref>(2009, February 17). "[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29231790/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-stimulus-lets-americans-claim-destiny/ Obama: Stimulus Lets Americans Claim Destiny]." ''Associated Press''.</ref> In August 2009, Republicans and Democratic Senator David Obey drew attention to mistakes on the Recovery.gov site claiming millions of Stimulus jobs created that didn't exist. Obama responded by saying the errors just indicate his accounting is an "inexact science".<ref>(2009, November 18). "[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/obama-calls-stimulus-data-errors-issue-says-focus-job-growth/ Obama Calls Stimulus Data Errors 'Side Issue,' Says Focus Is on Job Growth]." ''FOX News''.</ref>
=====[[Sequestration]]=====
According to [[Pulitzer Prize]] winning journalist [[Bob Woodward]] of the ''[[Washington Post]]'', Obama misled the American people in a Presidential debate only two weeks before the 2012 election when he said, "The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,”<ref>[http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-22/opinions/37238840_1_jack-lew-treasury-secretary-rob-nabors Obama’s sequester deal-changer,] By Bob Woodward, ''Washington Post'', February 22, 2013.</ref> when in fact his chief budget negotiator and current Chief of Staff, [[Jack Lew]], made a call to Democrat [[Harry Reid]] at 2:30 pm on July 27, 2011 with the proposal after clearing it with Obama,<ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/22/fact-check-woodward-wrote-that-obama-administration-proposed-sequester/ Fact-check: Woodward wrote that Obama administration proposed sequester]. dailycaller.com </ref> as fully documented in Woodward's book, ''The Price of Politics''. Federal Reserve Chairman [[Ben Bernanke]] warned of immediate jobloss of about 750,000 jobs - about the same level as under George W. Bush<ref>[http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=109262 Monthly Jobloss under George W. Bush, Jan 2007 - Jan 2009]. See also [http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=109266 Initial Unemployment Claims] over the same period, annualized. Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.</ref> - if Obama's budget and economic plans were allowed to take effect.<ref>[http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/26/news/economy/bernanke-burden-recovery/ Bernanke: Spending cuts add 'significant' burden to recovery,] By Annalyn Kurtz, CNN February 26, 2013.</ref>

Woodward, who's reporting on [[Watergate]] is credited with toppling the administration of [[Richard Nixon]], told Wolf Blitzer of CNN he was told by a senior White House official he'd regret talking about the President Obama's positions on the sequester.<ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-white-house-reporting-price-politics-2013-2 Bob Woodward: White House Threatened Me On Sequester,] businessinsider.com </ref>

====Healthcare mandates====
{{main article|Obamacare}}
On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the unpopular Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The act originated in the [[Democratic]]ally controlled House and was amended and passed the Senate just prior to Sen. [[Ted Kennedy]]'s death largely along party lines with a significant number of Democrats voting to oppose. In what was construed as a de facto rejection of the bill, [[Massachusetts]] voters elected a [[Republican]] candidate, [[Scott Brown]], who promised to vote against the bill if given the chance.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/scott-brown-wins-massachusetts-senate-race.html|work=The Washington Post|author=Chris Cillizza|date=January 19, 2010|title=Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate special election race|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> After Obama made a promise to issue an [[executive order]] that would ultimately prohibit the use of taxpayer subsidies to pay for [[abortion]] services,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/22/nation/la-na-healthcare-passage22-2010mar22/3|work=The Los Angeles Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes historic healthcare overhaul|date=March 22, 2010|author=Noam N. Levey and Janet Hook}}</ref> the Democratic [[House of Representatives]] would pass the bill as it left the Senate 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all other parties dissenting.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-21/politics/health.care.main_1_health-care-entire-house-democratic-caucus-pre-existing-conditions?_s=PM:POLITICS|date=March 21, 2010|author=Alan Silverleib|work=CNN|format=HTML|language=English|title=House passes health care bill on 219-212 vote}}</ref>

Amongst other things, the act mandated that everyone purchase health care coverage or face punitive tax measures, and was upheld by the [[Supreme Court]].

====Regulatory reform====
Obama criticized the "revolving door" of government and business.<ref>"We need to close the revolving door that lets lobbyists come into government freely, and lets them use their time in public service as a way to promote their own interests over the interests of the American people when they leave." [http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-welcoming-senior-staff-and-cabinet-secretaries-white-house REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN WELCOMING SENIOR STAFF AND CABINET SECRETARIES TO THE WHITE HOUSE,] January 21, 2009. whitehouse.gov </ref> After appointing [[Peter Orszag]] his first Budget Director to dole out the stimulus cash, Orszag resigned to become Citigroup's Vice Chairman of Global Banking. Citigroup was the recipient of $476 billion in [[bailout]] money - more than any other bank - after the disastrous [[Financial crisis of 2008]].<ref>[http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/03/citibank_received_more_bailout.html Citigroup Received More Bailout Money Than Any Other Bank,] By Nitasha Tiku, 3/16/11. </ref> Before the bailout, Orszag's expert opinion of the chances of a mortgage meltdown were 1 in 500,000.<ref>[http://www.pierrelemieux.org/stiglitzrisk.pdf Implications of the New Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Risk-based Capital Standard,] by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Jonathan M. Orszag and Peter R. Orszag. Fannie Mae Papers, Volume 1, Issue 2, March 2002, Conclusion p.6. </ref>

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

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

====Labor law and compensation to 9/11 first responders====
Obama's first act of office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - effectively nullifying the [[Supreme Court]] case ''Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'', which ruled that Ledbetter had to have filed a pay [[discrimination]] suit within 180 days of the first time Ledbetter was paid less than her male peers;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html|work=The New York Times|format=HTML|language=English|title=Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation|author=Sheryl Gay Stolberg|date=January 29, 2009}}</ref> the law made corporations subject to suit within 180 days of each time the employee was unfairly paid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20090213.html?=features|work=FindLaw|author=Joanna L. Grossman|date=Feb. 13, 2009|format=HTML|language=English|title=The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009}}</ref>

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

===Foreign policy===
[[File:Western Wall Obama.jpg|thumb|left|320px|At [[Western Wall]], Jerusalem, 2008.]]
As Senator, Obama was highly critical of President Bush and promised change. As President, Obama has tripled down in Afghanistan, widened the war into Pakistan, multiplied drone attacks, bombed Yemen and Somalia, and started an undeclared NATO war in Libya. On presidential war powers, surveillance questions, Guantanamo, detention policy and habeas corpus, Obama has similarly stayed the course, or expanded Bush's precedents. In a speech on May 19, 2011 Obama fully embraced the [[Bush Doctrine]] of preventative war.<ref>Krauthammer, C. (April 19). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-news-in-obamas-speech/2011/05/19/AF4dFN7G_story.html The News in Obama's Speech]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref>

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

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

Section 1031 of the NDAA bill, which itself defines the entirety of the United States as a “battlefield,” allows American citizens to be snatched from the streets, carted off to a foreign detention camp and held indefinitely without trial. As reported by Infowars.com, the bill states that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” faces indefinite detention, but no trial or evidence has to be presented, the White House merely needs to make the accusation.<ref>Paul Joseph Watson. [http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-demanded-power-to-indefinitely-detain-u-s-citizens/ Obama Administration Demanded Power To Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens], Infowars.com, December 12, 2011. S.1867 [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c1122VN0Iv:e548990: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)], ''The Library of Congress'' THOMAS, 112th Congress (2011-2011), Accessed January 25, 2012. Text of S.1867 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/text?version=es&nid=t0:es:281 Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force.], [[U.S. Congress]], ''OpenCongress.org'', (Accessed January 25, 2012).</ref>
====Al Qaeda and Libya====
{{main article|Libyan uprising 2011}}
In February 2011, the political unrest that spread through the Arab world showed up as protests in Libya. Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, leader of Libya for 41 years, responded to the violence<ref>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28376.htm</ref> with legitimate steps.<ref name="nyt libya">{{cite web|url=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html|work=The New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Inc.|format=HTML|language=English|title=Libya — Protests and Revolt (2011)}}</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] voted to impose [[sanctions]], and later passed a resolution to protect civilians. Obama, without approval from Congress and over the objections of his own National Security staff,<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20038391-503544.html</ref> directed American forces to take out Libya's air defense system.<ref name="nyt libya"/> Secretary of Defence [[Robert Gates]], National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough, and [[White House]] counterterrorism chief [[John O. Brennan]] all opposed the action. Obama later said, "if we waited one more day Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."<ref>{{cite web|author=Barack Obama|url=http://www.npr.org/2011/03/28/134935452/obamas-speech-on-libya-a-responsibility-to-act|title=Obama's Speech On Libya: 'A Responsibility To Act'|date=March 28, 2011|publisher=National Public Radio ([[NPR]])|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> [[Alan J. Kuperman]], in an editorial for the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' - suggested this statement was false, writing, "intervention did not prevent genocide, because no such bloodbath was in the offing. To the contrary, by emboldening rebellion, US interference has prolonged Libya’s civil war and the resultant suffering of innocents."<ref name="kuperman">{{cite web|author=Alan J. Kuperman|work=The Boston Globe|url=http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions|title=False pretense for war in Libya?|date=April 14, 2011}}</ref> Kuperman, a professor of public affairs at the University of Texas who authored a book called ''The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention'', further stated that the rebels had tricked the world into thinking a bloodbath was at hand and that Obama had lied to the American people in order to act on this theory.<ref name="kuperman"/>
<blockquote>
Gaddafi [never] threaten civilian massacre in Benghazi, as Obama alleged. The “no mercy’’ warning, of March 17, targeted rebels only, as reported by ''The New York Times'', which noted that Libya’s leader promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.’’ Gaddafi even offered the rebels an escape route and open border to Egypt, to avoid a fight “to the bitter end.’’ <ref> [http://politicalcartel.org/2011/04/17/libya-and-the-obama-doctrine/ Libya and the “Obama Doctrine”.] </ref>
</blockquote>
Gaddafi wrote to Obama and told him he bore no ill will. "We have been hurt more morally than physically because of what had happened against us in both deeds and words by you," he wrote. "Despite all this you will always remain our son whatever happened. We still pray that you continue to be president of the USA. We endeavour and hope that you will gain victory in the new election campaign."<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/06/gaddafi-obama-nato-libya?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487]</ref>
=====Aid to violent Islamists=====
A March 29, 2011 article in the ''[[Washington Post]]'' included these paragraphs:
{{Cquote|"It’s almost a certitude that at least part” of the Libyan opposition includes members of al-Qaeda, said Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA analyst and adviser to President Obama. Riedel said that anti-Gaddafi elements in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi have had “very close associations with al-Qaeda” dating back years....I would hope that we now have a good sense of the opposition in Libya and can say that this is 2 percent, not 20 percent,” Riedel said. “If we don’t, then we are running the risk of helping to bring to power a regime that could be very dangerous.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/libyan-opposition-includes-a-small-number-of-al-qaeda-fighters-us-officials-say/2011/03/29/AFRlXWyB_story.html</ref>}}

This set off a fierce debate in the [[Obama administration]] over the wisdom of arming terrorists.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss</ref> It is now known sometime prior to March 31, 2011,<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=2&hp</ref> at the urging of Hillary Clinton<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?_r=3&hp& </ref> and over the objections of his National Security Council, Obama signed a Presidential Finding authorizing support for the rebel jihadis.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref>

By October 2011, [[Libyan rebel fighting group]]s with support from [[NATO]] overtook the capital and toppled the government. Gaddafi was captured and brutally and sadistically murdered.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPzeLLL9V-c Leading from behind - a critique of Obama foreign policy]</ref> The jihadis were immediately recognized by the U.S. and the U.N. as the new legitimate government. Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, chairman of the National Transitional Council, announced [[Sharia]] will be the source for all legislation and all laws conflicting with Sharia are null and void.<ref name="Sharia">[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8861608/Libya-Al-Qaeda-flag-flown-above-Benghazi-courthouse.html Libya: Al Qaeda flag flown above Benghazi courthouse - Daily Telegraph]</ref> Abdel Rahim al-Kib, the country's interim prime minister, echoed Jalil's words days later.<ref>[http://www.presstv.ir/detail/207953.html New Libyan PM backs Islamic sharia law]</ref> The al Qaeda flag was flown above the Benghazi courthouse, and reports surfaced that the Libyan jihadis had imposed Sharia law in some parts of the country even earlier.<ref name="Sharia" /> By February 17, 2013, four foreign nationals were arrested for distributing Christian literature, a charge that could carry the death penalty<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/17/libya-arrests-suspected-foreign-missionaries Libya arrests foreign 'missionaries' Four foreign nationals accused of distributing Christian literature,] a charge that could carry the death penalty, Chris Stephen guardian.co.uk, Sunday 17 February 2013.</ref>

=====U.S. Ambassador murdered=====
:{{main|Benghazi Attack}}
With several U.S.embassies besieged on the anniversary of the [[September 11 attacks]], White House Press Secretary [[Jay Carney]] declared there was no reason to believe the attack on the sovereign territory of the United States consulate in Benghazi, less than two months before the [[2012 Presidential election]] which killed Americans, was a terrorist attack.
{{Cquote|The unrest that we’ve seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims, find offensive.}}
This became the official White House line. Between jokes with [[Jon Stewart]] on the ''Comedy Channel'' Obama said the death of Americans was "not optimal".<ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/18/Obama-Benghazi-murders-not-optimal Interview with Jon Stewart of the ''Daily Show''].</ref> When pressed by reporters, who pointed out evidence that the violence in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, Press Secretary Carney argued “the unrest around the region has been in response to this video.”

Leading suspected jihadis in the murders and terrorist attack were the local Benghazi branch of Ansar al-Shariah, known to have ties to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.<ref>http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2012/10/19/when-an-obama-adviser-called-benghazi-an-al-qaeda-hotbed/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway</ref> A commander of the terrorist group boasted jovially about the attack over drinks with reporters for the ''[[New York Times]]'' in Benghazi<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=2&ref=world</ref>.<ref>http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/frappe-libya-attack/</ref>
=====[[Al Qaeda in the Maghreb]]=====
Two more Americans were killed, along with 35 others, after being taken hostage by rebel jihadists in Mali shortly after the Libyan upheaval.<ref>[http://world.time.com/2013/01/21/algeria-37-foreigner-hostages-killed-in-attack/ Algeria: 37 Foreigner Hostages Killed in Attack], Associated Press, Jan. 21, 2013. ''TIME'' magazine.</ref>

Hillary Clinton testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the wake of the Benghazi murders under her stewardship, that weapons and fighters equipped by the Obama administration made their way to [[Mali]] and [[Algeria]]:
{{cquote|There is no doubt that the Algerian terrorists had weapons from Libya. There is no doubt that the Malian remnants of AQIM [Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb] have weapons from Libya.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-says-militants-used-weapons-libya-algeria-attack-154222664.html Clinton says militants used weapons from Libya in Algeria attack,] Reuters, Jan 23, 2013.]</ref>}}

====Afghanistan====
{{main article|Afghanistan War}}
Obama escalated troop strength<ref name="pbs">{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/obamaswar/themes/strategy.html#ixzz1LhWNImZp|title=Obama's New Strategy (March '09)|author=George Packer, Seth Jones, David Kilcullen, Rory Stewart, Andrew Exum, Col. Andrew Bacevich (Ret.)|work=PBS|language=English|format=HTML}}</ref> and defense costs in Afghanistan from $43.5 billion in George Bush's last year to $113.7 billion for 2011.<ref>Congressional Research Service, quoted in Gregory Anthony, ''What price war?''</ref> Adviser to General [[Stanley McChrystal]] David Kilcullen wrote, "One of the big strategic shifts is the use of language now which talks about Pakistan and Afghanistan as the same theater. Now we talked about Af-Pak long before the Obama administration came about, but the public use of that term, and the description of it as the Afghanistan-Pakistan campaign, sends a new message to people about how the administration is going to think about Afghanistan and Pakistan."<ref name="pbs"/> T

====Mexico====
[[File:Eric Holder.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[Eric Holder]] remains as Attorney General despite being held in Contempt of Congress. Others such as Rahm Emanual have departed in wake of the Fast & Furious revelations.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/fast_and_furious_in_a_rotten_nutshell.html#ixzz27iRBCN28 Fast and Furious in a Rotten Nutshell], Ronald Kolb, ''American Thinker'', October 7, 2011,</ref>]]
:''Main article:'' '''[[Operation Fast and Furious]]'''
In May of 2010, President Obama promised Mexican President [[Felipe Calderon]] that his administration would assist Mexico in curbing drug cartel violence, which has led to 30,000 deaths in Mexico. "President Calderon and I . . . stand together against the drug cartels that have unleashed horrific violence in so many communities," Obama said on May 19. "Mexico can count on the United States as a full partner in this effort."

The ''[[Washington Post]]'' has reported however that White House officials stopped a requirement for gun dealers to report bulk sales of high-powered semiautomatic rifles commonly used by illegal drug cartels. [[Justice Department]] officials had asked for White House approval to require thousands of gun dealers along the border to report the purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. ATF investigators expected to get leads on suspected arms traffickers. Senior law enforcement sources said the proposal from the ATF was held up by then White House chief of staff [[Rahm Emanuel]].<ref>Horwitz, S. & Grimaldi, J.V. (2010, December 17). [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html White House Delayed Rule Meant to Stop Gun Flow to Mexico]. ''The Washington Post''.</ref> Gun dealers have been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.
====Guantanamo Bay====
{{main article|Guantanamo Bay}}
One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close the American detention center at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - detainees would be flown to other countries while the ones awaiting trial would enter the American court system. Two days after taking office he signed an order directing the military to do so.<ref name="salon">{{cite web|url=http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/25/obama_guantanamo_rhetoric|work=Salon|title=The Obama/Gitmo timeline|author=Natasha Lennard|format=HTML|language=English}}</ref> But, in November 2009 Obama admitted that his self imposed deadline of January 2010 would be missed, and in March 2011 the president went back on his campaign promise, signing an executive order to create a formal system of indefinite detention for the prisoners.<ref name="salon"/>
====Cuba====
At the funeral of [[Nelson Mandela]], Obama met the dictator of [[Cuba]], [[Raul Castro]]. They shaked hands together and Obama was almost boing before him.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/humberto-fontova/the-obama-castro-handshake-a-confirmation/</ref>

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

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

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

===2011: Death of Osama bin Laden===
On May 1, 2011, Obama announced in a press conference<ref>Obama, B. (2011, May 2). "[http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead Osama Bin Laden Dead]." ''WhiteHouse.gov''.</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf1SLhNoUNY Nobel Prize Winner with a kill list].</ref> that Osama bin Laden was dead after a U.S. assault force infiltrated a compound in [[Abbottabad raid|Abottobad]], Pakistan.<ref>Baker, P., Cooper, H., & Mazzetti, M. (2011, May 1). "[Bin Laden is Dead, Obama Says]." ''New York Times''. "[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Osama_Bin_Laden/ Target Bin Laden: The Death of Public Enemy #1]." ''ABC News''. ''NPR''. "[http://www.npr.org/series/135908383/osama-bin-laden-dead Special Series: Osama Bin Laden Killed]." </ref> Attacks on Americans and American consulate bureaus have since escalated as reprisals for bin Laden's death. [[Al Qaeda]], once presumed broken and on the run, now functions openly throughout North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and parts of Eurasia. Relations with longtime ally Pakistan have become strained. Obama experienced only a temporary blip in approval polls.<ref>Dao, J. & Sussman, D. (2011, May 4). "[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/politics/05poll.html For Obama, Big Rise in Poll Numbers After Bin Laden Raid]." ''New York Times''. ''Pew Research Center'' (2011, May 2). "[http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/03/public-relieved-by-bin-ladens-death-obamas-job-approval-rises/ Public 'Relieved' by Bin Laden's Death, Obama's Job Approval Rises]." Jones, J.M. (2011, May 5). "[http://www.gallup.com/poll/147437/obama-approval-rallies-six-points-bin-laden-death.aspx Obama Job Approval Rallies Six Points to 52% After Bin Laden Death]." ''Gallup''.</ref><ref>''CBS/Associated Press'' (2012, May 1). "[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57424622/1-year-after-osama-bin-laden-killed-still-no-answers-from-pakistan/ 1 Year After Osama bin Laden Killed, Still No Answers from Pakistan]."</ref> Pakistan has denied White House claims that there was a deal with it allowing the raid.<ref>''Associated Press'' (2011, May 10). "[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/10/pakistani-president-claims-bin-laden-deal/ Former Pakistani President Claims There Was Never Bin Laden Deal With U.S.]." Retrieved from ''FOX News''.</ref>

=== 2012: Possible Ties to ACORN ===
According to Stanley Kurtz - author of ''Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism'' (2010) Obama in 1995 sought and obtained the endorsement of a left-wing third party, the [[New Party]] in his quest to be elected to the Illinois State Senate.<ref>Kurtz, S. (2012, June 7). [http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz Obama's Third-Party History]. ''National Review Online''.</ref> Obama's "Fight the Smears" campaign has denied this, as has Politico's Ben Smith.<ref name=pollack>Pollack, J.B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Obama-Caught-Lying-Again-He-WAS-Member-of-New-Party-Says-Kurtz Obama Caught Lying Again: He WAS Member of 'New Party', Says Kurtz]. ''Breitbart''. Smith, B. (2008, October 25). [http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/The_dread_New_Party.html The Dread New Party]. ''Politico''.</ref> Others who claim he was affiliated with the New Party/ACORN include The Blaze's Billy Hallowell<ref>Hallowell, B. (2012, June 7). [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-new-documents-show-obama-was-a-member-of-the-far-left-new-party/ News Docs Reportedly Show Obama Was a Member of the Far-Left 'New Party']. ''The Blaze''.</ref>, Breitbart's Joel Pollack, Human Events' Erick Erickson<ref>Erickson, E. (2008, June 10). [http://www.humanevents.com/2008/06/10/obama-and-the-new-party/ Obama and the New Party]. ''Human Events''.</ref>, Newsbusters' P.J. Gladnick<ref>Gladnick, P.J. (2008, October 12). [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party#ixzz21JfE3z1z Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?] ''Newsbusters''.</ref>, Rick Moran at AmericanThinker.com<ref>Rick Moran. [http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_alliance_with_marxists.html Obama's Alliance with Marxists], ''American Thinker'', June 03, 2008.</ref>, and various writers at Discover the Networks (which include Kurtz and Erickson).<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7434 NEW PARTY (NP)], ''DiscoverTheNetworks.org''.</ref>

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

===2012: "You didn't build that" Controversy===
{{main|You didn't build that}}

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

===Results===

On November 6, 2012 Barack Obama won reelection with 332 electoral votes to Mitt Romney's 206.<ref>http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012</ref> Obama received 51% of the popular vote (65,899,660 votes) to Romney's 47% (60,932,152 votes).<ref>http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012presgeresults.pdf</ref>

==See also==
*[[Political positions of Barack Obama]]
*[[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]]
*[[Barack Obama and abortion]]
*[[Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]
*[[Lobbyists ties to the Obama administration]]
*[[Obama doublespeak]]
*[[Obama inauguration]]
*[[Religion of Barack Hussein Obama]]
*[[The Honorable James David Manning]]
*[[Al Qaeda in the Maghreb]]

==External links==

*[http://barackobamadoubletalk.com/ Barack Obama Doubletalk]
*[http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/03/national-journal-obama-facing-crisis-over-incompetence/ National Journal: Obama facing crisis over incompetence]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/ Audacity Of Hypocrisy]
*[http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6130/ The New Cult of Personality]
*[http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/23/che-obama-and-the-revolutionary-agenda/ Che, Obama, and the Revolutionary Agenda]
*[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/ Obama Laundry List of Lies]
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/09/americas-first-muslim-president/ GAFFNEY: America's first Muslim president?] Washington Times
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/barack-obama-and-islam_b_212519.html Barack Obama and Islam.] by [[John L. Esposito]].
*[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth.]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm Barack Obama on the issues.]

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

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

Talk:Irreligious prison population

2013-05-16T15:36:08Z

Fnarrow: answering AugustO's question

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== "No Religion" ==

In my opinion, having "no religion" doesn't necessarily imply that you don't believe in God - are there statistics which show explicitly how many atheists there are, especially in American prisons? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:14, 16 May 2013 (EDT)
::Thanks. Fixed it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:22, 16 May 2013 (EDT)
:Well done! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:11, 16 May 2013 (EDT)
:::First, let me applaud you [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], I know we haven't always seen eye to eye here, but I think the title change is a much better fit to the data. Thank you. Second, in response to [[User:AugustO|AugustO's]] question, I was wondering the same thing. Here's what I found:
:::*[http://www.gallup.com/poll/153479/Mississippi-Religious-State.aspx Gallup Poll stating that 32% of American's are "non-religious"]
:::*[http://www.pewforum.org/Social-Welfare/prison-chaplains-preface.aspx article describing Pew interview/survey of prison chaplains]
:::*[http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Issues/Social_Welfare/Religion%20in%20Prisons.pdf PDF Results of above Pew survey suggesting 10.6% of inmates are "non-religious"]
:::*[http://www.bop.gov/news/research_projects/published_reports/gen_program_eval/volunteer_cpp.pdf PDF findings provided by the Federal Bureau of Prisons; appears to suggest 2% atheist prison population]

:::I'm not a statistician, so I could be misreading these, I just thought I'd provide what I found. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:36, 16 May 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Mount Everest

2013-05-16T02:29:40Z

Fnarrow: question about Everest glacial melt due to Global warming.

The added descriptor of "huge" is unnecessary, and the random aside about Mars is totally irrelevant. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:11, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Glacial Melt==
Should [http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/mount-everest-glaciers-melting-130515.htm this] be mentioned here or on the [[Global warming]] page? [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 22:29, 15 May 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Richard Lenski

2013-05-14T04:05:46Z

Fnarrow: more information for a microbiologist to sift through... do we have one of those?

[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Lenski/archive1 Archive 1]

==2012 identification and sequencing of mutations==
I know this article has a very contentious history, but I thought I'd bring this to everyone's attention... I'm a physicist, not a micro-biologist, but it appears to answer many of the claims made against Prof. Lenski and his findings:
<blockquote>
'''Abstract'''
Evolutionary novelties have been important in the history of life, but their origins are usually difficult to examine in detail. We previously described the evolution of a novel trait, aerobic citrate utilization (Cit(+)), in an experimental population of Escherichia coli. Here we analyse genome sequences to investigate the history and genetic basis of this trait. At least three distinct clades coexisted for more than 10,000 generations before its emergence. The Cit(+) trait originated in one clade by a tandem duplication that captured an aerobically expressed promoter for the expression of a previously silent citrate transporter. The clades varied in their propensity to evolve this novel trait, although genotypes able to do so existed in all three clades, implying that multiple potentiating mutations arose during the population's history. Our findings illustrate the importance of promoter capture and altered gene regulation in mediating the exaptation events that often underlie evolutionary innovations.
</blockquote>

Published in Sept. 2012, abstract and full text can be found [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22992527 here] [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:05, 14 May 2013 (EDT)

Debate:Should there be a separate section on the main page for blogs, advertisements and other non-news items?

2013-05-12T14:36:11Z

Fnarrow: Removing (again) Conservative's personal attacks and other comments which do not relate to this debate. Please stay on topic here.

{{debate}}
Frequently items are posted to the [[Template:Mainpageright|"In the News"]] section of the [[Main Page]] which, while they may be interesting and informative, do not fit the clearly stated purpose of this section. This occurrence has led to a significant amount of friction which has then erupted into an increasing number of arguments on [[Talk:Main Page]] and elsewhere.
As a proposed solution to this, I put the following question to the users of this site:
<blockquote>
Does the Conservapedia Main Page need to be redesigned in order to include a separate "In the Blogs" or "Around the Web" section where non-news items can be posted?
</blockquote>
==Yes==
Many other pages around the web successfully display what is going on in many different areas of the Internet but are generally quite careful to keep the straight news separate from the blogs and clearly label each. This not only adds to the professional appearance of the site's main page, but is also the most responsible way to go as clearly separates hard news from blogs which may contain any imaginable blend of facts and personal opinion. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 01:51, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Yes. There are many things happening all over the internet that may be interesting, entertaining, or informative, but do not fit neatly into the definition of "news". And there's no reason that space to highlight such items cannot be made on the main page. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 02:06, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

==No==
The site is what it is. Of course there are going to be a lot of articles and blogs referring to the decline of evolution, homosexuality and atheism because that is what the site is about. No need to change a part of the site (perhaps the only) that functions exactly as is intended. Note that it is not intended that everyone who edits at CP, or even its administrators (or owner!) will agree with everything that is posted there, but it is to generate interest and discussion on topical points. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 05:32, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Blogs, advertisements and other non-news items should '''not''' be included on the main page. Similarly, one blog should not be shamelessly promoted under the pretext of being "current news items." The main page should feature content from within CP, not other blogs. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:42, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

It's supposed to be an encyclopedia. The main problem with the main page content is that it's a collection of fringe opinion where it is not blatantly false. An encyclopedia should at the very least attempt to publish only established facts and defensible opinion. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 22:37, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

:I feel like I might not have done a great job of phrasing the initial question...
::*[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] The question isn't about agreement or disagreement or even the topics covered in the posts... it's about the definition, provided at the top of MPR, of what should be posted there... specifically, "News the MSM isn't covering". Blogs with a person or group of people's opinions is not news, it's commentary and editorializing.
::*[[User:Wschact|Wschact]] and [[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]], on a personal level, I agree with your statements here 100% and if it was up to me they wouldn't be appearing on the main page at all. However, as witnessed by the repeated dismissal and ignoring of anyone who makes these suggestions on [[Talk:Main Page|Main Page]] and elsewhere, this clearly isn't an option that any of the sysops are open to. Therefore, I'm merely suggesting that if they're going to put it on the main page no matter what, it should at least go in a section that isn't labeled as "news." [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 01:17, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

==Regardless of my opinion on the above question, these are other [[Main Page]] changes which I would like to see happen (Please include a DETAILED description of your proposed changes)==

The main page contributions should to reflect the full range of editors who work together to make this site run. As of the [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&limit=500&action=history last 500 edits], 7 users make all of the contributions to the [[Template:Mainpageright|MPR]] news sections with 92.6% being made by only 3. While there is a [[Talk:Main_Page#MPR_Article_Suggestion|section on the main talk page]] for suggesting news stories, it seems to be little known and even less used. This has led to frustration/confusion among editors (See [[Talk:Main_Page#Proposal_for_a_Main_Page_Committee|here]]) and even a very well respected and experienced SYSOP in another case (as witnessed [[User_talk:Aschlafly#News_items_for_the_main_page|here]]). I don't know whether the rotating committee, a more visible "suggestion box" or something else entirely is the best option for getting a wider array of important stories on the Main Page, but I feel it's clear that something needs to be done. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 01:51, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

I have made a proposal to create a three-editor committee for editing the main page. You can comment on it [[Talk:Main_Page#Proposal_for_a_Main_Page_Committee|here]]. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:44, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

The main page is largely rubbish, including links to some of the most numbingly stupid articles and links to really poorly researched blogs. Doesn't any other editor feel ashamed that science is routinely degraded while silly nonsense from old books is treated as unassailable fact? Enough of the stupid! A detailed plan for improving the main page is not difficult to compose: remove it, it's a disgrace. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 23:38, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
:Tony, so I'm guessing you're not on the edge of you're seat waiting to find out exactly how 2013 is going to be a BAD year for Darwinism? --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 23:55, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
::I am on the edge of my seat waiting to find out how CP can be made a place that will be attractive to readers and to new editors. The cost of the current Main page is too high to allow this to continue. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:34, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

Debate:Should there be a separate section on the main page for blogs, advertisements and other non-news items?

2013-05-12T05:17:27Z

Fnarrow: /* No */ fixed indent, forgot to sign

Debate:Should there be a separate section on the main page for blogs, advertisements and other non-news items?

2013-05-12T05:10:47Z

Fnarrow: /* No */ and explanation/reply... I apologize for the poor phrasing of the topic I wished to have debated.

{{debate}}
Frequently items are posted to the [[Template:Mainpageright|"In the News"]] section of the [[Main Page]] which, while they may be interesting and informative, do not fit the clearly stated purpose of this section. This occurrence has led to a significant amount of friction which has then erupted into an increasing number of arguments on [[Talk:Main Page]] and elsewhere.
As a proposed solution to this, I put the following question to the users of this site:
<blockquote>
Does the Conservapedia Main Page need to be redesigned in order to include a separate "In the Blogs" or "Around the Web" section where non-news items can be posted?
</blockquote>
==Yes==
Many other pages around the web successfully display what is going on in many different areas of the Internet but are generally quite careful to keep the straight news separate from the blogs and clearly label each. This not only adds to the professional appearance of the site's main page, but is also the most responsible way to go as clearly separates hard news from blogs which may contain any imaginable blend of facts and personal opinion. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 01:51, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Yes. There are many things happening all over the internet that may be interesting, entertaining, or informative, but do not fit neatly into the definition of "news". And there's no reason that space to highlight such items cannot be made on the main page. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 02:06, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

==No==
The site is what it is. Of course there are going to be a lot of articles and blogs referring to the decline of evolution, homosexuality and atheism because that is what the site is about. No need to change a part of the site (perhaps the only) that functions exactly as is intended. Note that it is not intended that everyone who edits at CP, or even its administrators (or owner!) will agree with everything that is posted there, but it is to generate interest and discussion on topical points. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 05:32, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

Blogs, advertisements and other non-news items should '''not''' be included on the main page. Similarly, one blog should not be shamelessly promoted under the pretext of being "current news items." The main page should feature content from within CP, not other blogs. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:42, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

It's supposed to be an encyclopedia. The main problem with the main page content is that it's a collection of fringe opinion where it is not blatantly false. An encyclopedia should at the very least attempt to publish only established facts and defensible opinion. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 22:37, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

I feel like I might not have done a great job of phrasing the initial question...
:*[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] The question isn't about agreement or disagreement or even the topics covered in the posts... it's about the definition, provided at the top of MPR, of what should be posted there... specifically, "News the MSM isn't covering". Blogs with a person or group of people's opinions is not news, it's commentary and editorializing.
:*[[User:Wschact|Wschact]] and [[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]], on a personal level, I agree with your statements here 100% and if it was up to me they wouldn't be appearing on the main page at all. However, as witnessed by the repeated dismissal and ignoring of anyone who makes these suggestions on [[Talk:Main Page|Main Page]] and elsewhere, this clearly isn't an option that any of the sysops are open to. Therefore, I'm merely suggesting that if they're going to put it on the main page no matter what, it should at least go in a section that isn't labeled as "news."

==Regardless of my opinion on the above question, these are other [[Main Page]] changes which I would like to see happen (Please include a DETAILED description of your proposed changes)==

The main page contributions should to reflect the full range of editors who work together to make this site run. As of the [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&limit=500&action=history last 500 edits], 7 users make all of the contributions to the [[Template:Mainpageright|MPR]] news sections with 92.6% being made by only 3. While there is a [[Talk:Main_Page#MPR_Article_Suggestion|section on the main talk page]] for suggesting news stories, it seems to be little known and even less used. This has led to frustration/confusion among editors (See [[Talk:Main_Page#Proposal_for_a_Main_Page_Committee|here]]) and even a very well respected and experienced SYSOP in another case (as witnessed [[User_talk:Aschlafly#News_items_for_the_main_page|here]]). I don't know whether the rotating committee, a more visible "suggestion box" or something else entirely is the best option for getting a wider array of important stories on the Main Page, but I feel it's clear that something needs to be done. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 01:51, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

I have made a proposal to create a three-editor committee for editing the main page. You can comment on it [[Talk:Main_Page#Proposal_for_a_Main_Page_Committee|here]]. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 05:44, 2 May 2013 (EDT)

The main page is largely rubbish, including links to some of the most numbingly stupid articles and links to really poorly researched blogs. Doesn't any other editor feel ashamed that science is routinely degraded while silly nonsense from old books is treated as unassailable fact? Enough of the stupid! A detailed plan for improving the main page is not difficult to compose: remove it, it's a disgrace. --[[User:TonySidaway|TonySidaway]] 23:38, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
:Tony, so I'm guessing you're not on the edge of you're seat waiting to find out exactly how 2013 is going to be a BAD year for Darwinism? --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 23:55, 7 May 2013 (EDT)
::I am on the edge of my seat waiting to find out how CP can be made a place that will be attractive to readers and to new editors. The cost of the current Main page is too high to allow this to continue. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:34, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2013-05-12T04:33:49Z

Fnarrow: /* Tamerlan Tsarnaev */ update, source was provided but doesn't support the claims made here

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

== Neutrinos and the speed of light ==

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

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

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

== Cristie and Palin ==

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

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

== Newt Gingrich ==

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

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

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

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

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

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

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

== Earthquakes ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Gay penguin ==

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

== References ==

<references/>

== Stalking Horse ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Predicted Increase in Premature Graying ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Opportunities for improvement ==

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

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

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

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

== Item on Armstrong is somewhat ridiculous ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Relay ==

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

:A low setting on a relay (or fuse) would result from guidelines based on rationing energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 9 February 2013 (EST)
::There are several other, more plausible reasons. It could have been to prevent larger-scale blackouts due to interruption in the power coming into the stadium. It could have been to reduce the risk of fire (the same kind of reason why circuit breakers in your home trip). Or, the setting may have been too low simply due to human error. The details should be sorted out soon through investigation. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 22:31, 9 February 2013 (EST)

== Media bullying ==

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

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

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

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

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

==Tamerlan Tsarnaev==
Does anyone else feel like this might be jumping the gun a little?? "Tamerlan Tsarnaev '''probably''' murdered his friend on a 9/11 anniversary, and DNA '''likely''' proves it." The words "probably" and "likely" are not synonyms for "proven right"... especially not when the [[Conservapedia proven right#cite note-56|only citation provided]] is a link back to the [[Main Page|same statement]] (without any external source at the time of this posting) on the main page of this very website. I honestly haven't followed the murder case at all and have no idea what is going on with it, but the information provided here is far from convincing to me. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:24, 12 May 2013 (EDT)
:I stand corrected, there is now a [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/0511/Tsarnaev-2011-murders-Boston-bombing-brothers-also-could-be-linked-to-earlier-deaths source] provided on the main page... however, it very clearly states that the evidence only points to them being in the area on the day of the murder and circumstantial at best. Like I said above, I haven't been following the case so I don't know all the details, I just feel it's a little premature to claim CP was proven right on this. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:33, 12 May 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2013-05-12T04:24:47Z

Fnarrow: DEFINITELY NOT saying he's innocent, but I think you're jumping the gun claiming victory on Tamerlan Tsarnaev...

Lorem ipsum

2013-05-10T04:52:37Z

Fnarrow: dead end page links, shortened example, minor copy editing

{{uncited}}In design, '''Lorem Ipsum''' is a piece of [[text]] used as a placeholder to demonstrate the overall look of a particular layout. This text is designed to look like [[English]] despite the "words" having no meaning, however is used in place of English so that people viewing it are not distracted by the words on the page.

Lorem Ipsum is not a static piece of text but is generated in a random manner, although it usually begins with "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet".

=== Example ===

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec posuere viverra nisl, ac consectetur urna adipiscing sed. In nec purus ac augue vehicula sagittis. Integer sit amet nunc nec erat sollicitudin rutrum. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Curabitur iaculis, tortor nec accumsan fermentum, eros neque porttitor mi, sit amet vehicula nibh lacus vitae lacus. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam id lorem sit amet massa malesuada rutrum. Cras dictum nisi nec diam dictum quis euismod nisl eleifend. Sed non nibh vitae turpis malesuada ultricies. Curabitur massa libero, pharetra ut sagittis a, elementum nec purus. Sed euismod pharetra justo, vitae auctor magna consectetur eget. Donec ultrices elit non tortor volutpat vel condimentum tortor vehicula. Etiam porta auctor orci, a eleifend quam tristique id.
[[Category:Typography]]

Talk:Dire wolf

2013-05-10T04:17:24Z

Fnarrow: major contradiction within this article... someone who knows the subject, please correct.

==Contradiction==
The current opening paragraph reads(bolding added by me for clarity)
<blockquote>
The dire wolf was a pre-historic form of wolf which '''was larger than present varieties of wolf'''. According to the Illinois State Museum, "The dire wolf was not quite like any animal surviving today. It was '''similar in overall size and mass to a large modern gray wolf'''. This means it was about 1.5 meters (5 feet) long and weighed about 50 kilograms (110 pounds) on average."
</blockquote>
I know next to nothing about the Dire Wolf, so I'm not going to touch the article myself, but I would suggest that someone who knows what they are talking about take a look at which statement is correct and make the appropriate corrections asap... [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:17, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Hendrik Lorentz

2013-05-10T04:01:39Z

Fnarrow: capitalization of Lorentz Contraction vs Lorentz contraction... opinions?

Discuss changes like this first. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:16, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

was it a major change? brilliant is subjective, while renowned is objective.--[[User:Yousoundperfect|Yousoundperfect]] 17:19, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==Lorentz Contraction vs Lorentz contraction==
I've seen it written both ways, but personally have always used the double capitalization... anyone else have an opinion/preference? I feel we should be consistent if we're going to expand the hard science articles on this wiki. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:01, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

Hendrik Lorentz

2013-05-10T03:58:57Z

Fnarrow: tweaking paragraph on Lorentz Contraction in introduction, creating wiki-link for page on the effect.

[[Image:Lorentz.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Hendrik Lorentz''' (1853-1928) was a brilliant [[Netherlands|Dutch]] physicist who, in addition to [[Henri Poincaré]], developed a mathematical [[theory of relativity]].

Lorentz's first achievement was in his doctoral thesis when he refined [[James Maxwell|Maxwell]]'s electromagnetic theory in his doctoral thesis. In 1878, he became professor of mathematical [[physics]] at Leiden University. Later he moved to the Teyler Institute, Harlem.

The existence of [[electron]]s had not yet been proven, but Lorentz proposed that [[light]] waves resulted from oscillations of an atomic electric charge. In 1902, Lorentz received the [[Nobel Prize]] along with his student for developing a mathematical theory of the electron.

Arguably, Lorentz's most famous work is the [[Lorentz Contraction]], which he introduced in 1904.<ref>http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Lorentz.html</ref> This describes the effect in which an object will decrease in length along the axis parallel to the direction in which it is traveling. While this effect occurs at any non-zero velocity, it is generally considered negligible at velocities below a significant fraction of [[Speed of light|''c'']].

Lorentz always hoped that [[Quantum mechanics|quantum theory]] could be described by classical mechanics.

==Lorentz Transformation and Einstein's theory==
Mathematical investigations performed by Lorentz, Fitzgerald and Larmore shown that [[Maxwell's Equations]] used for description of [[electromagnetic field]] do not conserve the [[covariant]] character with respect to Galilean transformations. That's why he worked out equations for transformation of coordinates that allow for keeping the identical form of Maxwell's equations in all inertial systems. In these transformations the spacial and time coordinates are mutually interrelated and the meaning of relativity term is extended from space to time. [[Albert Einstein|A. Einstein]] set these [[Lorentz transformation]]s as the fundamental equations for description of the space-time structure in his [[Special Theory of Relativity]], he however removed the assumption of the ''absolute [[frame of reference]]'' with respect to which they were expected to be interpreted. Lorentz in physical aspect of his theory left in force the [[Aether (science)|aether]] hypothesis. The consequences of Lorentz transformation for motion at high speeds are contraction and dilatation effects, which Lorentz ascribes to lengths and time intervals and not to medium (aether or absolute space) as such. Lorentz never to his last day gave up the idea of plausibility of his explanation compared to the one from Einstein. H.Dingle points out that it is not possible to decide experimentally between Lorentz's and Einstein's theory and the only indirect experiment is [[Michelson-Morley experiment]].<ref>{{cite book
|author=Michal Andrle
|title=Whitheadova Filosofie Přírody
|publisher=Charles University
|location=Prague
|isbn=978-80-87378-22-9
|pages=154-155
|language=Czech}}</ref> Berlinski states that H.Lorentz was among only a few physicists wondering forlornly over Einstein's placing formal restrictions (in terms of postulates of [[special relativity]]) on theories that describe the physical world - in an attemp to resolve difficulties physicists faced with respect to [[symmetry]] in nature whose exisence no one suspected but that had been ratified by established constraint.<ref name="DeniableDarwin">{{cite book
|author=David Berlinski
|title=The Deniable Darwin
|publisher=Discovery Institute Press (reprinted from ''Commentary'' February 1998 by permission)
|location=Seattle, USA
|year=2009
|pages=538
|chapter=The state of the Matter
|isbn=978-0-9790141-2-3
|url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/deniable-darwin/about.php
|quote=A symmetry in nature whose existence no one suspected had been ratified by a constraint whose power no one had recognized. The result was a great success, with only a few senior physicists, such as Hendrik Lorentz, wondering forlornly what it was all about.}}</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lorentz, Hendrik}}
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Physics]]
[[Category:Physicists]]

Debate:Is free market economics possible in actual practice?

2013-05-10T03:34:49Z

Fnarrow:

{{debate}}

==YES==

Most Americans would say yes, and point to the United States as the best example. Marxists and other socialists would say no, but I think they are being [[deceit]]ful; they simply dislike any system which lets other people get rich by virtue of foresight, ingenuity, and hard work. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:49, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Classical economics assumes that the marginal actors have all the information available to them at zero cost and are rational. Recent research has called into question these assumptions, especially for ordinary people in society. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 09:20, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

:I, unfortunately have to fall on the side of "NO" on this one. I am a strong supporter of free-market capitalism, however it, much like socialism/Marxism on the other end of the spectrum, is only really viable in theory. Ironically, both extremes fail for exactly the same reason when put into practice in the real world... they both assume all "players" will act honestly and in the most intelligent way possible. However, the real world doesn't work this way. Greed, corruption, ignorance and other factors always conspire to disrupt the system over the long term. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 23:34, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

User talk:MethIsGreat

2013-05-07T16:52:39Z

Fnarrow: User:Ed Poor please read

Your account was blocked for ten minutes, because of a frivolous edit. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:21, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

:Sorry bro! Didn't know it was against the rules to say kickass. I havemt slept in about 4 days so I kind of forgot to reas the rules and just wanted to jump right in and get right to editing
! Thanks !!!--[[User:MethIsGreat|MethIsGreat]] 12:32, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

::Really, only a 10 min block? I think it is fairly clear that this user is a vandal/troll based upon a username like "MethIsGreat" and the first post they made... Please block them and give them a chance to remake the account with their first initial/last name like the rest of us. I will wholeheartedly apologize if they come back and make useful edits under those conditions, but I honestly don't think "MethIsGreat" is an appropriate name for a family friendly wiki, even if the user's intent is sincere. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 12:52, 7 May 2013 (EDT)

User:Fnarrow

2013-05-06T21:53:13Z

Fnarrow: /* Current Conservapedia Project/Goals */ reduced list by nearly 60% and still trucking!

{{Useful links}}

I believe strongly in being open and honest so I'm going to lay everything out on the line here about who I am and what I believe.

==Email Address==
'''conservapediauserfnarrow@gmail.com''' (Admins/Sysops/anyone, if there is a better way for me to put this on here, please let me know. I try to follow the site rules, but couldn't find one relating to this. Thanks.) 
Feel free to send me any non-spam email you'd like. After I made my promise on [[Talk:Main Page]] to provide my email address, I remembered my SEO and other website training and realized I didn't want all the spam that would surely come from putting my personal email address on a website... especially one which gets attacked as often as conservapedia does. So, I created this account specifically for my usage on this site to make it easy to maintain. Unless I'm sleeping, I'll usually respond within a few minutes of receiving your message.

== Personal/Professional: ==
I'm a 28 year old physicist and freelance writer by both trade and training. I live in Michigan and have a very strong interest in all aspects of science and try to learn as much as possible whenever I have the time. My current obsession is learning everything I can about space, particularly space exploration and colonization with a special emphasis on extra-orbital propulsion design and theory.

== Politics: ==
I don't really identify with any particular party specifically. I call myself a "conservative libertarian" as I lean toward a preference toward a very small federal government and am a strong supporter of both personal and states' rights. While I do not use recreational drugs myself beyond the occasional beer or cocktail, I support the legalization and regulation of most drugs for other adults who might choose to use them. I've recently discovered the Modern Whig Party and support many, but not all, of their platforms.

== Religion: ==
I was raised Lutheran but have gradually grown away from organized religion as a whole over the past 15 or so years. I have a personal relationship with God and still follow the tenants of Christianity, it has been my personal experiences with man's interpretation of God, his words and his love which have driven me away from the physical church as an organization. Once again, in the interest of honesty and full disclosure; I have described myself as a "Christian Agnostic" but I'm not sure if that's a real term or not so I'll explain. While I feel the science and other historical facts neither support or refute the existence of God in a definitive manner; my heart and soul tell me that he most certainly exists and that Jesus was his one and only son. To my personal belief, not only is there no reason why science and religion cannot coexist, but I also feel that when looked at with an open mind they are each more likely to support and strengthen the other. This obviously leads to a much more productive society than when they are used to fight the other with no purpose other than to cause anger and division.

== A Quote from Each "Side" Supporting My Belief in the Compatibility of Science and Religion ==

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- [[Albert Einstein]]

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition;
religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish....
We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be." -- [[Pope John Paul II]]

== Current Conservapedia Project/Goals ==
In addition to my previously stated and overarching goal of increasing Conservapedia's status as a viable competitor to Wikipedia through the removal of vandalism, hate, personal attacks and unsupported bias; I've also decided to put my efforts into the following:

#Eliminate/improve the lists of Orphaned pages, Dead-end pages and Oldest pages where ever my knowledge and ability will allow. '''UPDATE:''' We have reduced the "Dead-end page" list by '''Nearly 60%!!''' (290 left to go after starting at over 700!) and intend to continue until it reaches zero. Thank you to anyone who has helped me with this by eliminating even one page from [[Special:DeadendPages]] or simply made sure their new articles had wikilinks when they created them!

Lordi

2013-05-06T21:48:53Z

Fnarrow: dead end page links/recommend for deletion(notability?)

{{Db|notability?}}{{uncited}}Lordi is a [[Finnish]] [[hard rock]]/[[heavy metal]] [[band]], formed in 1996 by the band's lead singer, [[songwriter]] and costume-designer, Mr. Lordi. The band is known for wearing monster masks and using pyrotechnics during concerts. They rose to domestic success with their 2002 single, "Would You Love a Monsterman?".
Lordi made history in 2006 by winning the [[Eurovision Song Contest]] with a record 292 points, becoming the first Finnish performer to win the contest. Lordi was featured on the 2006 [[MTV]] Europe Music Awards in [[Copenhagen]] when the band's frontman, Mr. Lordi, presented the award for rock. They were also the closing act, playing their single "Hard Rock Hallelujah". They also performed on Britain's Making Your Mind Up for the Eurovision Song Contest. Lordi performed on the main stage at Ozzfest 2007 and later that year toured with Type O Negative and Twin Method until Halloween night.

Members of Lordi always wear masks at interviews and have stated their desire for their personal identities to remain private. The band has not confirmed or denied the accuracy of these names. However, they have been widely published in the media and on websites.

== Current members ==

* Mr. Lordi - Vocals (1996–present)
* Amen - Guitar (1996–present)
* OX - Bass (2005–present)
* Awa - Keyboards, backing vocals (2005–present)

== Former members ==

* G-Stealer - Bass (1996–1999)
* Magnum - Bass (1999–2002)
* Kalma - Bass, backing vocals (2002–2005) (He has played two gigs with the band as a secondary guitarist and bassist since he left the band, one in Nosturi and one in London)
* Enary - Keyboards (1997–2005)
* Kita - Drums, backing vocals (2000–2010)
* Otus - Drums (2010–2012)

== Albums ==

* Get Heavy (2002)
* The Monsterican Dream (2004)
* The Monster Show (collection, 2005)
* The Arockalypse (2006)
* Deadache (2008)
* Zombilation - The Greatest Cuts (collection, 2009)
* Babez For Breakfast (2010)
[[Category:Rock Bands]]

Loneliness

2013-05-06T21:45:21Z

Fnarrow: dead end page links/propose for deletion, just a quote

{{Db|notability? It's only a quote, not sure it is worthy of a standalone article...}}We must forget about ourselves and serve others, watch over others as a [[shepherd]] watches over [[sheep]]. Loneliness is caused in part by thinking only of ourselves. [http://newlifehabits.com/2007/08/13/using-prisoner-of-war-methods-to-cope-with-addiction-captivity/]
[[Category:Psychology]]

Talk:Economics Model Answers Six - 2013

2013-05-06T21:34:06Z

Fnarrow: ==Dead end page links== User:Aschlafly| or anyone else who has the ability, could you please add a wikilink or two to this article so we can remove it from the [[Special:DeadendPages|Dead-end Pag

==Dead end page links==
[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] or anyone else who has the ability, could you please add a wikilink or two to this article so we can remove it from the [[Special:DeadendPages|Dead-end Page List]]? I would normally do it, but do not have the proper permissions since it is protected. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 17:34, 6 May 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Economics Homework Three - Model

2013-05-06T21:33:36Z

Talk:Economics Homework Thirteen - Model

2013-05-06T21:33:05Z

Talk:Economics Homework Ten - Model

2013-05-06T21:32:31Z

Lois McMaster Bujold

2013-05-06T21:25:21Z

Fnarrow: dead end page links

Lois McMaster Bujold is an [[American]] [[Science fiction]] and [[fantasy]] [[author]] who has won many prestigious awards. She is famous for novels like "The Mountains of Mourning" and "The Curse of Chalion". There are many recurrent themes in her novels including [[Abortion]]: The fictional technology of uterine replicators leads to several occasions where the concept of abortion can be examined from a unique perspective: where the [[fetus]] is physically independent of the mother. Cordelia Naismith a lead character argues against terminating the fetuses. Other themes include [[cloning]], [[mental illness|insanity]], [[honor]] and [[love]]. The other over arching theme is "The Other" of Vorkosigan Saga. This means those who lie outside mainstream society. A variety of characters including Miles Vorkosigan himself, Quadies of Falling tree, Sylvia of Sybian riders and Taura of "Labyrinth" represent this theme. Minorities in the Barrayaran empire, those of Greek descent (The Vor Game), and especially Komarrans like Duv Galeni (Brothers in Arms and Memory) are also traditionally discriminated against.<ref>http://www.epinions.com/content_4838039684</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Authors]]

Tetanus

2013-05-06T21:21:39Z

Fnarrow: recommend merge with lockjaw

{{merge|Lockjaw}}'''Tetanus''' is a [[toxin]]-producing [[bacterial]] [[disease]] marked by painful muscle spasms.<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/about/terms/glossary.htm#t</ref> Tetanus is one of the diseases for which the DPT vaccine provides protection. Unlike other vaccines, DPT doesn't vaccinate against the actual virus, but instead the toxin which Tetanus produces. Tetanus toxin is otherwise called Tetanospasmin.

Tetanus is caused by Clostridium Tetani, which enters through wounds and creating contraction of the fibres in the skeletal muscles. Tetanus is also called as Lockjaw, which is actually a symptom of the disease.

Tetanus can be diagnosed by early symptoms <ref>http://www.lockjawsymptoms.net</ref> like

# Muscular spasms could also be witnessed in different parts of the body.
# The muscles in the throat region are also affected.
# Pain and discomfort in the abdominal muscles too.
# Headache or a sore throat.
# The affected person may be extremely sensitive to touch.
# Diarrhea.

The condition of the person maybe worsened by the bleeding of bowels.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Diseases]]

Lockjaw

2013-05-06T21:20:49Z

Fnarrow: suggesting merge with tetanus

{{merge|Tetanus}}Lockjaw is a condition caused due to prolonged contraction of [[skeletal muscle]] fibres. Lockjaw is caused by a [[bacteria|bactium]] ''Clostridium tetani''. The disease is also called as [[Tetanus]].

The '''symptoms of the disease''' include

- One of the primary and major symptoms of Lockjaw is the series of spasms caused by Tetanospasmin, the [[toxin]] that is produced by the bacteria. These spasms affect the ‘chewing muscles’ in the [[jaw]], which makes it difficult to move the mouth in terms of either opening or closing.

- Among the various parts that are affected by this toxin, the muscles in the jaw are held so tightly that the person is not able to even move his jaw muscles. Hence, this Condition is also called as Lockjaw.

Lockjaw Symptoms <ref>[http://www.lockjawsymptoms.net/</ref>

- Spasms could also be witnessed in different parts of the body.

- [[Muscle|Muscles]] in the [[throat]] region are also affected.

- Pain and discomfort in the [[abdomen|abdominal]] muscles too.

- Headache or a sore throat.

- The affected person may be extremely sensitive to touch.

- [[Diarrhea]].

- Bleeding of [[bowels]].

[[category:diseases]]
==References==
<references/>

Lockjaw

2013-05-06T21:16:47Z

Fnarrow: Dead end page links

Lockjaw is a condition caused due to prolonged contraction of [[skeletal muscle]] fibres. Lockjaw is caused by a [[bacteria|bactium]] ''Clostridium tetani''. The disease is also called as [[Tetanus]].

The '''symptoms of the disease''' include

- One of the primary and major symptoms of Lockjaw is the series of spasms caused by Tetanospasmin, the [[toxin]] that is produced by the bacteria. These spasms affect the ‘chewing muscles’ in the [[jaw]], which makes it difficult to move the mouth in terms of either opening or closing.

- Among the various parts that are affected by this toxin, the muscles in the jaw are held so tightly that the person is not able to even move his jaw muscles. Hence, this Condition is also called as Lockjaw.

Lockjaw Symptoms <ref>[http://www.lockjawsymptoms.net/</ref>

- Spasms could also be witnessed in different parts of the body.

- [[Muscle|Muscles]] in the [[throat]] region are also affected.

- Pain and discomfort in the [[abdomen|abdominal]] muscles too.

- Headache or a sore throat.

- The affected person may be extremely sensitive to touch.

- [[Diarrhea]].

- Bleeding of [[bowels]].

[[category:diseases]]
==References==
<references/>

Little Lord Fauntleroy

2013-05-06T21:10:37Z

Fnarrow: dead end page links

{{uncited}}'''''Little Lord Fauntleroy''''', written by [[British]] novelist and [[playwright]] [[Frances Hodgson Burnett]], is a late 19th century [[novel]] about [[prejudice]]. Written originally as a magazine serial between November 1885 and October 1886, it was first published as a novel in 1886.

The main character, Cedric Errol, finds out he has been renamed Lord Fauntleroy, and is to succeed his grandfather as Earl of Dorincount.

[[Category:Novels]]

Anti-electron neutrino

2013-05-06T21:08:12Z

Fnarrow: dead end page links/minor spelling and formatting

The anti-[[electron]] [[neutrino]] is the [[subatomic particle|antiparticle]] of the electron neutrino, and as such has an opposite charge and spin. They are emitted when a [[neutron]] turns into a [[proton]]. It has a mass of <2.2 eV. <ref>http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v84/i11/e112003</ref> Like all neutrinos, this particle is affected only by [[gravity]] and the [[weak nuclear force]], making it extraordinarily hard to both detect and experiment upon.

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Essay: Atheist holidays filled with goodwill, charitableness and good cheer

2013-05-04T07:09:04Z

Fnarrow: voted... ish

I think this page should be deleted as it serves no purpose what so ever. I have put a vote up so we can vote on the issue. Please attach your signature and a # to whichever one you wish to vote for. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 05:41, 29 April 2013 (EDT)

'''Keep'''
#I voted to keep this article, but my vote was removed for alleged "trolling". So I will restate my case in a less snarky manner. I don't see anything wrong with a bit of levity as long as it is clearly marked as an essay and is not masquerading as a genuine article. Though I don't find User:Conservative's work to be funny in the slightest bit, that's not reason enough for deletion. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 23:27, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
'''Delete'''
#-because its childish humour. KBeer 18:46, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
#I agree with KBeer but would leave out the word "humour". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:58, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
# Childish and also factually incorrect (Mother's Day, Father's Day, 4th of July, etc.) [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:07, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
# Agree with Kbeer et.al. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 23:44, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

'''Wait and See'''
#--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 20:24, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
# at the risk of banning, I'm learning toward deletion but my strong belief in the freedom of speech is holding me back... On a (semi) related note, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] please unlock the page [[Penn Jillette]] so I can bring the facts up to date. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 03:09, 4 May 2013 (EDT)
'''Other Thoughts'''
# I'm not sure why this particular article was singled out for deletion. The "tumbleweed gag" is a staple of internet forum and wiki communities. If it is decided that this article should be deleted for being "childish", then the following articles should be deleted as well:
*[[Essay:_Great_and_inspiring_art_by_atheists_on_atheism]]
*[[Essay:_The_benefits_of_atheism]]
*[[Essay:_The_latest_findings_for_evolution_which_are_particularly_powerful_...]]
*[[New_Liberal_Ideas_of_the_21st_Century]]
*[[Essay:Liberal_Facts]]
*[[Essay:_Beautiful_songs_written_about_atheism]].
--[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 23:22, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

== True conservatives don't bow their knees to liberal mobs! ==

True conservatives don't bow their knees to liberal mobs - especially atheist/agnostic mobs! Hold your vote libs, but I am not unlocking the web page to pacify some humorless and thin-skinned liberals! :) "I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays." - Henny Youngman[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:03, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

What's your understanding of the word, "mobs", Cons? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:23, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

I actually laughed when I saw the page, it just doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the content of the site, such as the educational resources. KBeer 21:38, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
::AlanE, a very unreasonable group of people who have difficulty controlling their emotions and focus on things which do not matter! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:49, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
:::Cons, old mate; two against and one "wait and see" is not a "mob" by any definition of the word. (Unless it was three and a bit bottles of Bundy in NFQ - ''"How much ya drink last Sat'dee, Dick?" "Big mobs, mate, would you believe, ay."'') [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:03, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
:::: Mob is more commonly used by aborginies referring to groups of white (or sometime others such as lebos, wogs, coconuts/fobs, asians ect.) people. Or a number of kangaroos are also called a mob. '' Some nice tucker in that mob, hey uncle?''. Also only had a quite one last saturday mate, had a six pack or two and a fair whack of rum bottle. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 23:50, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
Actually I'm very good at controlling my emotions. Also I don't think typing a # and giving a four word reason requires a great deal of focus... KBeer 22:21, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

2013-05-03T05:51:23Z

Fnarrow: Phil Gingrey statement, additional information, please discuss

== Oldest conservative organization ==

The Republican Party has not historically been a "conservative organization." But if you have another example, let's see it before you [[censor]] the statement here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== Unsigned rant against AAPS below ==

The '''Association of American Physicians and Surgeons''' is an American medical-legal advocacy group. Its [http://www.aapsonline.org/ website] declares:

::''The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a non-partisan professional association of physicians in all types of practices and specialties across the country. Since 1943, AAPS has been dedicated to the highest ethical standards of the Oath of Hippocrates and to preserving the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship and the practice of private medicine. Our motto, "omnia pro aegroto" means "all for the patient."''

==Activities==
Many of these activities appear to violate their "Patient's Bill of Rights", which, among other things, states:
::''(the right) to refuse third-party interference in their medical care, and to be confident that their actions in seeking or declining medical care will not result in third-party-imposed penalties for patients or physicians''

*AAPS files lawsuit against FDA to overturn approval of "Plan B" morning after pill for over the counter use by women over 18 <ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/planb.php</ref>
*Fight against "Sham Peer Review": The AAPS recognizes "sham peer review" as an abusive use of such entities as hospital by-laws and disciplinary committees to exclude physicians for other-than legitimate or the explicitly-stated reasons.<ref>http://www.louisianamedicalnews.com/news.php?viewStory=934</ref>
*Defense of a physician convicted of improper narcotic prescribing while operating a clinic to treat patients with chronic pain<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/painman/mciver.pdf</ref>
*Fighting mandatory vaccination <ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/alerts/03-14-07.php</ref>
*Fighting against mandated mental health parity<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/testimony/mhparity.pdf</ref>, which is advocated by the National Alliance on Mental Illness, American Medical Association <ref>http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/475/910.doc</ref>, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry<ref>http://www.aacap.org/cs/legislative_action_110th_congress/help_support_mental_health_parity</ref>
*Promoting contracting between physicians and patients without government or insurance company involvement.
*Fighting socialized and single-payer healthcare<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsletters/apr07.php</ref>
*Fighting to debunk "Shaken Baby Syndrome", and to link it to vaccines rather than abuse.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/sbs.htm</ref>
*Advocating for so-called "Freedom of Conscience" to allow pharmacists to refuse to fill lawful prescriptions.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/ethics/foc.php</ref>This would appear to interfere with a patient's right "to refuse third party interference in their health care".
*Fighting abortion, not simply through moral objection, but also by attempting to link abortion to unrelated health problems<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/nod/newsofday236.php</ref>, including breast cancer<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/aschlafly.pdf</ref>
*Advocating against the sale of organs for transplant<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/nod/newsofday417.php</ref>
*Advocating against organ donation in cases where brain death is unclear.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/nod/newsofday402.php</ref>
*Advocating against withdrawal of care, as in the Terri Schiavo case <ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/ethics/terris.htm</ref>, including misrepresenting the results of autopsy in the case.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/nod/newsofday186.htm</ref>

==Publications==
The AAPS publishes the ''Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons'' (JPandS), until 2003 called the ''Medical Sentinel''.
The journal is not considered a valid, peer-reviewed journal for inclusion in major scientific databases, and has been listed by Quackwatch and the World Health Organization as a source of concern.

==Conflicts==
According to their literature:

''AAPS members believe this patient-physician relationship must be protected from all forms of third-party intervention.''
*The organization, a third party to the Schiavo case, interfered in the relationship between the patient's advocate and physicians, even helping to bring the power of the federal government to bear on a single medical case.
*AAPS advocates for so-called "freedom of conscience" where patients are denied legal drugs, treatments, and information based on the morals of the provider rather than the patient.
*AAPS views patient advance directives designed for dignity at the end-of-life as a financial plot to kill patients in order to save money.<ref>http://www.aapsonline.org/newsletters/june05.htm</ref>

== ==
I would like to remove the statement "It may be the largest physician organization funded virtually entirely by membership dues". If true that is great, but it is an uncited, guesswork statement. Unless there is significent evidance for this statement, I think it should be removed.--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 19:51, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

:Your point is a valid one (your spelling could be improved, however). But the statement is almost certainly true and could be confirmed by some research. Medical societies are notorious for being pawns of the pharmaceutical, insurance and hospital industries, and for taking significant chunks of money from one or more of them.

:Tell you what: I'll find the data on the AMA (I think less than 20% of it is physician-membership-funded), and you can spot-check any other group. How's that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:30, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

== Phil Gingrey ==
If we're going to have the Phil Gingrey quote in this article, we should probably point out that while sexual contact is the most common way to contact HPV, it is not the only way it is contracted. We should also point out that as an OB/GYN making a patently false statement like that should call into question his medical knowledge, political ethics or perhaps both. I'll leave this for 24 hours of discussion per site guidelines before adding this information with sources. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 01:51, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>
==External Links==
*http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2005/medicine.html
*http://www.jpands.org/jpands1201.htm
*http://www.aapsonline.org/

User talk:KatieKomori

2013-05-03T05:42:20Z

Fnarrow: Hi

{{welcome}}
Welcome - somewhat belatedly :| [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 23:07, 1 December 2012 (EST)
==Your edit summary==
Just so you know, NPOV (neutral point of view) is a Wikipedia policy; it's not in the [[Conservapedia:Guidelines]] and it's not employed at this encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:05, 27 November 2012 (EST)

==Chill==

Why would you come to a conservative Christian site and demand that the articles reflect your particular view that you know is at odds with the view of the site? That is trolling, even if you are sincere in what you post, it is still trolling. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 11:13, 1 December 2012 (EST)

==Email==
My email address is on my user page. Please send me a message if you have an address you don't mind sharing. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 01:42, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism

2013-05-03T05:39:55Z

Fnarrow: /* Does an atheist conservative have any place here? */ my (probably unpopular) 2 cents...

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|List of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== 13 recent grim events for Darwinism and atheism ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/13-grim-events-for-darwinism-that.html 13 recent grim events for evolutionary belief and atheism]
 
[[File:Death.png|right|100px]]
{{clear}}

== Reddit atheism ==
/r/atheism

/R/atheism has become an echo chamber for hate speech against Christians and Conservatives in the United States. Currently, it has become a place for the Secular Student Alliance to raise funds to ban God from the public square, particularly schools, and promote left wing politics. I need help constructing a page about /r/atheism. I have added it to /r/reddit, but because of its size I think it warrants its own page.

:create a [[Reddit atheism]] article if you want. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Ayn Rand was an atheist and is a major inspiration to the libertarian right and the Tea Party, why is she being ignored? ==

There have been atheist right-wingers like [[Ayn Rand]] who is an inspiration to the libertarian right such as the Tea Party. She rejected the concept of God and religion for being in her view totalitarian and for not placing freedom and responsibility in the hands of individuals. You cannot place Ayn Rand's atheism in the same category as communist totalitarian atheism for instance. People have different reasons for being atheists - people who have gone to a church where a corrupt pastor has led the church may become atheist because they were totally aggravated with the experience of religion as preached by the corrupt pastor. So why are atheism and all atheists being pigeonholed as being akin to communist totalitarians? Why is Ayn Rand's libertarian version of atheism ignored?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:10, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
::Is she being ignored? See [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Other_well_known_proponents_of_atheism this section] of the article. By the way, have you ever heard of the [[fallacy of exclusion]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:14, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

== Biggest blow to hit world [[atheism]] ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/worlds-biggest-atheist-population-about.html World's biggest atheist population about to see a big decline]

[[File:China location.png|200px|right]]
{{clear}}

== First Amendment ==

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Why are we persecuting Atheists at the same time violating the First Amendment to the Constitution? I'm an Atheistic Libertarian, by the way, but Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on.

It's funny how I can't get a single reply on one of the most popular articles on Conservapedia... Where's Andy Schlafly to criticize my grammar!? Where is he to answer my question!? One single, reasonable answer to my question to why your persecuting Atheism and violating the First Amendment.
:Apparently, you're not reading the news on a daily basis, as there is always some atheist clown making an attack on Christians, God, the Bible, and any institutions supporting it. There is no Christian persecution of atheists; it's the other way around. And we're going to highlight it in this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:57, 27 December 2012 (E
::Sure. Because the Christians on this site are totally not attacking atheism at all. I have been reading this site for a while, and I cannot believe how much inherent bias it has, and how it censors anyone who disagrees with them. This article in particular is absurd. What sort of "trustworthy" encyclopedia would put something like this. [[User:RaymondZ|RaymondZ]] 10:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)
:I'd say you misread the first amendment. With even a cursory glance at it, the only thing that can violate the first amendment is a law passed by Congress; no argument or discussion can violate it.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 9:29, 12 February 2013
::I exactly what way did I supposedly "misread" the First Amendment? Be specific. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 12 February 2013 (EST)
:::Simply, the first amendment only sets out several kinds of laws that Congress cannot make - thus, only Congress can violate the first amendment. You say "Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on," but Conservapedia is not calling for Congress to make any laws about atheism. Thus, how can Conservapedia be trying to violate the first amendment? That was meant for the original poster, btw, who does not seem to be you, Karajou.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 16:04, 12 February 2013
::::Answer the question, williagz. You made an accusation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:00, 12 February 2013 (EST)
:::::Like I said, it was an accusation at the original poster: MrSnowman. Not at you. I've explained his fault twice now.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 17:07, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Look, there's a lot of ongoing dispute between Faith and Christianity, but all your doing is favoring Christianity over Atheism. Just answer me this, Is it or is it not a violation of the First Amendment.

Just felt it's worth mentioning that many American laws favor religious people, like with marriage. The right to file jointly and tax benefits is well enough for me to consider the law favoring religious people in a significant way. I think that's what bothers the non-obnoxious atheists. There's most certainly a group who thinks others shouldn't be allowed to follow "ludicrous beliefs" or something but a religion or religious act shouldn't have benefits with the state in a nation that has religious freedom in its constitution. --[[User:MrSnowman|MrSnowman]] 11:22, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::Once the religion of evolutionism is pulled out of the public school, the religion of atheism will collapse like a pancake. And it is inevitable that this will occur.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/darwinists-start-thinking-unthinkable.html] Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”[http://creation.com/15-questions]
:But atheists can and do get married and reap those same benefits. I don't see your point.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 19:57, 27 December 2012

::Biblical creation belief is rapidly on the rise in the world and beginning to have a discernible effect on Western nations and it is inevitable that Darwinism will be defeated and atheism will become an even smaller squeak in American society.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I] Even in secular France, evangelicalism is the fastest growing religion plus young earth creationism is growing in America according to the latest Gallup survey.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/down-with-evolutionary-belief-down-with.html]

::By the way, why did the Founding Fathers of America install a paid chaplain shortly after the United States was founded? "When the Senate first convened in New York City on April 6, 1789, one of its first orders of business was to appoint a committee to recommend a candidate for chaplain. On April 25, the Senate elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provoost, Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first chaplain".[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Chaplain.htm] [[User:RobTurkel|RobTurkel]] 16:26, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::No discussion on this site amounts to new laws being made. Thus, no discussion on this site is a violation of the first amendment. [[User:williagz|williagz]] 16:10, 12 February 2013

==A problem with the definition of atheism stated==

if atheism is defined as the "Denial of the existence of God", it begs the question, which god? This definition seems to presume the existence of a monotheistic god, which not all theists believe in. For example, Hindus and to an extent, Muslims, believe in a different god than Christianity. So if "God" means the monotheistic Judeo-Christian god, then doesn't this definition mean that Hindus are atheists? This would also mean that pagans, Hindus, and those who believe in several gods are all atheists. I think this is a huge problem with the definition you've stated, so I think that should be revised. Just my two cents on the matter, I mean, it doesn't really make sense to call a Hindu or a pagan an atheist, does it? [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 17:52, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
::The article demonstrates that the leading Western World philosophers have been influenced by Christianity and that is why the leading encyclopedias of philosophy use our definition. So the current definition is staying. Plus, both Christianity/Islam are monotheistic and both are Abrahamic religions although they believe something different about the history of God/Isaac. If you take the populations of Christainity/Islam that far outweighs the percentage of atheists or Hindus in the world. One thing for certain, we are not going to use a internet atheist dumbed down definition of atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
::::So this is like a majority rules thing? I think that definition is far too limited in scope. I mean, does any of what is said in this article even apply to Hindus or pagans or Wiccans? Because based on the definition, this article is indeed meant to address them as well, and even addresses deists--people who don't believe in a specific god or perhaps don't even subscribe to the idea that there's just the on god. Also, this is just a side note, but why is there so much wanton contempt for atheism on this site? [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 08:30, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
:::::I think it's fear. Fear of the very plausible possibility that we are all alone in the universe and that there is no afterlife. It takes courage to consider that possibility objectively, at face value. Hence the obsessive attention atheism receives on this website. By endlessly attacking atheism and atheists, many high profile users don't define themselves by what they are (Christians), but by what they are not. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 13:09, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
:::::::Onestone, fear? What is there to fear? What proof and evidence do atheists have that atheism is true? Christianity has all the evidence. See: [[Christian apologetics]]. In addition, it is atheists who are the fearful ones. See: [[Atheism and cowardice]]. Lastly, you offered no proof and evidence that this website endlessly attacks atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:21, 28 March 2013 (EDT)
::::::::Shockofgod? Is that you? If you want "proof and evidence that proves that my assertion is accurate and correct" (did I get the question right?), how about the existence of an article called "atheism and cowardice"? "atheism and beastiality"?[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:19, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

That question requires you prove God doesn't exist in an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the atheist. Considering how impervious this God is to any form of scientific detection and requires some of vague "spiritual" detection, by the very nature of God or the nature of God's construction as a concept renders that impossible. No one can disprove God in that manner. Say for example i say "i know and believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is lord and master over my endocrine system beacause my heart tells me so" what proof and evidence would you have to disprove that? The website does attack atheism in a constant manner as you have no obviously been reading the site or your own work i suspect [[user:Conservative]]. This site links it to a host of different attacks:

http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_suicide http://conservapedia.com/Atheism,_uncharitableness_and_depression http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity (there are other studies that suggest religious people are more prone to obesity, but of course you cherry pick your studies) http://conservapedia.com/Sports_performance:_Religious_faith_vs._atheism http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_sadism http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_rape http://conservapedia.com/Atheism,_pederasty_and_NAMBLA http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_slavery http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_satanic_deception http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_moral_depravity http://conservapedia.com/Atheist_leaders_and_immoral_relationships t this is pretty much almost every article within Conservapedia about atheism attempts to show atheism in a negative light.

Regardless of if these are "true" as i suspect you will point out, the purpose of these articles is to paint atheists in a negative light in order to promote theism (or perhaps dare i say specifically Christianity). So this can be interpreted as an "attack" on atheism in order to point people into the direction of Christianity. --DavidS 13:33, 30 March 2013 (EDT)

== North Korea and Laos ==

Hello can you please refer to the articles: [[Religion and Atheism in North Korea]] and [[Religion and Atheism in Laos]] --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 15:24, 28 March 2013 (EDT)

== Suggested fixes ==

The page has been locked, so I can't edit, but a couple of suggestions:

1) I think the author means that atheism is ''inversely'' proportional to eduction, not ''indirectly''.

2) Probably worth clarifying that 'according to the University of Cambridge' bit. The University of Cambridge is a big place, and hasn't ever really expressed any opinions of its own, except regarding the wearing of gowns after sunset, so this really should be clarified as the 'Investigating Atheism' project at the Cambridge University Faculty of Divinity.

--[[User:DHouser|DHouser]] 12:59, 14 April 2013 (EDT)

== Atheism and education ==

Regardless of our political persuasion, it's important to show both sides of the story. Despite the 4 citations referencing how atheism is inversely proportional to education, they all reference the smaller study by Nick Spengel. There is more research showing the inverse, actually, and it's important to mention that in the article regardless of your opinion of atheism, if you want to be taken seriously. Check out these contradictory links.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2009/10/why-do-atheism-rates-correlate-with-education-levels/
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/high-iq-turns-academics-into-atheists/402381.article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/11/aetheists-research-scientists
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/02/22/does-higher-education-cause-at/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/05/atheist-religion-education-demographics-class
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/07/16/pew-survey-a-huge-god-gap-between-scientists-and-other-americans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/08/atheism-religion-class-science
http://spq.sagepub.com/content/73/1/33

-antibias

== Autism ==

Can somebody please make this page editable or add, under the mental health section, something about autistic kids all being atheists? See [[Autism#Autism_and_Atheism|autism and atheism]] [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 23:01, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
:No, because your statement "autistic kids all being atheists" is false, not supported by the sources, and (to be frank, as a Catholic likely on the autism spectrum) very demeaning. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 07:52, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

:Given the strong hatred for atheists that exists on this site, such an entry would be offensive to autistic children. Let's not use people with disabilities for any such agenda, ok?
[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:11, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

== Does an atheist conservative have any place here? ==

I'm an atheist, and a conservative. After being on this site for a while, I can't help but notice that there is a very strong anti-atheist bias, even though there are plenty of atheist conservatives, and atheism is in no way at odds with the conservative political view. I believe in the conservative cause and stand by America through and through. I support lower taxes, I support smaller government, I support states' rights, I support economic stimulus remaining in the private sector. I'm just as appalled as the next person by Obama's large government and out of control spending, but this site seems to think that atheists and evolution are more pressing issues.

I am a conservative. I had hoped to share some of my information, as my conservatism, is based on careful, reasoned analysis of the facts, lots of research, and strong skepticism for everything, including liberal ideas. But I'm sensing some very strong hostility towards atheists such as my self, and I wonder what place an atheist conservative has here. So I'm just wondering, is an atheist conservative welcome here?

Don't all we conservatives, atheist, Christian, and deist alike share a common enemy: the dark cloud of large goverronment and economic collapse?

[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:09, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

:An "anti-atheist bias" on this site, Katie? Do you ever read the news on a daily basis, in which there is an anti-Christian, anti-God, and anti-Bible bias by atheists everywhere in the country? This website is going to broadcast every bit of that hated and those who perpetrate it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:12, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
::I realize that there is, to some extent, a degree of intolerance to Christianity by atheists. But the site seems to go far beyond just reporting these events. In fact, I haven't stumbled across a single piece of text here that pointed out any of these instances. Most of it just seems to be demonizing atheists in every way possible. There are plenty of conservative atheists who have no intention to attack Christianity. I myself am entirely apathetic to Christianity and don't really care about it at all, I mostly am concerned about the well being of my country and her economy, and for the well-being of my fellow American. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 23:14, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
:::Of course! Conservapedia welcomes conservatives of all stripes (and also non-conservatives as well). [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:35, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
::::KatieKomori, when your only recourse is to cry bias, it is a good sign that the facts are not on your side. See: [http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html Bulverism] by [[C.S. Lewis]] and [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html Evidence for Christianity]. Second, the term "conservative atheist" is an oxymoron. There is nothing traditional/conservative about atheism. And it is not surprising that most atheists are liberal/leftists given that the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power."[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html] Also, atheists commonly do not hold to social conservatism. The Barna Group found that atheists and agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:58, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
:::::"Crying bias" is not my "recourse" because my point in posting this was not to justify my atheism. I don't really care to convince you that my atheism is justified, and I don't really care if you believe in a god or not. I think we can both agree to disagree on it. I am simply asking if atheist conservatives are welcomed to contribute to the site.
:::::Atheist conservatives do exist, in great numbers. I haven't seen a single piece of proof demonstrating that atheists tend to be liberals. With regards to all the things you posted, pornography, sex before marriage, homosexuality, etc, I don't really care about any of that, nor does any other conservative I know. I only care about the things that matter, like the ever increasing size of government, our current economic crisis, out of control taxes, the uninformed liberal sheep who support all of it, and the MSM that turns a blind eye to it all. These are real issues that affect our nation in real ways, and I think that they're things that everyone should be informed about, regardless of lifestyle, sexual orientation, or religion. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 09:46, 1 May 2013 (EDT)

How is the term "conservative atheist" an oxymoron? Conservative and Christian are not synonyms. Chloe Smith, the MP for Norwich North is one example of an Athiest Conservative. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099971/Defiant-Speaker-vows-prayer-ban-Commons.html
--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 16:59, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
:Anyone is free to define words however they like. It seems to me that it is a contradiction in terms for one to be a Conservative and yet not a Christian. Anyone who is not a Christian is by definition a liberal. There are no ifs or butts about this, except that some attempt to dilute the meaning of conservative for political gain. Such attempts are given short shrift here. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:21, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
::Anyone who is not a Christian is by definition a liberal?
::It only takes one example to prove something wrong and here is my example to you: Osama bin-Laden. Now how was he a liberal? I would like to point out that I am not an athiest, I am a fully paid up member of the CofE, although I guess that makes me a liberal christain, which according to the [[oxymoron]] page is an oxymoron itself.--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 22:46, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
:::Of course Osama was a liberal. I don't see what the issue is. If you want to dilute the definitions of 'conservative' to include Osama Bin Laden then perhaps this site is not for you! --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:01, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
::::Yeah... no. Osama bin Laden was a mixed bag of ideologies, and any attempt to pile him neatly into one camp or another will fail. Anyway, it would appear that the short answer to Katie's question would be no. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 01:27, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
:::::We're all a mixed bag if we're going to be perfectly honest... I'd be willing to bet literally anything I own, assuming participant was somehow guaranteed to answer honestly, that in a double blind study no two editors on this site would give exactly the same answers to a given test of political/moral/social views and give the same "weight" to each topic's relative importance. No matter how conservative one claims to be, (or conversely, how liberal they are accused of being) everyone views the world slightly differently. There should be a place here for everyone who considers themselves conservative. Who are we to judge what is in another's heart? [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 01:39, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2016

2013-05-03T04:55:29Z

Fnarrow: explanation of Rubio's eligibility

==Rubio Citizenship/Eligibility==
He is clearly eligible under both the 14th amendment and the [http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf 2011 finding] of the Congressional Research Service. Under the arguments frequently given by people claiming Rubio to be ineligible(namely, that his parents were not US citizens when he was born), this would also mean that the first 7 Presidents of the United States were also ineligible as either they or their parents were British subjects at the time of their birth. Martin Van Buren being the first President to actually be born a US citizen by the standards laid out by these detractors. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:55, 3 May 2013 (EDT)

United States presidential election, 2016

2013-05-03T04:48:30Z

Fnarrow: /* Possible Republican candidates */ Removed comment about Rubio's eligibility see Talk Page

{{uncited}}The 2016 election will be an open field in both the [[Republican Party]]. [[Democrats]], as in [[communist]] countries, are not expected to have any choice other than [[Hillary Clinton]].

==Possible Republican candidates==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Able to win Florida, has Hispanic wife and kids, multilingual, backing of [[Karl Rove]]. Presumably has the backing of most [[George_H.W._Bush#Family|Bush family]] members, with the notable exception of his mother, [[Barbara Bush|Barbara]], who stated "We've had enough Bushes" during an April 2013 interview<ref>http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/51667537#51667537</ref>.
|Outspokenly supports amnesty, neither Tea Partiers or independent voters want a third Bush, told GOP primary voters they wouldn't elect Reagan today.
|Might count on Rubio to be a stalking horse because of their friendship but has contradicted Rubio on immigration in his latest book, if he and Clinton are the nominees many voters might gravitate to a third party.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Strong record of experience as Governor of Texas. Supports Second Amendment. Before the next election he might see a debating coach. Strong fundraiser. Not expanding Medicare to adjust for Obamacare like some other Governors are doing.
|Performed poorly in the debates last time, is an also-ran without Santorum's likely momentum in a race that will probably also have multiple of the other Republican Governors, also passed a state version of the DREAM Act and mandated vaccines for schoolgirls.
|He has stated that he might run again.
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Son of [[Ron Paul]], voted against GOP establishment's spending compromise bills, advocate for cutting spending, can unite libertarians and conservatives, voted against NDAA. Made waves with historic filibuster against CIA director John Brennan over the Obama administration's claimed authority to use drone strikes against US citizens on American soil.
|Some of his father's more hardcore followers think he's a 'traitor' for endorsing Romney, voted for [[Chuck Hagel]] as Defense Secretary.
|Has criticized [[Paul Ryan]] and [[Chris Christie]] like a potential candidate would, delivered 2013 Tea Party response to the SOTU, which the news media didn't cover.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|Favorite of [[Fox News]], articulate, Hispanic, able to win key battleground state of [[Florida]] since he's from there, was on Romney's shortlist in 2012.
|Used to be a Tea Party favorite when he defeated [[RINO]] [[Charlie Crist]], but many have since soured on his actions, endorses his own version of the [[DREAM Act]], friends with [[Jeb Bush]], denounced [[Michele Bachmann]]'s investigation into [[Huma Abedin]].
|Visited Iowa in December 2012 to speak at [[Jack Kemp]] library, delivered GOP response to Obama's 2013 SOTU, currently putting his capital on the line working with seven other Senators on a controversial immigration plan conservatives may oppose as amnesty.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Strong social conservative base, runner-up in the 2012 primary, by 2016 endorsing [[RINO]]-turned-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] will be a distant memory for many because he died in 2012.
|May have been a [[stalking horse]] for Romney in the last election, which he'll vehemently deny; in 2016 voters may want a new face to lead the party instead of an also-ran, media portrays as fanatic.
|Says door is open on Presidential bid, compared his 2012 run to Reagan in 1976. Has founded an organization called Patriot Voices which may serve as a fulcrum for his campaign.
|-
|[[Paul Ryan]]
|Vice-Presidential running-mate in 2012, seen as fiscal hawk, Chair of House Budget Committee, articulate.
|Part of unpopular GOP House leadership, part of steering committee that purged conservatives from leadership positions, supported Boehner's Plan B and Senate budget plan, voted for [[TARP]] and Medicare Part D, budget balances budget in 40 years, didn't carry Wisconsin at bottom of ticket.
|Visited Iowa in December 2012 to speak at Jack Kemp library, named after the man he used to be an aide to.
|-
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Blunt criticism of teacher's unions won conservatives over for about a year, [[Ann Coulter]] supports him.
|Unprofessional style, severely overweight, praised Obama's Hurricane Sandy efforts only days before the 2012 election, has gotten heat for appointing Sharia judge and having pro-abortion Lieutenant Governor.
|Not endearing himself to conservatives with his statements on things like gun control.
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Populist conservative who says conservatives should be skeptical of big business, Indian-American, cleaned up Louisiana after Katrina and Governor Blanco, evangelical who also focuses on energy issues like Perry before him.
|Severely lacking in charisma.
|Has criticized the GOP on how it needs to be "smarter" and should emphasize it champions small business instead of big business, term limited to 2016.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Very popular with the conservative base, record of cutting the size of government, expert on energy issues.
|Thanks to the media, the electorate has already made up their minds about her. May prefer the role of commentator and not run for her and her children's sakes.
|
|-
|[[Condoleezza Rice]]
|Articulate, popular, foreign policy experience, takes the race and gender cards off the table, gave impassioned speech at the RNC, inspiring childhood story.
|Pro-choice, ties to Bush administration, never elected to any office, just appointed; left-wing immigration stance, had role leading up to [[Iraq War]], single status will mean she won't have the emotional support of a family for a Presidential run as [[Laura Bush]] has said; admired by some conservatives, disliked by others like [[paleoconservatives]] and from how [[Dick Cheney]] and [[Donald Rumsfeld]] have criticized her, she doesn't even have all the [[neoconservatives]] wrapped up.
|Some conservatives would think her running would be a good idea, others won't. She declined to run in 2008 and 2012, but from the speculation she was going to be Romney's VP, she might this time.
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Social conservative, pro-life Governor of Virginia that supports gun rights.
|Not exciting, signed transportation tax and Medicare waiver for Obamacare.
|Currently under attack by feminists for passing pro-life legislation, term limited in 2014.
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Senator who defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative.
|Voted for TARP and often votes for other spending bills the leadership pushes, not well known.
|
|-
|[[Scott Walker]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who defeated a recall that was pushed by Soros and the unions, exhibits conservative determination in passing right-to-work in his state and surviving the relentless union attacks that followed.
|[[AFL-CIO]] and the other union special interests have him as a top target, but he stands his ground.
|
|-
|[[Susana Martinez]]
|Gave a good speech at the RNC, conservative Governor of a blue state, Hispanic.
|Might not be interested, expanded Medicare in her state.
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|If she runs, will use potent immigration issue as foil to Bush and Rubio, can take it's mantle and change debate to pressure other candidates to tack right on the issue, outspoken critic of Obama.
|May not be interested in the Presidency, expanded Medicare waiver.
|Currently serving her state as Arizona's governor.
|-
|Ben Carson
|Plain-spoken, with common-sense solutions to the country's problems
|Has said states can enact gun control.
|The world-renowned surgeon made waves by skewering Obama's policies at the White House correspondence dinner
|-
|[[Kelly Ayotte]]
|
|
|If Rubio is the Presidential nominee, he's likely to make Ayotte his running mate hoping the ticket will appeal to two swing states (Florida and New Hampshire), Hispanics, and women, offsetting Hillary with the last group. Both Rubio and Ayotte have been taken under the wings of McCain and Graham since getting in the Senate.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|Conservative black Congressman from Florida who speaks his mind, some conservative activists insist that he runs.
|Lost his race for re-election to the House two years after getting voted in.
|Has compared his loss to [[Abraham Lincoln]]'s before he became President in a radio interview.
|-
|[[Brian Sandoval]]
|Hispanic, fiscal conservative
|Pro-choice, expanded Medicare in his state, [[Harry Reid]] doesn't seem to mind his performance as Governor <ref>http://blogs.rgj.com/politics/2013/02/20/reid-says-hell-run-for-re-election-in-2016-wont-comment-on-sandoval-as-opponent/</ref>.
|
|}

==Possible Democratic candidates==

[[Democrats]] will not have a choice other than [[liberal]] [[Hillary Clinton]]. If a competitive race were allowed by the party bosses (and it won't be), the candidates mentioned below her could be contenders:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Has wanted to be President for decades, has Clinton machine and big money behind her, teflon image helped along by the media, quitting Secretary of State position lets her run, she will have the 'sexist' card at her disposal.
|Role in Benghazi and decades worth of scandals going back to the 90s, feminist.
|Claims not interested now, but will likely run anyways.
|-
|[[Joe Biden]]
|Tries to set image as he's 'one of the folks' even though he's a millionaire. He'll have Obama's Chicago machine.
|Very gaffe-prone, VP to an unpopular administration.
|Currently yukking it up as Obama's Vice-President and has openly expressed some interest in running. Hasn't talked about running...yet. Should be good seeing how him and Hillary deal with each other on the stage.
|-
|[[Andrew Cuomo]]
|Tried to make himself look like a fiscal conservative, he's part of a political family like Jeb and Hillary.
|Uncompelling, declared intentions to seize guns from lawful gun owners, which he's used executive orders to do.
|His father, the former Governor, has already said he intends for him to run. His gun confiscating executive orders are not sitting well with the American people by and large.
|-
|[[Mark Warner]]
|Senator from a swing state with a relatively moderate record who voted against the [[NDAA]], all of which might give him points with independents that the other Democrats won't have.
|He still votes with his party most of the time, voted for gun control even though he claims to be pro-gun.
|
|-
|[[Martin O'Malley]]
|Partisan, anti-war liberal.
|Martin who? He has low name recognition. Fiercely supports raising taxes and other very liberal stances, although that might help in the primary.
|-
|[[Elizabeth Warren]]
|Popular in [[Occupy Wall Street]] and other progressive circles.
|Caught lying about being a Native American so she could get [[affirmative action]] at Harvard, her very liberal views and rhetoric probably won't resonate in states less liberal than [[Massachusetts]].
|Just won election to the Senate against [[Scott Brown]].
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|
|
|
|}
== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: 2016, United States presidential election,}}
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]

Jeb Bush

2013-05-03T04:15:40Z

Fnarrow: /* Political career */ updated 2016 POTUS run information, replaced outdated ref with new ones

{{Officeholder
|name=Jeb Bush
|image=JebBush02.jpg‎
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Columba Bush
|religion=[[Roman Catholic]]
|offices=

{{Officeholder/governor
|state=Florida
|number=43rd
|terms=January 5, 1999 – January 2, 2007
|preceded=[[Kenneth Hood MacKay|Buddy MacKay]]
|succeeded=[[Charlie Crist]]
}}
}}

'''John Ellis "Jeb" Bush''' (born February 11, 1953), age {{age|1953|02|11}}, is a businessman and a former governor of the State of [[Florida]]. He is the third child and second son of former President [[George H. W. Bush]] and his wife, former [[First Lady]] [[Barbara Bush]]. He is the younger brother of former President [[George W. Bush]]. Jeb Bush was the first Republican to win a second term as Florida’s governor, and he left office with a 60% approval rating.<ref name="WashTimes">[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/jeb-senate-bid-would-turn-on-rehabilitating-bush-b/ Jeb Bush Senate bid a GOP remedy?] The ''Washington Times'' Dec. 30, 2008</ref>
== Early life and education ==
Bush was born in [[Midland]], [[Texas]] where his father ran an oil drilling company. When he was six years old, the family relocated to [[Houston]], Texas. He was a budding athlete, enjoying [[baseball]] and [[tennis]]. He went to a public elementary school, and later to a private school. When he was in eighth grade, George H. W. Bush won a seat in [[Congress]] and moved to Washington, DC. The Bush children stayed in Houston with another family to finish the school year, and spent most summers and holidays at the family estate, located at Kennebunkport, [[Maine]]. He then enrolled at Phillips Andover Academy in [[Massachusetts]], already attended by his brother, George. Jeb Bush made the honor roll his first year. <ref>[http://www.who2.com/jebbush.html Jeb Bush Biography]</ref>

== Private sector ==
Jeb Bush and and his family moved to Florida in 1981, where he joined the Codina Group, a real estate development company.

== Political career ==
Bush became Secretary of Commerce under Governor [[Bob Martinez]] in 1987 and was the [[Republican]] nominee for governor in 1994, losing to incumbent Lawton Chiles. In 1998 he ran again and won, becoming governor of Florida at the same time his brother George W. was governor of Texas. He was re-elected in 2002, defeating [[Democrat]] William McBride (who had upset former [[Attorney General]] [[Janet Reno]] in the Democratic primary election). Bush could not run for re-election to a third term in 2006, because of term limits; another Republican, [[Charlie Crist]], was elected to succeed him. After eight years, Jeb Bush left office as one of the most popular and prominent governors in state history. While speculation and public support for a 2016 Presidential run still exists, it was significantly dampened when [[Barbara Bush]] stated in an April 2013 interview<ref>http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/51667537#51667537</ref> that she felt "We've had enough Bushes" and continuing "He's the most qualified, but I don't think he'll run."<ref>http://www.christianpost.com/news/weve-had-enough-bushes-barbara-bush-urges-jeb-bush-not-to-run-in-2016-video-94733/</ref>

== Post-political career ==

Bush joined the board of directors of Tenet Healthcare, the biggest publicly-traded hospital company in the United States, in April 2007.<ref>[http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/12/news/newsmakers/bush.reut/index.htm Bush] April 12, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070412/BREAKINGNEWS/70412027/1086 Florida Today]</ref>

== Personal life ==

Bush met his wife, Columba, while teaching English as part of a university exchange program in Leon, Guanajato, [[Mexico]] in 1971. Columba was born in Leon in 1954. The two were married on February 23, 1974, shortly after Bush graduated from the [[University of Texas]] with a degree in Latin American Affairs. They have three children: George (known as George P., born 1976), Noelle (born 1977) and John (known as Jebby, born 1983). The couple currently resides in Coral Gables, [[Florida]].

==References==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Bush, John Ellis "Jeb"}}

[[category:Florida]]
[[category:Florida Governors]]
[[category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category: Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

United States presidential election, 2016

2013-05-03T04:09:17Z

Fnarrow: Amended "Jeb Bush" to reflect lack of support from Barbara Bush, added {uncited} tag to remind myself and encourage others to add sources to this page

{{uncited}}The 2016 election will be an open field in both the [[Republican Party]]. [[Democrats]], as in [[communist]] countries, are not expected to have any choice other than [[Hillary Clinton]].

==Possible Republican candidates==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Able to win Florida, has Hispanic wife and kids, multilingual, backing of [[Karl Rove]]. Presumably has the backing of most [[George_H.W._Bush#Family|Bush family]] members, with the notable exception of his mother, [[Barbara Bush|Barbara]], who stated "We've had enough Bushes" during an April 2013 interview<ref>http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/51667537#51667537</ref>.
|Outspokenly supports amnesty, neither Tea Partiers or independent voters want a third Bush, told GOP primary voters they wouldn't elect Reagan today.
|Might count on Rubio to be a stalking horse because of their friendship but has contradicted Rubio on immigration in his latest book, if he and Clinton are the nominees many voters might gravitate to a third party.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Strong record of experience as Governor of Texas. Supports Second Amendment. Before the next election he might see a debating coach. Strong fundraiser. Not expanding Medicare to adjust for Obamacare like some other Governors are doing.
|Performed poorly in the debates last time, is an also-ran without Santorum's likely momentum in a race that will probably also have multiple of the other Republican Governors, also passed a state version of the DREAM Act and mandated vaccines for schoolgirls.
|He has stated that he might run again.
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Son of [[Ron Paul]], voted against GOP establishment's spending compromise bills, advocate for cutting spending, can unite libertarians and conservatives, voted against NDAA. Made waves with historic filibuster against CIA director John Brennan over the Obama administration's claimed authority to use drone strikes against US citizens on American soil.
|Some of his father's more hardcore followers think he's a 'traitor' for endorsing Romney, voted for [[Chuck Hagel]] as Defense Secretary.
|Has criticized [[Paul Ryan]] and [[Chris Christie]] like a potential candidate would, delivered 2013 Tea Party response to the SOTU, which the news media didn't cover.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|Favorite of [[Fox News]], articulate, Hispanic, able to win key battleground state of [[Florida]] since he's from there, was on Romney's shortlist in 2012.
|Used to be a Tea Party favorite when he defeated [[RINO]] [[Charlie Crist]], but many have since soured on his actions, endorses his own version of the [[DREAM Act]], friends with [[Jeb Bush]], denounced [[Michele Bachmann]]'s investigation into [[Huma Abedin]]. His eligibility for President is questionable.
|Visited Iowa in December 2012 to speak at [[Jack Kemp]] library, delivered GOP response to Obama's 2013 SOTU, currently putting his capital on the line working with seven other Senators on a controversial immigration plan conservatives may oppose as amnesty.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Strong social conservative base, runner-up in the 2012 primary, by 2016 endorsing [[RINO]]-turned-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] will be a distant memory for many because he died in 2012.
|May have been a [[stalking horse]] for Romney in the last election, which he'll vehemently deny; in 2016 voters may want a new face to lead the party instead of an also-ran, media portrays as fanatic.
|Says door is open on Presidential bid, compared his 2012 run to Reagan in 1976. Has founded an organization called Patriot Voices which may serve as a fulcrum for his campaign.
|-
|[[Paul Ryan]]
|Vice-Presidential running-mate in 2012, seen as fiscal hawk, Chair of House Budget Committee, articulate.
|Part of unpopular GOP House leadership, part of steering committee that purged conservatives from leadership positions, supported Boehner's Plan B and Senate budget plan, voted for [[TARP]] and Medicare Part D, budget balances budget in 40 years, didn't carry Wisconsin at bottom of ticket.
|Visited Iowa in December 2012 to speak at Jack Kemp library, named after the man he used to be an aide to.
|-
|[[Chris Christie]]
|Blunt criticism of teacher's unions won conservatives over for about a year, [[Ann Coulter]] supports him.
|Unprofessional style, severely overweight, praised Obama's Hurricane Sandy efforts only days before the 2012 election, has gotten heat for appointing Sharia judge and having pro-abortion Lieutenant Governor.
|Not endearing himself to conservatives with his statements on things like gun control.
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Populist conservative who says conservatives should be skeptical of big business, Indian-American, cleaned up Louisiana after Katrina and Governor Blanco, evangelical who also focuses on energy issues like Perry before him.
|Severely lacking in charisma.
|Has criticized the GOP on how it needs to be "smarter" and should emphasize it champions small business instead of big business, term limited to 2016.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Very popular with the conservative base, record of cutting the size of government, expert on energy issues.
|Thanks to the media, the electorate has already made up their minds about her. May prefer the role of commentator and not run for her and her children's sakes.
|
|-
|[[Condoleezza Rice]]
|Articulate, popular, foreign policy experience, takes the race and gender cards off the table, gave impassioned speech at the RNC, inspiring childhood story.
|Pro-choice, ties to Bush administration, never elected to any office, just appointed; left-wing immigration stance, had role leading up to [[Iraq War]], single status will mean she won't have the emotional support of a family for a Presidential run as [[Laura Bush]] has said; admired by some conservatives, disliked by others like [[paleoconservatives]] and from how [[Dick Cheney]] and [[Donald Rumsfeld]] have criticized her, she doesn't even have all the [[neoconservatives]] wrapped up.
|Some conservatives would think her running would be a good idea, others won't. She declined to run in 2008 and 2012, but from the speculation she was going to be Romney's VP, she might this time.
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Social conservative, pro-life Governor of Virginia that supports gun rights.
|Not exciting, signed transportation tax and Medicare waiver for Obamacare.
|Currently under attack by feminists for passing pro-life legislation, term limited in 2014.
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Senator who defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative.
|Voted for TARP and often votes for other spending bills the leadership pushes, not well known.
|
|-
|[[Scott Walker]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who defeated a recall that was pushed by Soros and the unions, exhibits conservative determination in passing right-to-work in his state and surviving the relentless union attacks that followed.
|[[AFL-CIO]] and the other union special interests have him as a top target, but he stands his ground.
|
|-
|[[Susana Martinez]]
|Gave a good speech at the RNC, conservative Governor of a blue state, Hispanic.
|Might not be interested, expanded Medicare in her state.
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|If she runs, will use potent immigration issue as foil to Bush and Rubio, can take it's mantle and change debate to pressure other candidates to tack right on the issue, outspoken critic of Obama.
|May not be interested in the Presidency, expanded Medicare waiver.
|Currently serving her state as Arizona's governor.
|-
|Ben Carson
|Plain-spoken, with common-sense solutions to the country's problems
|Has said states can enact gun control.
|The world-renowned surgeon made waves by skewering Obama's policies at the White House correspondence dinner
|-
|[[Kelly Ayotte]]
|
|
|If Rubio is the Presidential nominee, he's likely to make Ayotte his running mate hoping the ticket will appeal to two swing states (Florida and New Hampshire), Hispanics, and women, offsetting Hillary with the last group. Both Rubio and Ayotte have been taken under the wings of McCain and Graham since getting in the Senate.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|Conservative black Congressman from Florida who speaks his mind, some conservative activists insist that he runs.
|Lost his race for re-election to the House two years after getting voted in.
|Has compared his loss to [[Abraham Lincoln]]'s before he became President in a radio interview.
|-
|[[Brian Sandoval]]
|Hispanic, fiscal conservative
|Pro-choice, expanded Medicare in his state, [[Harry Reid]] doesn't seem to mind his performance as Governor <ref>http://blogs.rgj.com/politics/2013/02/20/reid-says-hell-run-for-re-election-in-2016-wont-comment-on-sandoval-as-opponent/</ref>.
|
|}

==Possible Democratic candidates==

[[Democrats]] will not have a choice other than [[liberal]] [[Hillary Clinton]]. If a competitive race were allowed by the party bosses (and it won't be), the candidates mentioned below her could be contenders:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Has wanted to be President for decades, has Clinton machine and big money behind her, teflon image helped along by the media, quitting Secretary of State position lets her run, she will have the 'sexist' card at her disposal.
|Role in Benghazi and decades worth of scandals going back to the 90s, feminist.
|Claims not interested now, but will likely run anyways.
|-
|[[Joe Biden]]
|Tries to set image as he's 'one of the folks' even though he's a millionaire. He'll have Obama's Chicago machine.
|Very gaffe-prone, VP to an unpopular administration.
|Currently yukking it up as Obama's Vice-President and has openly expressed some interest in running. Hasn't talked about running...yet. Should be good seeing how him and Hillary deal with each other on the stage.
|-
|[[Andrew Cuomo]]
|Tried to make himself look like a fiscal conservative, he's part of a political family like Jeb and Hillary.
|Uncompelling, declared intentions to seize guns from lawful gun owners, which he's used executive orders to do.
|His father, the former Governor, has already said he intends for him to run. His gun confiscating executive orders are not sitting well with the American people by and large.
|-
|[[Mark Warner]]
|Senator from a swing state with a relatively moderate record who voted against the [[NDAA]], all of which might give him points with independents that the other Democrats won't have.
|He still votes with his party most of the time, voted for gun control even though he claims to be pro-gun.
|
|-
|[[Martin O'Malley]]
|Partisan, anti-war liberal.
|Martin who? He has low name recognition. Fiercely supports raising taxes and other very liberal stances, although that might help in the primary.
|-
|[[Elizabeth Warren]]
|Popular in [[Occupy Wall Street]] and other progressive circles.
|Caught lying about being a Native American so she could get [[affirmative action]] at Harvard, her very liberal views and rhetoric probably won't resonate in states less liberal than [[Massachusetts]].
|Just won election to the Senate against [[Scott Brown]].
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|
|
|
|}
== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: 2016, United States presidential election,}}
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]

Debate:Should there be a separate section on the main page for blogs, advertisements and other non-news items?

2013-05-03T03:35:07Z

Fnarrow: removed edits which had nothing to do with the stated question of this debate... We all want to see this site thrive, please stay on topic.

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2013-05-02T05:55:32Z

Fnarrow: /* Creationism/Intelligent Design */ Red Links = Dead Links

{{TOC right}}
'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)
==Philosophical Debates==
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]

==Religious debates==
===General Religion===
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: Are fear of death and sorrow compatible with faith?]]
===God===
# [[Debate:Was God not intelligent enough to create life on Mars as well as Earth?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
#[[Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?]]
#[[Debate: Can God explain all of the conspiracy theories and all other phenonmena?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]
#[[Debate: Why does God send us on Earth ?]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
===Atheism/Agnosticism===
# [[Debate:Do agnostics have proof and evidence that agnosticism is valid?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]

===The Bible===
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
===Christianity===
# [[Debate:Why do fundamentalists take mistranslations seriously?]] (on "virgin" Mary)
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about Pedosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate: Do genuinely saved Christians sin?]]
#[[Debate: Were Achan's children stoned and if so, was it just?]]
# [[Debate: Is America a Christian nation?]]
===Judaism===
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
===Islam===
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
#[[Debate: Should Christians be more forthright in stating that Allah is not the same being as the Judeo-Christian God?]]
===Scientology===
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
===Founding Fathers===
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States of America really be counted as a country?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
===World Wars===
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
===U.S. Interventions===
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
===Civil War===
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
===Other===
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]

==Political debates==
===Conservative/Liberal===
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
#[[Debate: When are you lot just going to grow ?]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

===Political Parties===
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
===Political Figures===
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
====Barack Obama====
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?]]
# [[Would anybody consider President Barry Soetoro a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Was it legally necessary for Obama to retake the Oath of Office?]]
====George W. Bush====
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
===Abortion===
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]
===Gay Marriage===
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate: Should we criminalize homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]
===Religious Freedom/1st Amendment===
# [[Debate: Should Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to protest funerals as free speech?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
===Guns/2nd Amendment===
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
===Immigration===
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Illegal Immigrants: Is it too late for US?]]
===Military/Interrogation===
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
===Drug Legalization===
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
===Other===
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]

==Economic debates==
# [[Debate:Solving the deficit]]
# [[Debate: Did World War II end the Great Depression?]]
# [[Debate: Can there be price controls without shortages?]]
# [[Debate: Counterfeiting: A Moral Hazard]]
# [[Is our freedom to consume what we want whenever we want worth the cost (i.e. environmental, social, economic, etc.)?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
===Trade===
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
===Healthcare===
# [[Debate: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare: a proper ruling?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
#[[Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?]]
===Education===
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Should class room prayer be allowed in Public Schools?]]

===Foreign Policy===
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
====Middle East====
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
# [[Debate: Was Osama really killed in Abbottabad?]]
====Europe====
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
===Environment===
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance]]

==Scientific debates==
===Creationism/Intelligent Design===
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate: Creationism, Evolutionism and the 15 questions]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]

===Evolution===
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]
# [[Debate: What does Evolution attempt to explain?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
===Global Warming===
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
===Other===
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
===Wikis===
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Can/May/Should online wiki encyclopedias copy from each other?]]
===Positions===
# [[Debate:What is CP's position on Relativity? (and, in general, on physical sciences)]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Should Conservapedia be more open about sex related articles?]]
===Characteristics===
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
===Blocking Policy===
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
===Other===
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?]]
# [[Debate:Is it time to propagate Conservapedia in other languages/countries?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a separate section on the main page for blogs, advertisements and other non-news items?]]

==Media==
===Media Bias===
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
===Decency Standards===
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Is Anime and Manga Ok?]]
===Music===
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
===Other===
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]

==Funny, maybe?==
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2013-05-02T05:54:27Z

Fnarrow: /* Funny, maybe? */ removing red links

{{TOC right}}
'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)
==Philosophical Debates==
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]

==Religious debates==
===General Religion===
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: Are fear of death and sorrow compatible with faith?]]
===God===
# [[Debate:Was God not intelligent enough to create life on Mars as well as Earth?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
#[[Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?]]
#[[Debate: Can God explain all of the conspiracy theories and all other phenonmena?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]
#[[Debate: Why does God send us on Earth ?]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
===Atheism/Agnosticism===
# [[Debate:Do agnostics have proof and evidence that agnosticism is valid?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]

===The Bible===
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
===Christianity===
# [[Debate:Why do fundamentalists take mistranslations seriously?]] (on "virgin" Mary)
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about Pedosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate: Do genuinely saved Christians sin?]]
#[[Debate: Were Achan's children stoned and if so, was it just?]]
# [[Debate: Is America a Christian nation?]]
===Judaism===
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
===Islam===
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
#[[Debate: Should Christians be more forthright in stating that Allah is not the same being as the Judeo-Christian God?]]
===Scientology===
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
===Founding Fathers===
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States of America really be counted as a country?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
===World Wars===
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
===U.S. Interventions===
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
===Civil War===
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
===Other===
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]

==Political debates==
===Conservative/Liberal===
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
#[[Debate: When are you lot just going to grow ?]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

===Political Parties===
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
===Political Figures===
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
====Barack Obama====
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?]]
# [[Would anybody consider President Barry Soetoro a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Was it legally necessary for Obama to retake the Oath of Office?]]
====George W. Bush====
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
===Abortion===
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]
===Gay Marriage===
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate: Should we criminalize homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]
===Religious Freedom/1st Amendment===
# [[Debate: Should Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to protest funerals as free speech?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
===Guns/2nd Amendment===
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
===Immigration===
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Illegal Immigrants: Is it too late for US?]]
===Military/Interrogation===
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
===Drug Legalization===
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
===Other===
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]

==Economic debates==
# [[Debate:Solving the deficit]]
# [[Debate: Did World War II end the Great Depression?]]
# [[Debate: Can there be price controls without shortages?]]
# [[Debate: Counterfeiting: A Moral Hazard]]
# [[Is our freedom to consume what we want whenever we want worth the cost (i.e. environmental, social, economic, etc.)?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
===Trade===
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
===Healthcare===
# [[Debate: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare: a proper ruling?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
#[[Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?]]
===Education===
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Should class room prayer be allowed in Public Schools?]]

===Foreign Policy===
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
====Middle East====
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
# [[Debate: Was Osama really killed in Abbottabad?]]
====Europe====
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
===Environment===
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance]]

==Scientific debates==
===Creationism/Intelligent Design===
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate: Creationism, Evolutionism and the 15 questions]]
# [[Debate: So who's right? ]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]

===Evolution===
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]
# [[Debate: What does Evolution attempt to explain?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
===Global Warming===
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
===Other===
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
===Wikis===
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Can/May/Should online wiki encyclopedias copy from each other?]]
===Positions===
# [[Debate:What is CP's position on Relativity? (and, in general, on physical sciences)]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Should Conservapedia be more open about sex related articles?]]
===Characteristics===
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
===Blocking Policy===
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
===Other===
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?]]
# [[Debate:Is it time to propagate Conservapedia in other languages/countries?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a separate section on the main page for blogs, advertisements and other non-news items?]]

==Media==
===Media Bias===
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
===Decency Standards===
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Is Anime and Manga Ok?]]
===Music===
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
===Other===
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]

==Funny, maybe?==
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2013-05-02T05:53:44Z

Fnarrow: /* Other */ adding new debate

{{TOC right}}
'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)
==Philosophical Debates==
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]

==Religious debates==
===General Religion===
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: Are fear of death and sorrow compatible with faith?]]
===God===
# [[Debate:Was God not intelligent enough to create life on Mars as well as Earth?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
#[[Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?]]
#[[Debate: Can God explain all of the conspiracy theories and all other phenonmena?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]
#[[Debate: Why does God send us on Earth ?]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
===Atheism/Agnosticism===
# [[Debate:Do agnostics have proof and evidence that agnosticism is valid?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]

===The Bible===
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
===Christianity===
# [[Debate:Why do fundamentalists take mistranslations seriously?]] (on "virgin" Mary)
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about Pedosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate: Do genuinely saved Christians sin?]]
#[[Debate: Were Achan's children stoned and if so, was it just?]]
# [[Debate: Is America a Christian nation?]]
===Judaism===
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
===Islam===
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
#[[Debate: Should Christians be more forthright in stating that Allah is not the same being as the Judeo-Christian God?]]
===Scientology===
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
===Founding Fathers===
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States of America really be counted as a country?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
===World Wars===
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
===U.S. Interventions===
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
===Civil War===
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
===Other===
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]

==Political debates==
===Conservative/Liberal===
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
#[[Debate: When are you lot just going to grow ?]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

===Political Parties===
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
===Political Figures===
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
====Barack Obama====
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?]]
# [[Would anybody consider President Barry Soetoro a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Was it legally necessary for Obama to retake the Oath of Office?]]
====George W. Bush====
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
===Abortion===
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]
===Gay Marriage===
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate: Should we criminalize homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]
===Religious Freedom/1st Amendment===
# [[Debate: Should Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to protest funerals as free speech?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
===Guns/2nd Amendment===
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
===Immigration===
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Illegal Immigrants: Is it too late for US?]]
===Military/Interrogation===
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
===Drug Legalization===
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
===Other===
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]

==Economic debates==
# [[Debate:Solving the deficit]]
# [[Debate: Did World War II end the Great Depression?]]
# [[Debate: Can there be price controls without shortages?]]
# [[Debate: Counterfeiting: A Moral Hazard]]
# [[Is our freedom to consume what we want whenever we want worth the cost (i.e. environmental, social, economic, etc.)?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
===Trade===
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
===Healthcare===
# [[Debate: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare: a proper ruling?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
#[[Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?]]
===Education===
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Should class room prayer be allowed in Public Schools?]]

===Foreign Policy===
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
====Middle East====
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
# [[Debate: Was Osama really killed in Abbottabad?]]
====Europe====
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
===Environment===
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance]]

==Scientific debates==
===Creationism/Intelligent Design===
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate: Creationism, Evolutionism and the 15 questions]]
# [[Debate: So who's right? ]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]

===Evolution===
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]
# [[Debate: What does Evolution attempt to explain?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
===Global Warming===
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
===Other===
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
===Wikis===
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Can/May/Should online wiki encyclopedias copy from each other?]]
===Positions===
# [[Debate:What is CP's position on Relativity? (and, in general, on physical sciences)]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Should Conservapedia be more open about sex related articles?]]
===Characteristics===
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
===Blocking Policy===
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
===Other===
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?]]
# [[Debate:Is it time to propagate Conservapedia in other languages/countries?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a separate section on the main page for blogs, advertisements and other non-news items?]]

==Media==
===Media Bias===
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
===Decency Standards===
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Is Anime and Manga Ok?]]
===Music===
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
===Other===
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]

==Funny, maybe?==
# [[Debate:Are cats just useless dogs]]
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Debate:Should there be a separate section on the main page for blogs, advertisements and other non-news items?

2013-05-02T05:51:58Z

Fnarrow: An official home for a topic which has been much discussed and debated on Talk:Main Page and various other places

Talk:Conservatives and libertarians

2013-04-30T17:12:43Z

Fnarrow: Starting discussion from the Libertarian POV

[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]],[[User:Patmac]], anyone else who is interested in this topic, I figured we can start the discussion here instead of spread over several different user talk pages...
:[[User:Patmac|Patmac's]] statement is absolutely true from the "outside looking in" so to speak. I'm not great with words, so I want to talk to you guys before adjusting/editing it in any way. You have encapsulated the "voting" or "legislative" standpoint of Libertarians very nicely, but I feel we should probably specify that. Our personal opinions may vary widely, but what defines the Libertarian perspective as separate from the Conservative or Liberal stances is the view that people should be allowed to make decisions on moral/social topics rather than being told either way by the government. For example, I'm personally anti-abortion, but politically I'm pro-choice as I think the market will adjust itself as NGOs convince more people that it is morally wrong. I personally (I heard it or a variation on it somewhere else, can't remember where though) sum up the Libertarian philosophy as "You should be able to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others to do what they want". [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 13:12, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

User:Fnarrow

2013-04-30T04:46:52Z

Fnarrow: /* A Sad Sate of Affairs */ removed section, things are definitely improving all around, but I will not give up the fight to make this place great.

{{Useful links}}

I believe strongly in being open and honest so I'm going to lay everything out on the line here about who I am and what I believe.

==Email Address==
'''conservapediauserfnarrow@gmail.com''' (Admins/Sysops/anyone, if there is a better way for me to put this on here, please let me know. I try to follow the site rules, but couldn't find one relating to this. Thanks.) 
Feel free to send me any non-spam email you'd like. After I made my promise on [[Talk:Main Page]] to provide my email address, I remembered my SEO and other website training and realized I didn't want all the spam that would surely come from putting my personal email address on a website... especially one which gets attacked as often as conservapedia does. So, I created this account specifically for my usage on this site to make it easy to maintain. Unless I'm sleeping, I'll usually respond within a few minutes of receiving your message.

== Personal/Professional: ==
I'm a 28 year old physicist and freelance writer by both trade and training. I live in Michigan and have a very strong interest in all aspects of science and try to learn as much as possible whenever I have the time. My current obsession is learning everything I can about space, particularly space exploration and colonization with a special emphasis on extra-orbital propulsion design and theory.

== Politics: ==
I don't really identify with any particular party specifically. I call myself a "conservative libertarian" as I lean toward a preference toward a very small federal government and am a strong supporter of both personal and states' rights. While I do not use recreational drugs myself beyond the occasional beer or cocktail, I support the legalization and regulation of most drugs for other adults who might choose to use them. I've recently discovered the Modern Whig Party and support many, but not all, of their platforms.

== Religion: ==
I was raised Lutheran but have gradually grown away from organized religion as a whole over the past 15 or so years. I have a personal relationship with God and still follow the tenants of Christianity, it has been my personal experiences with man's interpretation of God, his words and his love which have driven me away from the physical church as an organization. Once again, in the interest of honesty and full disclosure; I have described myself as a "Christian Agnostic" but I'm not sure if that's a real term or not so I'll explain. While I feel the science and other historical facts neither support or refute the existence of God in a definitive manner; my heart and soul tell me that he most certainly exists and that Jesus was his one and only son. To my personal belief, not only is there no reason why science and religion cannot coexist, but I also feel that when looked at with an open mind they are each more likely to support and strengthen the other. This obviously leads to a much more productive society than when they are used to fight the other with no purpose other than to cause anger and division.

== A Quote from Each "Side" Supporting My Belief in the Compatibility of Science and Religion ==

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- [[Albert Einstein]]

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition;
religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish....
We need each other to be what we must be, what we are called to be." -- [[Pope John Paul II]]

== Current Conservapedia Project/Goals ==
In addition to my previously stated and overarching goal of increasing Conservapedia's status as a viable competitor to Wikipedia through the removal of vandalism, hate, personal attacks and unsupported bias; I've also decided to put my efforts into the following:

#Eliminate/improve the lists of Orphaned pages, Dead-end pages and Oldest pages where ever my knowledge and ability will allow. '''UPDATE:''' I have reduced the "Dead-end page" list by '''more than 40%''' (less than 420 left to go after starting at over 700!) and intend to continue until it reaches zero.

User talk:Ed Poor

2013-04-30T04:12:25Z

Fnarrow: /* Fnarrow */ reply to IP unblock, question regarding my vanished user/talk page content and proposal for joint project

Archive:
[[/1|1]]
[[/2|2]]
[[/3|3]]
[[/4|4]]
[[/5|5]]
[[/6|6]]
[[/7|7]]
[[/8|8]]
[[/9|9]]
[[/10|10]]
[[/11|11]]
[[/12|12]]
[[/13|13]]
[[/14|14]]
[[/15|15]]
[[/16|16]]
[[/17|17]]
[[/18|18]]
----

[[Image:Ed poor grinning.jpg|right|thumb|114px|Ed Poor on campus]]



== Writing Plan ==

Hello Mr. Poor,
I would like to submit a writing plan. While I haven't been asked for one, I feel this would best help keep me on task and contribute the most productively. You seem to know an awful lot about this wiki stuff, and I'm still new at it, so if you could help me that would be great.
I think I'd first like to help contribute to the various book articles around the site by adding in examples of the influence of Christianity, as a lot of books have Christian overtones that aren't currently listed. I'm thinking I'd like to start by drawing parallels between the story of Jesus in the Gospels with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Please let me know if this would be acceptable.--[[User:JeremiahJ|JeremiahJ]] 18:10, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:Probably not. Please email me a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:02, 17 January 2011 (EST)

== Request ==

Hello Mr. Poor, I have submitted a request [[Talk:Atheism#Addition_of_Information_on_Charity_and_External_Links_Request|here]] but it was never attended to. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 23:19, 28 February 2011 (EST)

== Image Upload Request ==

Hello Ed Poor, I hope this message finds you doing well. I was wondering if you could upload [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Young_Galaxy_Accreting_Material.jpg this image] for use in the article I recently created. I look forward to hearing your response. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 03:32, 7 March 2011 (EST)
:Hello Ed Poor, could you please add [[Atheism and the suppression of science]] to [[Template:Nb Atheism|this template]]? I really appreciate it! With regards, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 11:14, 7 March 2011 (EST)
::Hello Ed Poor, I need two more images for the article I created which are available [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Independent_assortment_%26_segregation.svg here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Lennox.jpg here]. Recently, [[User:JMR10]] uploaded my previous one, for which I am thankful. Could you ask him to do the same for these two or could you please do these for me? I highly appreciate it. Thanks, [[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 19:40, 7 March 2011 (EST)

== I seem to have messed up the Ada article ==

My proxy keeps dropping stuff, so the picture at the top is busted. Also, I had to cut down the reference, because the captcha can't make it through. It should have a left bracket, and h,t,t,p, etc., and a right bracket after the "pdf". I wonder if you could please fix it for me. I will contact Andy about getting my IP range restored.

What I was going to put in the talk page (and will do once things get straightened out) is that the two cited articles are very shallow, having only 7 and 3 sentences, respectively. They both refer to a "plan", but that's because the word "program" hadn't been coined in the computer context. She really was the first person to write "code".

I'm sorry about this. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 00:08, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

:I read her notes, and it doesn't look like a [[computer program]] to me. A charitable view might be that it's a [[specification|spec]], but there's no flowchart and no [[source code]]. Don't be sorry, just get it right. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:21, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

What did you expect this "source code" to look like? The term "source code" implies both a programming language and "machine code" that the source code is assembled or compiled into. Assemblers, compilers, and programming languages wouldn't be invented for another hundred years (by Grace Murray Hopper, John Backus, and others.) The same goes for the other accoutrements of modern software development, like flow charts and specifications. In fact, even the terms "software" and "program" hadn't been invented.

Furthermore, assuming that you accept that she had to write "machine code", what would you expect machine code to look like for a machine that reads its instructions with rods poking through holes in large punched cards running around on a track, and does its arithmetic by counting teeth on turning gears? It wouldn't look much like Intel 586 code.

The fact is, the lines of Ada's written algorithm were intended to be punched into lines of holes in Babbage's cards, once the "analytical engine" was built, which it wasn't.

By the way, what I was being "sorry" for was not the content of my edit, but the fact that an extremely buggy proxy messed up the article and wouldn't let me fix it, despite several tries. Andy has been working with me to fix the network problems, and DMorris fixed the broken picture and hyperlink while my access was broken. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 20:39, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

:Then it would be more accurate to say that she described an algorithm. That's not the same as a computer program, even if she was hoping that Babbage's machine might be programmed to carry out the algorithm.

:An encyclopedia should be precise and unbiased, not used to create "factoids" for use in publicity campaigns, such as promoting [[women in science]].

:I don't say she had to write machine code, but rather to be the "first programmer" she would have had to produce a [[computer program]]. If you have seen it, please show it to me. Otherwise, I'm going to make an editorial decision that she produced an algorithm rather than a program. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:18, 7 April 2011 (EDT)

:*Let's say that [[Ada Lovelace]] wrote one of the first comprehensive descriptions of an algorithm to generate [[Bernoulli numbers]]. But until I see the actual sequence of instructions, including [[if-then]] or [[loop control]] statements, I'd hesitate to call it an actual [[computer program]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:17, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

==The anti-Semitism of liberals==
I love how libs reveal their true selves. No matter what we say or do in describing them, they come here just to confirm it all. So when they want to emphasize "Jew" in "karajou", I'll be more then happy to get a gold Magen David to wear around my neck, join my brothers and sisters in the synagogue every week, and show everyone else just how hate-filled and intolerant these liberals really are. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:20, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

== Please help! ==

Hi! I tried to add the information for Edo to the Tokyo article and for some reason,. it stripped a bunch of stuff out when I saved. Now when I try and revert the edit I made, I keep getting a internal server 500 error. Please can you revert for me? [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:19, 14 April 2011 (EDT)
:It's ok, I fixed it! [[User:TracyS|TracyS]] 10:30, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

::I'm glad it worked out for you. My Japanese name is "Edo". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:04, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

== Nice speed on reverts ==

You beat me to every one! Nicely done--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:05, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks. I'll pass that on to my secret bot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:10, 24 April 2011 (EDT)

== Thanks for noticing me ==

I must be doing something right. Every time I mention alternate viewpoints, and no one sees fit to revert my edits, I get vandalism to my talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:48, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush ==

I'm trying to reorganize the information, not leave it out. If you notice, I'm working on the article quite a bit. May I please revert your revision? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:05, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:Sure. I'm frequently too bold and hasty. And that's the wonderful thing about a wiki. Nothing is ever really deleted; it's all in the article history. Go for it! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:09, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

== Technical question ==

I'm lobbying for a separate namespace for the Conservapedia Bible Project. The idea is that each verse gets its own ''article'', which can be used rather as a template. I see a couple of advantages:
*verses can be quoted more easily: instead of copying the whole verse, only a short link (like <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:8}}</nowiki> ) is neccessary to get a neat result: <nowiki>{{:CBP:John 20:8}}</nowiki>
*thereby, the use of the CBP is encouraged over other translations.
*if there is a change in the CBP, the afflicted verses don't have to be tracked down manually, but the change is applied automatically throughout the wiki.

To accomplish this, a new namespace has to be created. That shouldn't be too difficult, as there are only a few exemplary pages prefixed with ''CBP:'' at this moment.

But after this, the namespace has to be filled with the existing translated verses. My question: is your bot up to this task?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

== madonna ==

Hi, please strongly reconsider your desire to create a "kinder article." In stating that madonna is a person who has changed to being more spiritual you are buying to the liberal media's lies. It sounds like a madonna fan attempting to weave their bias in, which of course you are not. I think you may want to do more research, and read my recent additions as she is still, if not more so, a wicked and hateful person who has sucked millions of children into raunchy culture, dated murderers and mocked our Lord Jesus Christ who gave his life for us. Madonna deserves only the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] [[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]] 13:14, 14 July 2011 (EST)

:And I just had a long conversation with some Wikipedians in Central Park last month, about whether CP is more neutral than WP. Now you want "conservative bias" to denounce [[Madonna Ciccone]]? Not even Wikipedia's BLP policy would allow that.

:I wonder whether you are a liberal '''tempting me''' to add bias, just so you can accuse us of being biased. Well, if so, I choose not to cooperate, my dear elf. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:45, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::I think Legolas here might be a parodist. Would you mind looking into him? [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:12, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

Ed, your compassion sounds a little misplaced to me. Do you also visit the Fred Phelps, Bernie Madoff, Ted Bundy, and Charles Manson pages asking people for some "Christian charity" to tone those down too? Look into me all you want please. I dislike Madonna because she has mocked our lord Jesus Christ. Conservative people have respect for Christ end of story. The reason society has degraded is by giving raunchy people like madonna a free pass and pity. I'm the one who wants to print the ACTUAL history of madonna that the liberal media has left out such her dating the felon Chris Paciello. I only want the truth about her in the article. Why is that so bad? I thought this was the one place that might allow the truth.[[User:Legolas2186|Legolas2186]] [[User talk:Legolas2186|Talk]] 10:34, 17 July 2011 (EST)
:Ed, can you please look into this guy? He is an obvious parodist. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:55, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
First of all - Ed is a senior sysop at this site - I don't know why a few of you have taken upon yourself to post on [[User talk:Aschlafly|Andy's talk page]] when Ed is more than capable of dealing with an alleged parodist on his own. Secondly, just because he is posting radical things on a talk page does not make him a parodist. Looking at his contributions, you ''could'' argue that he is edit warring, but since Ed is simultaneously the user in the revert war and an admin, it is up to his judgement as to whether or not a block is deserving. Your collective alarmism has now spread across three talk pages. That's enough.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:00, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::@NickP, your very.... quick to call somebody else a parodist. Why not leave that to the pro.'s to decide?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:06, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Several others have also pointed out the fact that he acts very suspicious. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 16:13, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Saying he "acts suspicious" and saying he's a 100% no way im wrong about this Parodist is two completely different things.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:16, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

:::::I prefer what Wikipedia old-timers used to call "soft security". Just help me fix the articles in question. Everything will sort itself out. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:34, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

==EdBot==
Ed, I left three (actually six) problem Categories that need some sort of merging at [[User_talk:EdBot]]. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:56, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

:Sorry, EdBot did not survive the MediaWiki upgrades. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:21, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::Does that mean it's all got to be done manually? Moving 200 entries into another Category?

:::Only if they really have to be moved. (Meanwhile, if anyone has an idea how a bot can "log in" with the new MediaWiki software, let me know.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:33, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot#Logging_in This] should help. Indeed, the whole [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot page] is quite interesting. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:40, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

== A request concerning recent events ==

Hi Ed,

I'm very sorry to come to you with this, but I honestly don't know where else to turn at this point. You have always struck me as the voice of reason and level-headedness here.

Simply put: the current altercation on Andy's talk page is out of control. I recognize that I have no authority to tell sysops what they should or shouldn't do, but it seems to me that basic common courtesy calls for not filling up Andy's talk page with arguments and accusations. Moreover, the very public nature of the dispute is encouraging other users to join in. Some of them are doubtless sincere; others, I suspect, may in fact be parodists seeking to fan the flames (I notice a LOT of recently created accounts.)

Regardless, the fact remains that Andy's talk page has been turned into a general forum for accusations and arguments. At this point, it's degenerated to the level where people are making absolutely vicious personal attacks against certain of the participants. (Kudos to JamesWilson for promptly reverting the most egregious of these.)

You know the other sysops better than most of us; you talk to them; I would certainly hope they trust and respect your opinion. Is there anything you can do to persuade them to take a step back, cool down, and wait for Andy to respond at this point? Everyone involved has made their positions clear; further acrimony can serve no useful purpose.

I'm sorry to trouble you with this, but I really feel that this is both inconsiderate to Andy and deleterious to the Conservapedia project as a whole.

Respectfully,

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:05, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks for the vote of confidence, but shouldn't I check with Andy before barging in? It may be that he prefers to let everyone air their opinions. It is not just his courage but his wisdom and compassion that attracted me to this project. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:59, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

==[[User:MRellek]]==
Ed, per the site owner, Administrators [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=892763 "instructions...are to be followed"] is no longer operable. I have emailed you a copy of Mr. Schlafly's approval. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

:Oh, sorry. I was hasty. Feel free to unban MRellek, if you feel I was out of line. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thank you, Ed. I'm trying to get the other sysops to do more warnings & shorter blocks; let's get a sense of community here. After all, we've known many of these editors (the RW neighbors) for several years now. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:37, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

:I think I got signed up somehow, after jumping into a discussion.

:Can we have non-sysops on the panel? I'd like to invite a friend from Wikipedia to join it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:00, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== If I understand correctly, you are the local math expert. ==

If so, maybe you can take a look at [[Relativistic mass|this]] and some of that editor's other contributions. They seem pretty obscure/specialized for the general reader, to me, at least. Thanks! [[User:MrMorganH|MrMorganH]] 10:15, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

:Not an expert, but I know a lot about high school math. Andy's brother knows much more than I do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== Revert ==

Good morning (afternoon?) Ed, why was my comment reverted? I can't see why it should be? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:54, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

:Gosh, you're quick on the trigger. See your talk page for my response. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:58, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::I am indeed quick on the trigger, I like Westerns you see..:-) I have responded to you on my talk-page and re asked the question in a more cordial manner. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:59, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== The Conservapedia Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings have begun ==

The panel proceeding have begun here: [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy refinement panel proceedings]] You can start making your edits to the page should you wish to do so. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:59, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Farewell ==

Ed, in all sincerity you are by far the most interesting person I have met at Conservapedia. I regret that we couldn't get along better, though we did manage to improve a number of things. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:12, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

:We'd have gotten along better if we more goals in common. Building a trustworthy encyclopedia apparently was not one of them.

:In [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893745 this drive by attack] you dodged my request for specific instances of the problem you complained of. (Note: saying "all of them" is a a typical liberal dodge. That's like global warming alarmists saying, "Just look at the temperature record; the evidence is all there."

:For those listening in to this fascinating drama, the difference between real science and liberal junk science is that real scientists provide examples of what they're talking about, so that anyone can check it out and see for themselves. Liberals and other pseudoscientists '''pretend''' that they've already made the point.

:It reminds me of Japan, which always (1) says that it "already apologized" for the [[comfort women]] episode while steadfastly (2) refusing ever to admit that it did anything wrong. They are hoping we'll all be too polite to mention that #1 contradicts #2.

:Nice try on the parting shot, but your pretense of trying oh so hard fools no one. You're always welcome to come back if you '''ever''' choose to help this project instead of undermining it with trickery. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:41, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

==Pontiac==
Hi Ed, thanks for your help archiving my page. I know you are very experienced with Wikis, but I was wondering why you removed what I wrote about the government shut down of Pontiac destroying American history. A lot of people were really upset about Pontiac's closure and there are lots of websites and articles proving this, why can't it be in the article? I will differ to your judgement because you are so experienced, but just want to understand your reasoning. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 22:46, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

:It can't be in the article until you find a way to make it trustworthy. Use references. You can't just write stuff off the top of your head, because you are not an established author. You are in fact an anonymous person, and we don't even know whether Craig is your real name.

:If there's a lot of proof for your assertion, be sure to provide references, like:
:*The New York Times reported that after GM was taken over by the government, brands like Saturn and Pontiac were sold or eliminated (link and/or date)

:If you need help formatting references, lots of people here can help. But '''you''' must supply them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:43, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
==Pictures==
Hi Ed, how do I add pictures? --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 16:08, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

:You can't add pictures, until you've made enough useful contributions to earn upload rights. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:34, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::In addition, Craig, you can use [[Conservapedia:Image upload requests]] until you earn uploading privileges. A Sysop will do it for you.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 21:59, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Ok, I'll work even harder to earn my rights! I also wanted to apologize for being so familiar, my mom pointed out that I should be calling you Mr. Poor. I always call adults by their last names in real life, but on the internet I usually forget. Also thanks Mr. Wilson for your advice about upload requests. --[[User:CraigF|CraigF]] 13:24, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::::No worries. I wouldn't mind if you called me James or Jim, but I'm glad your mother has taught you well. Also, you will need a lot more work to earn uploading privileges, just so you know. Happy editing in the meantime!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 14:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

== Edit conflict ==

Just got edit conflicted by you on the Morse code page - what are the odds we'd both be working on it! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:19, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

:One thought leads to another ... not such long odds. Sorry about stepping on your work. Feel free to revert, and I'll recover later. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:22, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
::Its all OK, I added my work to your version. Great minds think alike, more like an average mind in my case but you catch my drift...:-) [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:24, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

== signature ==

I hope you don't mind, but I borrowed the format of your signature to use for my own. It's simple and to the point, but looks nice as well, so I thought I would use it as well. Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 16:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:I copied mine from someone else, so "[[Pay It Forward]]." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:27, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
::Oh, ok. Thanks for letting me know! [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

== like wikipedia? ==

i looked up [[milk]] and [[butter]] how is this conserivtive? is it like wikipedia at all what can i add? ty. --[[User:Rainbowboiz|Rainbowboiz]] 00:35, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:Not unless your spelling improves. And we are not so much "conservative" as [[trustworthy]]. Unlike Wikipedia, we really do try to avoid political bias. Add anything that is correct and useful. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:17, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

== Meat Loaf ==

I know his stage name is much better known (I'm writing the article on him, obviously), but wouldn't you think using the subject's real name is more appropriate for an encyclopedia? If you think the article should be titled under his stage name, you're the boss, but I thought I might want to point that out. Thanks!--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 11:14, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

== Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage ==

Please help me as I am fairly new to this wiki. I have attempted to propose a discussion for deletion on this particular page. Before disccussing this, I have followed the instructions on templates via the help index [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_for_deletion]] to add it to a discussion for deletion but this does not seem to work so I have not proceded further - with hindsight I should have guessed there was something wrong by the lack of entries on this page.
My reason for wishing to commence this discussion is that I suspect the article (created by a user who does not appear to have an active talk page) seems to me to be parody and trolling to debase the credibility of this project. In my opinion, most of the logic followed in nearly every assertion is spurious and often uses blatant synthesis that a ten year old could question. It is to such an extent that I don't think an "improved" version would be posible. Of course, others may have different oppinions which is why I am trying to be fair and open it for rational discussion. What is the correct procedure? Thank you in advance - answer to my talk page [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 19:54, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

:I'm not sure what the correct procedure is. Maybe you could post on the talk page, showing a few examples of "spurious" assertions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:46, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

::Ok I can do this, but I'm surprised that hte Help feature supplies a redundant page on discoussing articles for deletion. I was also under the impression that you had Sysop/Admin powers and would be familiar with such policies as it is a feature on other wikis. [[User:DavidMilton|DavidMilton]] 13:31, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Actually I know policy fairly well and do have Sysop/Admin powers. Either provide the requested examples, or drop the matter. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:47, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

== Sid 3050 ==

Sid 3050 was blocked for three month for ''trolling''. The only edit he made during the day before his block seems to be to answer to your question in a section above (''So, will it go away if you ignore it?'') - see his [[Special:Contributions/Sid 3050|list of contributions]]. You had personally addressed this comment (''But I'll take a look at Sid's material below now, just to be a good sport.''), so you should be able to judge whether such a comment is ''trolling''. Could you please review Sid's block? In a timely fashion? Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:Sid was trolling. Whether this justifies a three month block is up to the admin in question.

:I'm always open to suggestions for making Conservapedia more trustworthy. If you have anything specific in mind, please speak up.

:Of particular interest to me would be any material relating to the contrast between conservative and liberal viewpoints on American political issues, as well as philosophy, religion and science. To my regret, repeated invitations to include users who are ideological opponents of this project have not met with an enthusiastic response. It's almost as if they wish to conceal their ideological differences; ironically, this could be seen as self-censorship.

:If anyone wants to describe liberal POV here they may, provided only that it is clearly labeled as such - not presented as gospel. This should not be an onerous requirement: it's the same as Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:42, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Vandalism ==

Help! A user called CortA is currently vandalising articles. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:15, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

:OK, Andy blocked him. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:17, 15 September 2011 (EDT)

== Misled by RonLar ==

I was quite astonished by your last actions. I slept over it and want to clarify my earlier remark.

*I'd appreciate if you would be less generous with your slight innuendos (''"thanks for nothing!"'', ''"misled by RonLar"''): these make it difficult to assume ''good faith'' on your side. And they have the annoying tendency to backfire...

*my statement ''"Where is the right place to propose an alternative viewpoint? Surely not in the article itself, but on its talk-page. This is a simple necessity for all protected articles, but a good idea for most of those articles some sysops feel strongly about."'' is hardly misleading - even though it is not written by a native speaker! In fact, it is echoing the sentiments of Conservapedia's [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette|editing etiquettes]]:

:::* '''You should discuss changes made by an Administrator before reverting their edits. Administrators are charged with seeing that article content is in line with Conservapedia guidelines. [[Edit war]]ring with an Administrator usually results in a temporary block.'''
:::* '''You should not alter the editorial content of an article away from a [[conservative]], or [[Christian]], or [[family friendly]] "tone" without discussing proposed changes on the talk page.'''
:::*'''Never make substantial edits to an article without discussing your changes first on the talk page. If you have a reasonable expectation that other editors will accept your change(s), the changes are just formatting / copy editing, you should proceed.'''

*Inserting an alternative viewpoint is most certainly a ''substantial edit'' - and the etiquettes advise you to discuss such an edit at first on the talk-page.

*So, I made a true statement, in accordance with Conservapedia's policy on editing, and you '''misread''' it. To reiterate: You weren't '''misled''', you simply '''misread''' it. And this misunderstanding (of your part) you took as a reason to erase the whole section and seemingly not to read the rest of my comment? Deleting a section on censorship is always a little bit ironic...

*BTW: whether the article is protected or not is not of any interest for the discussion of censorship! A library does not only censor the books it throws from it shelves, but the books it doesn't allow into it shelves in the first place!

*I put the whole section up [[User:RonLar|here]], so you can read it carefully again. Take your time, but nevertheless, react timely - you said that would be important....

[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 12:05, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:At this point, I think it's become abundantly clear that complaining about censorship will get you nowhere. I realize users will come up and be frustrated by certain site traditions, but that's just the way Conservapedia is run, RonLar.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 13:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::Sorry, I thought you were saying the article was protected.

::Also, I'm astonished to think that you consider adding alternative viewpoints to be something that has to be '''cleared''' with a sysop first. My understanding of project policy is that all contributors are free to describe non-conservative, non-Christian views ... especially on an article describing a controversy between the two sides.

::Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]
[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:38, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::*Apology accepted. Perhaps you could revert your reaction to this misunderstanding by reintroducing the section which you erased from your talk-page?
:::*Please read [[User:RonLar#Again, the previous example of ideological censorship, in detail]] - all of it, not only the first sentence. This should answer some of your questions.
:::*Please address the incident which I mentioned there.
:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:56, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Eh? I thought you wanted help. Please answer my question: Has someone told you you can't describe the liberal or secular viewpoint on some topic? (Or did you try to sneak in such a viewpoint without proper attribution)? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:39, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::How is it a sensible use of my time to answer new questions when you seem to ignore my answers to your old ones? Please remember your statements:
:::::{{Cquote|
:::::''Unless you can show at least one diff, where a senior editor censored something ... merely because it disagreed with some conservative shibboleth ... than you ought to stop saying this. I address this not so much to you, as to those who follow you or travel alongside you.'' }}
:::::and
:::::{{Cquote|
:::::''I asked for an instance of ideological censorship.''}}
:::::Well, you find it here: [[User:RonLar#Again.2C_the_previous_example_of_ideological_censorship.2C_in_detail]] Of course I am willing to answer any question concerning this specific example of censorship, especially those which indicate that you read the whole comment.

:::::Thanks, [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 02:41, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Nearly two weeks later: Did you take a look? Or even better, did you read the whole thing? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:17, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== Anti-Clancy cracks? ==

In general I'm a Clancy fan but I think some of the criticism you removed was valid. For example by the time he wrote "The Bear and the Dragon" his standards of research had perceptibly dropped (The AH-64 has a 20mm gun? Really?) and "Red Rabbit" and "The Teeth of the Tiger" were frankly rubbish. Maybe some of the criticisms should stay? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:09, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:Anything can stay if properly sourced: X said Y about Z. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:10, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::What would be an acceptable source? I have all Clancy's books; would they be acceptable sources for pointing out declining standards of technical accuracy? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:20, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::LOL, '''your''' interpretation of Clancy's writings would be (what is called at Wikipedia) original research. If you don't know what I meant by 'properly sourced', then you're unqualified to contribute anything further to this project. If you do know, you're just toying with me. Godspeed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:23, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. What I'd do is reference both Clancy's books and technical sources that contradict them, such as the fact that the AH-64 does NOT have a 20mm gun. Like I said I'm generally a Clancy fan - "Without Remorse" may just be the best thriller ever written - but his last few books have been a bit disappointing and his research has definitely slipped. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:28, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::::What I would propose is to remove the comments about "The sum of all fears" - a nuclear weapon could be built with a table saw and a small lathe, never mind optical milling equipment - but keep and expand on the comment about the declining level of technical accuracy. The divergence of the Ryanverse from reality isn't important because it IS fiction, but the declining level of research and tendency towards unrealistic assessments of real-world capabilities IS important. For example "The Bear and the Dragon" is utterly unrealistic even in the Ryanverse. If China invaded Russia they'd get about ten feet over the border before being annihilated. The fortifitions on the Sino-Russian border make the Maginot line look like a sand castle on the beach, and they were actually designed by strategic thinkers. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:44, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

On second thought, maybe I'm being too hard on you. I recently started tutoring schoolchildren, and I'm learning to be more patient with their quaint notions. After all, making wrong guesses and getting them corrected is often the best way to learn. Shall I not condescend to grant you the same grace? ;-)

I've read all Tom Clancy's [[Jack Ryan]] and [[John Clark]] novels. I always assumed that any discrepancies were inserted on purpose; Clancy certainly would have no reason to put correct information on how to make a suitcase-sized nuclear bomb in his books: what conservative would want to inspire a copycat crime?

If you want to include "criticism" by some published author who says an attack helicopter does or does not have a certain sized gun, go ahead. He's also not very accurate about the software used in the stock market, although it was a key plot element in ''[[Debt of Honor]]''. (Come to think of it, if a man knew everything and wanted to make money betting on horse races, he would know not to put all his winnings on the next race ("[[John Doe]]" TV series pilot). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:56, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== Language ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Big_Bang_theory Language like this] makes me extremely uncomfortable: "when grownups talk", "woman's logic is strange, don't you think", etc. (especially this in his earlier statements: "and being educated briefly by my grandpa in matters "of faith", mostly about "Catholic errors", and the absolute need to be trufhful, my concern was that the Catholics are wrong on one more point since the Big Bang was proven wrong in 1985")

First, I am not a woman. My identity is very well known and I am quite easy to find. Ottava means eight, and Ottava Rima means Eight Rhyme, a type of rhyming pattern used in Italian epic poetry. Second, his language is condescending, misogynistic, religiously bigoted, etc. Third, his claims about the Big Bang Theory are rather strange, conspiratorial, and nothing I have ever heard by any legitimate scientist. I cannot honestly believe that he is a real conservative but I believe he is a plant just like many of the people who vandalize. His job is to produce some of the most absurd stuff to try and make conservatives look awful. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but his language does not seem like something that is appropriate. I talked to Geoff Plourde about this quite a bit tonight because it bothered me a lot. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:44, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== Um ==

[[Atheism and obesity]] - is this a joke? It seems to be just a list of fat atheists. It even has random tidbits like "Chuck Norris endorses the Total Gym exercise system.[59]" I know many priests who are overweight, and many religious people who are. I know many atheists who are ultra thing and anorexic.

"Christian and Library of Congress researcher's explanations of reports of UFOs " How would that even deal with atheism and obesity? Yet it is in there.

The page looks like it was created to make Conservapedia and conservatism look really bad. Sigh. [[User:Ottava|Ottava]] ([[user talk:Ottava|talk]]) 22:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

:User:Conservative is good at attracting readership to this website. The [[Atheism and obesity]] seems to me a bit of payback for the liberals who call Rush Limbaugh a big, fat idiot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

::And in his payback, he demeans everyone who is overweight, including myself. I've dealt with mean-spirited behavior from people about weight the majority of my life - there is no acceptable reason for being hostile about the issue. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:53, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== You were looking for ideological censorship? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bestiality&curid=88619&diff=920267&oldid=920266 easy to find] --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 23:52, 23 September 2011 (EDT)

:Not as easy as you say. See [[Talk:Bestiality]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:44, 24 September 2011 (EDT)

== Senior Admin assistance ==

Hi Ed, I would like to bring something to your attention as a senior administrator. I have been in private communication with User:SamCoulter over the last few weeks. There is nothing in his attitude and comments to me in private and his behaviour here on Conservapedia to suggest this user is anything but sincere. He was recently blocked for the edit [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamCoulter here] (the last edit he made - I will not link directly to it because the topics are extremely offensive and not family friendly). For this effort he was blocked for three months. His edit was a) relevant b) correct according to the article linked and c) was a link which was on the front page already. It seems that some users wanted to quote the article without implying the articles conclusions as they were at loggerheads with a users personal opinion. I don't think the user should have been blocked but now he is I won't remove it but I do believe that 3 months is extremely heavy-handed. I don't want to create controversy so I will not chnage the block myself but I am bringing this up with you and User:Karajou also (I am unable to contact the blocking sysop). Thank you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:11, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Keep him blocked. He vandalized twice. In fact, I am going to increase the time blocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:02, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Do you have evidence of this vandalism? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:04, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::If you want to defend those recent contributions be my guest. If you want to wrangle with me about them, it is not going to happen. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I tell you now '''there was no vandalism''' you are blocking a user for adding sourced and factual material. You are blocking him for no reason! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:09, 25 September 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, but it's actually very easy to avoid a block. I suggest you start coaching new users about courtesy, project goals, etc.

I myself disagree with the project goals of RW, but they haven't given me any long blocks. Why? Because I follow their rules in their house.

Adolescents often have trouble figuring out what the rules are, or trouble realizing the benefits of following them. (In the long run, civil disobedience campaigns against beneficial institutions such as Democracy and Free Markets simply backfire.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:52, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:I respectfully disagree with you. It's incredibly ''easy'' to get blocked on this site, because honestly, it appears to depend on the whim of the blocking editor (doesn't like what's being said because it's contrary to the blocking editor's opinion, got up on the wrong side of the bed, had a fight with someone in real life and are taking it out on editors here at CP.) You yourself just handed out an ''infinite'' block for ''defending'' someone.

:Many editors, myself included, have protested User:Conservative's articles and his method of defending them. If anyone objects, he automatically deems them an atheist/evolutionist, etc., which at least in my case, is far from the truth. I object to several things. First, his use of "obese" as a ''ad hominem'' attack against people whose ideas he disagrees with. I've dealt with bullying behavior about weight most of my life, and have tried to point out to him how hurtful his taunts are, but he thinks it's amusing, and the other sysops here (yourself included) appear to agree. I'm all for a good discussion about ''ideas'', but when the attacks become personal, and all-inclusive, then yes, I'm going to protest.

:Second, most of the articles are just ''badly, badly written''. They meander ''miles'' away from the original topic, they tend to be a bunch of quotes lumped together, and in many of them, the point that he's trying to make is missed completely. The actual subjects might be valid, and important enough to warrent an article on them, but creating 10 articles that say the same thing, and that can (and should) be consolidated into one, '''''well-researched and well-written document''''', is just poor scholarship. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:53, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

::Well, thank you for not giving me an excuse to block you! ;-) Very well written . . .

::As I've said elsewhere, [http://ameriwiki.wikkii.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=4073&oldid=4071] I disagree with the stance of "the admin" who is making ''[[ad hominem]]'' attacks on atheists; I think it's a misguided attempt to attract readership.

::If anyone's had a '''good''' edit reverted for a bad reason, they can just let me know. Just remember: if anyone is criticizing to condemn, I'm not interested, but if they want me to change things, I'm the man who can do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:03, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

== BrentH's block ==

I see you blocked BrentH for trolling and reverted 2 of his edits. He linked [[Professor]] to an existing article here on CP, [[Professor values]]. Why was that trolling? --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:55, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:Perhaps prior edits?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:01, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::User: Ed Poor did not appreciate the section right above this one--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:14, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:::BrentH made a perfectly reasonable and respectful suggestion. It would appear from the edit history that he was referring to an article about Winona Ryder, created by Ed Poor, which contained one piece of trivia but no basic information regarding the person whatsoever. What BrentH said is simply common sense, and I too cannot see how this can justify a block. [[User:DavidZa|DavidZa]] 22:45, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Indeed, certain longstanding members of this community seem to have rather thin skin. I did not see BrentH's post as offensive or out of line--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:54, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== This is an encyclopedia. ==

You wrote that on my talkpage. ''This is an encyclopedia.''. Well, if it is articles like [[bestiality and Britain]] ahould be deleted because, as I have pointed out numerous times, it has nothing to do with bestiality and Britain. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:27, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

:Article deleted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Ed+Poor&page=&year=&month=-1&hide_patrol_log=1]
::Hey thanks Ed. Just for the record though I wasn't "bothered" by the content so much as bothered by the ''lack'' of content. As the commandments say - everything must be true and verifiable which that article clearly wasn't. Many thanks. I must admit - I have a lot of respect for you and karajou. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Ed, evolution was birthed in Britain and secularism has grown rampant in their country. Now their society is a mess and there is rioting in the streets. In addition, the'' Guardian'' just published a puff piece on bestiality. I say enough is enough and it's time their moral rot is exposed. I realize that pointing out that folly and consequences of atheism/evolutionism annoys liberals, but so what. Not only are they grossly and obviously in error, but atheists/evolutionists have shown themselves [[Atheism and cowardice|to be timid little bunnies]]. I restored the article because I feel confident that Conservapedia can stand up to foolish and timid little bunnies. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:21, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Enough with the insults conservative. I am neither a liberal nor an atheist and am sick to death of you accusing me of such. The article has nothing, I repeat '''nothing''' about the practice in Britain. I say again '''nothing'''. You poor scholarship is on show and we can ''all'' see it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:02, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Ed, a Brit was trying to bring over his deviant farming practices to the United States as can be seen [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7600523/British-man-51-arrested-at-bestiality-farm.html HERE]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:28, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::You misread the article, Conservative. The Oregon farm is owned by an American. The British man was visiting it. Read [http://www.examiner.com/headlines-in-seattle/seattle-convicted-cocaine-smuggler-arrested-likely-into-bestiality-liking-sex-with-animals here] for a version of the story that makes who owned the farm clearer.
[[File:Keldaby goats.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|An exclusive British art gallery was criticised for displaying a highly offensive bestiality oriented painting which featured a [[goat]] just yards from The Ritz hotel and where it could be seen by children.- The Daily Mail online (MailOnline), August 5, 2011 ''The explicit art that shows bestiality with a goat just yards from The Ritz'']]
::::::::There is no way I'd let children any where this site with Conservatives despicable articles all over the place. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:54, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Max, I heard Oregon was pretty liberal. It figures the farm was in Oregon. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:30, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::I heard that most states are pretty liberal... But that doesn't make the rumors true. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 22:34, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
Oregon voted for Obama plus fairly recently they had the most atheists per capita in the United States. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:57, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:Omaha, Nebraska also voted for obama but calling it liberal is very silly--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:58, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ Oregon is liberal] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:07, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
:I'm slightly confused as to why it's relevant or not that Oregon is liberal. After all the state DOES have a law against bestiality, so that argues against liberals being tolerant of it. --[[User:ColSharp|ColSharp]] 08:33, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::Since when do liberals obey the laws on the books in the first place? This photo [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:1915b7ec753fa9d0352885dc23da4469.jpg] is proof that liberals have no intention of obeying laws regarding littering. They trashed Washington D.C. ''when they got their way'', January 20, 2009. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:10, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
:::There's a law in New Jersey about recycling, yet I know several conservatives who refuse to recycle. Why is this? [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 13:26, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:21, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
:I am disappointed in you most of all Ed. Coming from wikipedia and being the first to jump on others for incivility you ignore when it comes to the ruling chaste of Conservapedia. You should be ashamed. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:48, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I think you assume entirely too much about my dispositions. You really don't know what extent I "cackle" or if I "cackle" at all. You also don't know what value I place on "winning". In fact, you don't even know if I am one person or a team. I/we remain inscrutable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:24, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
::::User:Conservative, this is getting silly. You wrote for instance:
::::::''Actually KhalidM, I have a very outgoing personality and a university professor friend of mine told me that I would make a great administrator because I can be very diplomatic. While I realize that I will never cultivate a large atheist or liberal fan club, I can live with that. Conservative 20:34, 5 October 2011 (EDT) ''
::::So, while your grammatical gender may be undetermined, your number isn't. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

== King George I ==

The article of [[King George I]] was deleted as a ''creation of vandals''. On the talk page I read the comment of User:RJJense: ''I added much new text, all of which I wrote, and previously posted on Citizendium.'' I looked up the article at Citizendium and it seemed to be quite informative - certainly not vandalistic! Could it be restored? I'd like to insert a valid link into [[elector]]s.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:::I restored the last version by RJJense. I feel confident that his last version was a good article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:34, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks - it really seems so! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:57, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

=="New Ordeal"==
Hello, I noticed that you placed the quotation marks around the term "New Ordeal." As you have probably noticed I have been attempting to fix that article. Quite frankly, the article is pretty bad to start with and several of the references that prior authors cited have nothing to do with the topic. Do you know if there is procedure in which this article may be recommended for deletion? --[[User:Padams|Padams]] 15:33, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:Better to mark it as an essay. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

== Block of AugustO ==

I looked at [[Conservapedia:Editor's_guide#If_you_get_blocked]]:

''If you get blocked, it's probably because you (1) broke the rules and (2) ignored hints, requests and/or warnings. So the first thing you should do is review your communications with others here, particularly those who are admins. Have you been trying to get along by following our practices and supporting our goals, or have you been trying to change our ways? If you are new here, it's best to go along to get along. After you have contributed a lot, we'll be more likely to listen to your suggestions, but breaking the rules will just end up with eliminating you from the project. ''

::*I can't think of any rule which I broke
::*I was requested to ''to do some charitable work somewhere instead''. I'm already engaged in such work, so this doesn't apply...
::*I don't try to ''change our ways''. I try to correct factual errors (e.g., ιδού can be translated as ''at this moment'' or that it is right to call ''Carolus Martellus'' the grandson of ''Carolus Magnus''.)

''Perhaps upon reflection you may realize that you'd rather be part of the project than insist on your own way. You might want to apologize and get unblocked. ''

::*I don't insist on my own way and I apologize if anyone feels insulted by my criticism.

''If you want to discuss your block, '''do not create a new account'''. Rather, use one of the following methods to appeal the decision (listed in order of preference). ''

::*Here, I obviously failed.

1. ''Contact the person who blocked you (see below).
::*tried
2. ''If you get no reply after a reasonable amount of time, you may contact any Administrator.
::*tried
3. ''Email cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com giving the name of the Administrator or editor who blocked you, and the date, and it will be forwarded on to them.
::*tried

''If you contact more than one person about this, please do them the courtesy of letting them know who else you have tried contacting. ''
::*This should be obvious from the header of my emails.

''Contacting an Administrator or editor can usually be done by one of the following methods: ''
*''Use the "Email this user" link in the toolbox. This, however, will only work if both you and the Administrator or editor have enabled this on your/their respective accounts.
*''The Administrator or editor may have provided an email address or other contact information (e.g. AIM) on their user page.

::*This section seems to be obsolete: ''email this user'' doesn't work for any of the administrators I tried to reach. And I couldn't get Ed Poor's email address via his user page. So we are in a [[Catch 22]] kind of situation...
::*I emailed to <code>aschlafy@aol.com</code>, <code>conservapedia@zoho.com</code> and <code>cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com</code>. I didn't get any reply (is 1-2 days a ''reasonable amount of time'' to wait? I thinks so...) to my short email which stated: ''I understand that my criticisms of CBP and the World History Lectures are quite unwelcome, but they are hardly trolling! I'd appreciate if you lift my block.''
::*So I decided to create a new account to appeal the block, hoping that the advice against this action is as obsolete as other sections of the ''editor's guide''.
[[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 07:56, 26 October 2011 (EDT) (AugustO)
:::August, I think you should start a career in sales. You certainly have the persistence to be a good salesman. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:47, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Ed Poor, the block of AugustO is now more than a week old. I tried to reach you via various channels - could you please lift the block as the stated reason ("trolling") doesn't apply? [[User:ErnestO|ErnestO]] 11:09, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

:Please get a [[writing plan]] from him and get it to me, and I'll consider it. Meanwhile, any sysop is free to unblock him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:01, 31 October 2011 (EDT)
::Is that any official Sysop, or anyone with Block rights? I'd be happy to unblock Mr O so that he can post his writing plan.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:25, 1 November 2011 (EDT)
:::On second thoughts, perhaps I'll just go ahead. Please reverse my action if I'm overstepping the mark.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:33, 1 November 2011 (EDT)

*Thanks for the unblock!
*I read the article on the [[writing plan]], and I'll try to provide you with one. This would be easier if a ''sample plan'' were provided. But nonetheless, here it is:

Mainly I'm interested in the CBP. Mind you, I'm not ''Junker Jörg'', I'm not capable to create a translation on my own which stands for hundreds of years. But I think that translating the Bible in a group, and extensively discussing your work is a marvelous way to get a greater insight into the ''Book of books''. While doing so, I try to dig into what Conservative calls the ''ANE culture'', as you can see [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], where I try to shed light on timekeeping during the Roman empire.

When I came here, I thought that there would be a group of likewise interested individuals, but at the moment there seems to be only one other editor with similar interests.

As my approach to the CBP generates quite a few edits on talk-pages, I balance these with edits to articles. These tend to by connected somehow with my namesakes (August of Saxony, Ernest August of Hanover), the history - or just happen on pages where I read something which puzzled me :-)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:21, 8 November 2011 (EST)

== Abortion issue ==

It would be a great idea to merge the articles. In fact, if you were interested in expanding the article, I might be interested in helping.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:28, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

:Yes, please help me organize this. We should give prominence to conservative views, but let's steer away from censoring liberal views. It would be nice if liberals could see '''why''' conservatives believe differently. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:43, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
::OK!--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 14:48, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
::I merged the articles and added a bit on abortion and political ideology. How is it?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:53, 31 October 2011 (EDT)

==Thanks for the change but==
perhaps it should be bed bugs (plural), and now when i make an edit and it goes thru, if i try to make another one i get "Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it" but no one has. Going back to page and trying anew results in the same. 3.1: longetivity should be longevity.

Jesus is Lord, thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 07:58, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback here ==

Blocking policy improvement panel member - please give your feedback [http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Panel_members.2C_please_give_your_feedback_below HERE]

Your assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:05, 16 November 2011 (EST)

:I have explained my ideas in private email to you and Andy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:50, 11 December 2011 (EST)

== a few messages to you ==

There are a few messages to you here: http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Air_superiority [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:14, 26 May 2012 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for picking up some of my "wiki litter" that I left behind (redirects to non-existent pages). I will try to be more diligent as far as not littering in the future. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:22, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

:You're welcome. And don't bother yourself: it's better for you to focus your time on building the wiki, while less talented contributors like myself do the routine housekeeping.

:If I had your writing skill, I'd be making whole article like you do. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:34, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

== A message to you from Cipe ==

Fixing a MediaWiki message:

Hello,

Could you perform the edit I described [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&oldid=992864#Edit_request here, on very bottom of the page]? I asked Aschlafly but he's probably busy now.

Best [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 15:33, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
::I know the basics of Wiki coding and not the advanced level coding. I would ask someone else. Try Ed Poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:32, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Unfortunately, I cannot edit Ed's talk page. Could you suggest someone different? Or message him?

:::The change is rather small and requires only copy-and-paste. More directly: you can copy contents of this: [[User:Cipe/MW_fix]] to: [[MediaWiki:Revision-info]]. Even if my suggestion is wrong, it can be reverted, so there is no danger. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 16:41, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Okay, I did it. But where can I see the results? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:53, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Thank you very much. You'll see it when checking older revision. Here is an example: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546].

I noticed that MediaWiki has a different message when you're checking current revision. I'll prepare fix in a moment. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 17:55, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:The message seems to have logged me out. I think it needs fixing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:56, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

::I also got logged out, but only once. I can consistently see the new message now. Perhaps the software logs out when a edit to MediaWiki is made. Could you please copy [[User:Cipe/MW fix 2]] to [[MediaWiki:Revision-info-current]]? I promise it's the last change :) It is shown for a permalink to current revision. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:08, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I don't think that's it. I think you need to put the '''www.''' in front of '''www.conservapedia.com''' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:09, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

::::It seems to work. I can see the messages: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=991546 for past revisions] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Hussein_Obama&oldid=992065 for current revision]. Thanks for changing. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:19, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

== Thank you for unlocking your talk page ==

I really appreciate being able to get in contact with you directly when the circumstances arise. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 18:39, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

== Thank you ==
Now he can try to justify what he said about the article. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 14:29, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

== File:GoreFireBreathing.jpg ==

Do you think it would be appropriate to use this image in the [[Current TV]] article? It's already in Gore's main article, so why not include it in the article about his obscure TV network on channel 9800 on my TV? --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 20:35, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== apology. ==

Hey, I just wanted to apologise for the comments I made related to you, they were impolite and unnecessary. I don't have anything against you or anything, I just posted something that I thought was relevent without thinking how it would be taken by anyone other than myself, as it happened they were rude and quite personal. I acknowledge that I behaved quite badly, and in future I will try to avoid giving you, or others, offense. So..... virtual handshake?[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 06:18, 18 July 2012 (EDT)

:Oh, don't be so dramatic. Just comment on the articles and issues of the day, and forget about personalities. That's how this project's supposed to run. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:33, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
::lol. Nah it's difficult to tell over the internet how people are reacting, so for all I knew you could have been quite insulted or something, and I had to make sure that I was being very clear. Anyway, cool[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 01:03, 19 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure you get it: We don't want personal remarks on this wiki, clear or not. You need to be clear only about one thing: what you intend to write about an article topic. You must not comment on other users in any way. Is '''that''' clear? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

== On Personal Attacks ==

Dear Mr. Poor,

As someone who has been the subject of personal comments (see [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987753&oldid=987715], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987827&oldid=987777], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=987956&oldid=987955], [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=990739&oldid=990566]), I would like to share my opinion on Conservapedia's policy on personal attacks.

I think it is very appropriate to make '''relevant''' comments on editing and other wiki behavior to determine what the best practices are with regards to editing and other actions and, if necessary, to instruct users who may not know better about such practices. For example, I have informed two administrators about redacting the automatically-generated deletion log entry to remove sensitive material. I have also asked one administrator to include source information in that user's uploaded images, requests with which this user has complied. Likewise, if someone has a habit of posting comments on talk pages without signing them, it is appropriate to inform them of how to sign posts. Further, if someone is about to violate 90/10, a warning is definitely appropriate. None of these have to do with the real-life '''personality''' that these editors, many of whom are brothers and sisters in Christ, have; these comments focus on on-wiki '''behavior'''.

Further, I think that if someone is going to make a statement regarding real-life facts or Conservapedia's commandments, policies, and best practices, it is appropriate to debate this statement '''without going into personality details'''. Such debate may very well include Socratic or rhetorical questioning as a argumentative device.

Of course, Mr. Schlafly is the owner of the site, so he has the final say in this, but I'm sure he would agree with what I have written. Although attacks on another editor's real-life personality should generally be removed, I do not see the need to remove good-faith debate and discussion over user '''behavior''' at Conservapedia.

Thank you for reading this. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:36, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

:Yeah, thanks, Greg. If I err on the side of "absolutely nothing about the person" to an absurd point, please continue to help me out. I'm mainly opposed to comments like, "You're a jerk" or "I don't have to follow the rules."

:Nothing wrong with '''friendly''' personal comments, like, "Thanks for pointing out that a rigid, absolutist enforcement of the rules may not be wise." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:01, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

== Hey Ed ==

I saw your Arbcom case over at Wikipedia just today looking through for cases of bias there. :) Wikipedia's - nuts, huh? Lol. I ran into the Obama bias team over there in Scjessey, Wikidemon, and company, back in late 2009. It's become so hopelessly biased by now you've just got to laugh. They know they're keeping all controversy out of the Obama page and how biased they are, and don't care. Well, all my facts are at Conservapedia's services now. :) Anyway, just saying it's nice to see another ex-Wikipedian here I guess - hope we get some more! :) --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 01:15, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

==Tehpwn3r==
'User names based on your real name or initials are '''preferred'''' does not state that you will be blocked. [[User:Conservative|Also]].--[[User:Wishnaka|Wishnaka]] 19:51, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

*Inappropriate user name. It has been a general principle that one's user name be "based on one's real first name and last initial", though there are a number of reasons why that is not always practical. The point is that we don't like the kind of foolish "handles" that are often used in various blogs and social web sites. If you run afoul of this by accident, you will be asked to create a new account, and doing so will not be considered sockpuppetry. Of course, some user names are essentially just vandalism, and are treated that way.

== Randall7 ==

If you don't object, I suggest shortening his block to maybe 3 days. His remark, while rude and impertinent, did have some substance, and a hard block doesn't serve to do anything but cause more unhappiness. Thanks for considering,
[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 20:48, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

:If you unblock him, you're responsible. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:54, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

::I recommend keeping the week. And don't > dont. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:01, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Thanks for pointing out the typo.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 23:35, 25 August 2012 (EDT)
==Michael Baumgartner==
Dear Mr. Poor,
Please do a careful side-by-side comparison of [[Michael Baumgartner]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baumgartner&oldid=509330054 the Wikipedia article]. I did a google search on "Michael Baumgartner" and came up with a number of sources including the Wikipedia article. I took notes from all of the sources, and wrote a new article based on my notes. I honestly believe that the article uses a different set of sources, covers ideas in a different order, and covers the topic differently than Wikipedia. Please take another look, and if you agree, please restore [[Michael Baumgartner]]. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:05, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
*I understand the workload you face. Could you please look at the article and reconsider? [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:51, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
*:Already restored in good faith; I trust you, and I'm not going to compare it closely. I'll leave that to others. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:54, 27 August 2012 (EDT)

== My condolences ==

On the death of the Rev Dr Moon. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 18:54, 2 September 2012 (EDT)
==Thanks==
Thanks for the welcome. I wonder if you could help me. I tried [[Special:MovePage/William. J. Fulbright]] but apparently I don't have permission. The page should be at [[J. William Fulbright]], the name of the founder of the Fulbright scholarship program.
:Done. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:26, 4 September 2012 (EDT)

== Sun Myung Moon ==

You changed the first sentence of the protected article on [[Sun Myung Moon]] from the present to the past tense. Could you take care of the rest of the article, too? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:35, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
*Feel free to take care of that yourself. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:01, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
::I took care of it. --[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:21, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
:::Thanks to both of you! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 13:32, 5 September 2012 (EDT)

== Requesting Assistance ==

Mr. Poor, I'm relatively new here and don't completely know my way around. Would you please look at my comment concerning [[Talk:American Atheists and their challenges in terms of overweight leadership personnel|American Atheists and their challenges in terms of overweight leadership personnel]]. If my view is in line with the site, I'm quite certain that a template or procedure is needed at this point. If my views are not in line with the site, please feel free to remove that comment as you see fit. You seem experienced here, so your guidance is requested. --[[User:Nouniquenames|Nouniquenames]] 00:03, 21 October 2012 (EDT)

== [[Psychological manipulation]] ==

I've noticed that you moved/redirected the above article to [[Essay: Psychological manipulation in the Bible]] on grounds "not a general article; case study uses a Bible story". I've got somewhat confused about this step, because IMHO the article is general and only the case study section itself contains a "Bible story". In fact the rest is a combination of various sources, some of them far from having anything to do w/ Bible at all. I was by far not completely done with that article and now I actually do not know how to continue working on it. It says now "This Is An Original Work. Contributors should add their signatures to the end section. If published, a notice will be posted and, if desired, contributors will be recognized." but that was not my idea at all, I would be more than happy if anyone could help to extend that, in my opinion, general article. If I could suggest anything then I would like to suggest to move only the 'case study' section to the essay realms and keep the rest as general article with hyperlink to that essay in appropriate, perhaps 'See Also' section. I also deem as deficiency that article does not appear in the Psychology category now, I believe it belongs there.--[[User:AK|AK]] 10:35, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

==[[Objections to evolution]]==
As for your rationale for redirect on 'Objections to evolution', namely "I thought we already had plenty of articles opposing the Theory of evolution", I agree with you that "we have", but still would dare to oppose the redirect on grounds that 'Objections to evolution' is an article that brainwashes people at WP and enjoys special defence by witch-hunters who heavily suppress any different points of view there thus I believe it is of significant importance to have available alternative view on the same topic under the very same title.--[[User:AK|AK]] 10:50, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

== Quote Templates ==

I was doing some ''random page'' editing and found that there was a whole load of quote templates you created a while ago that link to nowhere and nothing seems to link to them. It seems the template for linking these quotes never got off the ground. I'm proposing that these either be deleted or put into some sort of quote page as I don't think there much use at the moment (except for possibly taking up server space). Kind Regards [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 02:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

==[[Unificationism]]==
I am not surprised to see you make changes to the Unificationism page in defense of your church, but why did you remove the part in which Moon told an interviewer, "God is living in me and I am the incarnation of himself." "The whole world is in my hand and I will conquer and subjugate the world." [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19459920?print=true]

Are you saying the BBC made that up? [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 08:23, 14 November 2012 (EST)

:You can put that back in. Sorry for the delayed answer; my day job keeps me pretty busy.

:Be advised, though, that Rev. Moon himself disputed the ''conquer and subjugate'' quote, telling Newsweek interviewers that he had been quoted out of context. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:35, 20 November 2012 (EST)

== Way to stop the spammers ==

From Aschlafly's talk page
Yesterday after I prayed an idea came to me (most likely from god) to stop the spammers from registering the spam accounts. If we can move away from user captcha and instead use a question that requires some knowledge (for example what team does tim tebow sit on the bench for or which team did he turned around) as the spambots will be completely flummoxed by this. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:16, 19 November 2012 (EST)

:The questycaptcha is excellent for this purpose. It stops ocr bots, and most paid spammers. The code would be:

require_once( "$IP/extensions/ConfirmEdit/ConfirmEdit.php" );
$wgCaptchaClass = 'QuestyCaptcha';
$arr = array (
"A question?" => "An answer!",
"What is this wiki's name?" => "Conservapedia",
'Who is Tim Tebow' => 'An athlete',
foreach ( $arr as $key => $value ) {
$wgCaptchaQuestions[] = array( 'question' => $key, 'answer' => $value );
}
Which you would place in /rootfiledirectory/localsettings.php[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:54, 19 November 2012 (EST)''

: Given your considerable experience in operating and maintaining wiki's like Wikipedia and convservapedia, do you think you would be able to implement this ? Regards [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 05:12, 23 November 2012 (EST)

==A serious Biblical matter==

Aschlafly wrote the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. This wouldn't have been to problematic, but now he puts his outlandish idea into an article in the main space ([[Epistle to the Hebrews]]). First he wrote:
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it.'''"}}
[[User:Iduan]] toned this down somewhat, so that we read at the moment:
{{cquote|"The [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is the nineteenth book of the [[New Testament]], and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and '''one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it'''."}}

I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself! The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly.

I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted: any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue.

I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky. As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an insight of a single person '''in a Biblical matter''' (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:26, 25 November 2012 (EST)

:If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:37, 5 December 2012 (EST)
:*''"Anyway, the page is just an essay, and the entire page is therefore pure Schlafly. What's wrong with that? "'' As I tried to convey with the phrase "this wouldn't have been to problematic", there is nothing wrong with the essay [[Mystery:Did Jesus Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?]]. But I think it ''is'' problematic that the ''insight'' of the essay spills over into a page in the main space, i.e., [[Epistle to the Hebrews]], and becomes a ''fact'' during this process.
:*''"If your purpose for marking it as Mr. Schlafly's idea is to discredit it, then you're barking up the wrong tree."'' It's the other way round: stating the ''insight'' in an article in the main space without making it clear that the only source for this idea is Andrew Schlafly is lending it an improper credibility. If you read an unsourced, unmarked statement in an encyclopedia, the reader generally takes it as a kind of common knowledge, even more so if he is e.g., a high-school pupil.
:--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:28, 6 December 2012 (EST)

Conservapedia is a mix of opinion and fact. Each is clearly marked. Talk pages are filled with unsourced claims, and we make very few efforts to police such talk.

If there is currently an unsourced, unmarked statement in an article that needs attention, please point it out to me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:09, 12 December 2012 (EST)

:Thank you - if unsourced, unmarked statements are reintroduced into the article, I'll point them out to you! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:02, 12 December 2012 (EST)

== Hello ==

Im new here and need some help. I figured I would go to you since you seem very involved in the community. I recently tried to instate an article about R*tional Wiki and suddenly it was deleted. I thought since we had an article about Wikipedia that we could write about wikis. I also noticed that it had been deleted several times by the same people. Why? The words are spam filtered to. I feel that we need to write about the faults and propaganda of this completely biased website. Not to mention they completely badmouth you in the most rude ways. Please help...--[[User:Colesmithsayshi|Colesmithsayshi]] 14:18, 31 December 2012 (EST)

== Mass Wedding ==

I was wanting to know what is the significance of mass weddings in the unification church ? I see your church has recently conducted it's first mass wedding since the very untimely death of the great Sun Myung Moo. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 10:05, 17 February 2013 (EST)

== Not sure how to respond to messages. ==

I am not sure how to answer the message you sent me. There does not seem to be a way to respond attached to the message you sent. Do I just respond in this open forum? Thanks.

== Math ==

Greetings, Ed. We haven't communicated in quite a while.

The reason I am writing is that I saw your recent [[Essay:Campaign_to_make_Conservapedia_unusable]]. I know that this has long been an issue, and that you and I have both put a lot of effort into making math/science articles accessible. I have one comment about it: ''Your audience for this essay is just yourself.'' All the people who made things inaccessible—Foxtrot, Lemonpeel, Jaques, etc, are long gone. So, if you want the situation to improve, instead of writing an essay, you're just going to have to make the improvements yourself.

Actually, I'm not sure what articles you have in mind for your criticism. If it's all the topology stuff ([[Regular_space]], [[Sequentially_compact]], [[Hausdorff_space]], ...), you have my sympathy, and you will just have to delete them. No one will improve them. But I strongly advise you ''not'' to delete them. They aren't doing any harm, and no one reads them (except me :-). An encyclopedia is not judged by how esoteric its most esoteric articles are, but by how well its mainstream articles are written, and how well those mainstream articles cover the field. I think the mainstream math articles at Conservapedia, like integers, rational numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers, are pretty good.

Which brings me to my specific point. It isn't true that no one edits math articles any more. There was a small amount of activity on integers and natural numbers recently. Perhaps this is what led you to write the essay. I don't think there was anything over-the-top about the recent edits, and I think you sometimes over-react to things like this. I believe that the recent edits in that area were well-intentioned, and trying to do a good job.

Giving a really good definition of the integers or natural numbers, in the way that you and I would like, at the appropriate level but with real clarity, is ''impossible''. Saying "evenly divisible by 1" doesn't work, because the reader who doesn't know what an integer is will have no conception of what division is or what "evenly divisible" means. Saying "has no fractional part" doesn't work either. I can see what the author intended--numbers are things like "3.7", and ".7" is the fractional part. So, having no fractional part means it is something like just 3. That's correct, but it relies on having an intuitive notion of real numbers, that is, things like 3 and 3.1 and 3.7 and 3.14159.... (Speaking of which, happy pi day!!!) Now most people have an intuitive feel for numbers with fractions well before they have to think about a formal definition of natural numbers. I know I did. That is, I knew about "3" in the context of "3.7 without the .7", or "the biggest markings on a ruler, rather than all the small ones."

So how do you write the article? You do the best you can, giving an imprecise defintion in terms of "numbers that you count with", or something like that. (By the way, I really really liked your "mathisfun" web link explaining these things on an elementary level, and I used it (crediting you) in my article at Ameriwiki.) So the right thing is probably to define "counting numbers", as in the web link, and accepting that that's the best you can do. Then address, very lightly, the issue of how that might be different from "natural numbers", and whether zero is included, and so on. It's not worth making a big deal about. Just pick some definitions, and stick to them. Mention that maybe not everyone agrees. Don't worry about students getting a bad grade on an exam because of a nit-picking difference--people taking exams will presumably have attended a class and gotten the instructor's view on this, if the instructor thinks it's important. The way you addressed the issue in the natural number article is just right.

Yeah, the stuff about integers being "the only integral domain whose positive elements are well ordered and in which order is preserved by addition" is over the top. Either take it out or move it to the very bottom. Other than that, I think the natural number / integer articles are in pretty good shape.

One more thing: Don't be put off by the fancy "N" symbol. The people are not trying to show off. The symbols are cool, and the students will think so. When I was in junior high, I thought that the summation and integral symbols were really cool, long before I knew what they meant. Let the students see them.

And I still say that the Peano axioms would be a good thing to have at Conservapedia. Nowhere near as complicated as "integral domain whose positive elements are well ordered", and really interesting for the target audience. You may copy my Peano article from Ameriwiki if you wish.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:34, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
:I just wanted to add my thoughts as a math graduate student who has made several edits to our math articles. As someone who plans on becoming a professor, I think it is fundamental that, as an educational resource, Conservapedia has accessible (to the extent possible) math material. However, we are not limited in space like a print encyclopedia, so there is certainly room for us to have more in-depth coverage of math topics for more advanced scholars. It's not my intention to make Conservapedia unusable as an educational resource; if you think that my edits are not helpful, please feel free to discuss them with me. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:20, 15 March 2013 (EDT)

::You may have missed my point, which is that 99% of our readers are concerned with math that is below the college level. I want the majority of our editorial effort in math to focus on what these readers need. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:30, 17 March 2013 (EDT)

Ed: I take exception to your implication that I "missed your point" about the intended audience of CP, or how to write for it. Be assured that I absolutely, totally, utterly, and completely understand these issues. If you have any question about this, please see my articles on [[Limit (mathematics)]], [[Algebra]], [[Compass and straightedge]], and [[Cramer's rule]]. ''These are all topics that I studied in high school'', and I'm sure you did too. In particular, I put an enormous amount of work into the limit article.

In any case, this stuff is entirely in your hands now. If you have any problems with the math articles, you have the administrative power to delete any articles that you think are inappropriate, like the [[Kolmogorov space]] article. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:57, 4 April 2013 (EDT)

:Well, thanks, brother wolf, for exposing your neck so meekly. But I have no desire to be top dog, if you'll excuse me for mixing metaphors. I'm glad you understand and work hard, and I hope you will help me make high school math (and below) accessible to the average reader - not just those in the top 1% like you and me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:47, 5 April 2013 (EDT)

I must confess that I don't understand your metaphors very much -- brother wolf? exposing my neck? I'm pretty clueless about contemporary culture. But I know what "top dog" means. There's no doubt that you are a top dog, being an administrator. Also, I'm flattered to be considered in the top 1%, but, remember, there have been a lot of really sharp people here. So I'm not sure about being in the top 1%.

In any case, good luck, and have fun. And don't hesitate to delete stuff that you consider inappropriate. Really.

I'll come by and look around and say hello from time to time. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:50, 11 April 2013 (EDT)

== Carbon Dioxide ==

I have redone Brenden's edits in a number of different edits. I hope this helps you. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 07:01, 10 April 2013 (EDT)

:It did. See my subsequent edits. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:23, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

== Understanding Islam ==

Hi Ed, thanks for this entry: [[Islam and tolerance]]. I followed the reference link to the news story "The Roots of Muslim rage", and read the article. I thought it was really interesting, and as I am trying to better understand their beliefs and attitude towards us, (those of Christian faith and in Western Nations) I wanted you to know this was helpful to me, thanks. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 18:36, 15 April 2013 (EDT)

== Reminder ==

Some of your newer articles need some categories. I don't really know much about subject matter so would probably be better if you do it. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:03, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

:Feel free to place any category at all, when I'm too rushed to do it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:18, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

:: Normally I would, just not to familiar with some of subject matter. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:22, 16 April 2013 (EDT)

==Christian Chivalry==
I redirected your article on [[Christian chivalry]] to the already existing page [[Chivalry]] since they're the same concept and the other page was already much more in-depth. Hope that was alright. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:20, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

:Did you complete the merge before reducing the page to a redirect? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:16, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

I'm not an admin, I don't think I can do a full merge like that... I figured since it was just a sentence and the sentiment of that sentence was already covered in the other article that the redirect would be sufficient... sorry. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 22:26, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

:If you did your best in good faith, then no apology is needed. :-)

:I'll take a look later on, and if I think that quote is relevant I'll tack it on to [[Chivalry]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:28, 19 April 2013 (EDT)

==[[Talk:Gun control#New Infographic]]==
As you are one of the main contributors to the [[Gun control]] page, I'm writing here to ask you to follow the link I posted in the heading of this section and read the data I found. I think it could be very helpful to the article, but as I said there I'm far from an expert in interpreting that kind of data. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:59, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

:I'm interested in describing both sides in the [[Firearms debate]]. I don't think we have to overemphasize one side. Put in anything you like. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:59, 20 April 2013 (EDT)

==fnarrow's reply to your terms==
I'm just copy and pasting what he sent me, please don't shoot the messenger.
<blockquote>[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], I agree to your terms unequivocally and will do everything I can on the future to not allow my emotions to get the better of me in the future. That said, I just want to take a second to point out that 2 of the 6 examples you gave of my behavior, (4 and 5 I believe, i do not have the other page open as I type this email) were not posted by me but were part of a comment posted by another user in response to my comments. The other 4 I do not deny and I agree that they were out of line. To that end, I would like to point out that if you or [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] look at the final interaction between myself and [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] in the "why complaints will go nowhere" section of that same page, you will see that we had settled our differences peacefully. It wasn't until after that that i was banned for earlier statements made in the heat of the moment and out of exasperation regarding the situation at the time they were made. I do not contest the justice of the 1 day block, but when it was immediately followed by the infinite block before I had a chance to respond, apologize or anything else, that was when I felt I had been treated unfairly and asked my friend to join the site as a conduit for contact. (thanks again John!) While I therefore still think the infinite block was unwarranted, i do apologize for my actions and will not allow it to happen again. Thanks for your time and i look forward to helping the site grow from this point forward. --fnarrow
</blockquote> btw, I'm not 100# sure what a "sock" is, assure you that to my understanding of the term I am not one. I have neither the time nor the inclination to edit your wiki and only made this account at my friend's request since he had no other contact anyone here. [[User:JSandler|JSandler]] 22:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

:Karajou said I could unblock Fnarrow. I hope this turns out okay. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:29, 29 April 2013 (EDT)

== Fnarrow ==

Would you be able to restore Fnarrows user and talk page whilst your at it mate ? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 09:30, 29 April 2013 (EDT)
:(this is [[User:fnarrow|fnarrow]], I'm using [[User:JSandler|John(jsandler)'s]] phone at the moment as my IP is still blocked even though my user page shows that I have been unblocked by [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]... Can that be fixed?) I wanted to thank everyone for helping me understand what happened and helping me get reinstated. I look forward to working with you all more in the future. Also, as [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] already posted, is it possible to have my user page and talk page content restored? Most of it can be deleted now that issues have been settled, but I'd like to recover other parts. Thanks again, [[User:fnarrow|fnarrow]] 14:00, 29 April 2013 (EDT)
::Ed, yes I can post again, I had assumed you had unblocked me... but I guess not based upon your comment on my talk page. Anyway, can you restore the content which was deleted from my user page and talk page? I don't know how to do that... Also, since you're a very knowledgeable Conservative and I consider myself to be a fairly knowledgeable Libertarian I'd be willing to work with you on the [[Conservatives and libertarians]] page you created if you're still looking for someone to help with that project. Let me know. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:12, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

User talk:Brenden

2013-04-27T12:32:30Z

Fnarrow: /* User:C Reply */

{{Useful links}}
[[User talk:Brenden/Archive]]

== Regarding the Anonymous page ==

I've looked into the Anon/WBC incident before for an essay on freedom of speech as it relates to Internet culture, and while both WBC and Anon showed their typical lack of civility and good manners towards each other they didn't violate the 1st Amendment in any way. I might have made a mistake in the report, though, so if you could show me where one side or the other violated 1st Amendment rights I'd be happy to concede the point. [[User:JGrant|Blessings of the Almighty on you :)]] 16:25, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

== Seeing as you've blocked me in the past for sometimes having a less-than-cheerful attitude... ==

....you'll love [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/PaulDiFoglio this guy's] stream of edit comments. Hugs and kisses, [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 21:00, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

== What the hell are you doing? ==

Why have you just unblocked this user - you better have a good reason! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:23, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:No need to block non-malicious morons. Just let them know that they are being ignored.[[User:Brenden|Brenden]] 17:39, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

::DON'T DO IT AGAIN~! Look at the history you moron! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:46, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

You've just made yourself look a total idiot. I can't believe I was the one who recommended for promotion. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:58, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:::[Comments retracted by poster]<del>Thank you, EJamesW </sarcasm>[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 18:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)</del>

What does </sarcasm> mean?

Does that mean you're trying to be sarcastic? But you can't think of anything witty or amusing to type?

Brenden, why don't you just say sorry and leave it at that? (Have you looked at the history of User:Reactionary22, you will see that I gave this guy a chance to respond and chandged his block settings.)

I suppose some Christians never can admit they're wrong...

[[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:17, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

:Ease up E, Brendan has done the same on more than one occasion. Normally we frown upon adjusting others' blocks but no harm, no foul.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:04, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
::My apologies, I failed to take a look at the history, and the tone you took kind of distracted me from looking. Sorry about that.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:54, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
==Editing==
Editing is fully restored. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:55, 11 November 2012 (EST)
:Thanks, Mr. Schlafly[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:39, 12 November 2012 (EST)

==Conservative==
If you have a personal problem with a sysop, you take it up with Aschlafly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 19 November 2012 (EST)

== Personal Honeypot ==

Just registered. I think an interesting experiment/test could be to add a few articles copied from wikipedia into the wiki after deleting all the spam and see if the content of those articles changes what is being written in the spam. Dvergne 23:57, 17 December 2012 (EST)
:I also think we should start and anti-spam squad here to help combat the spam by collecting the IP's and the like and adding those to such sites as Stopforumspam. I also think that copying the spam IP block list from wikipedia is a good Idea as I imagine they would have to have pretty good countermeasures against spam over there. Dvergne 00:02, 18 December 2012 (EST)
==Thanks==
Thank you for your thoughtfulness. My only concern is accuracy and credibility. I think that sometimes, people can't see how a stranger will react to their writing because we all have internal writing voices which remember all of our intentions rather than what is on the page. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:34, 6 January 2013 (EST)

:Thank you for your tireless work against vandals. Your efforts are appreciated. :-) Regards, [[User:Taj|Taj]] 17:27, 13 January 2013 (EST)

== Spambots ==

It seems the spambots are active again. I might start to port over the new spambot IP blocks from Wikipedia again, as that seamed to be quite efficient at stopping them for a while last time. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 06:29, 3 February 2013 (EST)

:I think I might upgrade that to very active! Have you been getting much spam at your honeypot mate? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 19:27, 3 February 2013 (EST)
::It's been ok-ish. I blocked most of the ranges that were targeting my honeypot. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:50, 3 February 2013 (EST)

== I removed your latest round of "personal attacks removed" censorship ==
I think it is poor form to edit talk page comments left by others. If an editor wishes to run afoul of the rules by speaking their mind, it should be their freedom to do so. If that editor happens to be immune to the rules (as with the user in this case), then I think their unfettered comments should stand as testimony to their true nature. Thanks --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:16, 7 February 2013 (EST)
:Well, the last time that specific user left his comments, a lot of people were offended. While I agree, that generally, it is inappropriate to censor users, in certain cases, especially when personal attacks are involved, it should be fine. Furthermore, the use of such tags, causes the poster understand that such attacks are not welcome on Conservapedia.

Thanks for your input anyways, though. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:04, 7 February 2013 (EST)

== Editing should work now ==

Try now - your account has been promoted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 19 February 2013 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:59, 19 February 2013 (EST)

==Maybe you're right==

I still retain my suspicion, but if that contributor wants to reregister we should let him. I probably should have enabled account recreation after the block. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:34, 1 March 2013 (EST)

==AlanE==
Thanks Brenden. I needed that! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:20, 6 March 2013 (EST)
:NP [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:30, 6 March 2013 (EST)

== Reverting admins ==

Hi Brenden. You do not have the authority to undo admin's blocks. If you have an issue, you raise it. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:30, 7 March 2013 (EST)
:KK got it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:47, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

== Block ==

Thanks. [[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 11:56, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:No problem[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:25, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

== CameronD ==

Sorry I had been playing around with my signature I have now corrected it. [[User:CameronD|CameronD]] 13:45, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

== Unleash the <s>Kraken</s> Bot! ==
If you really do have the ability to implement some technical means to protect this wiki from a certain user's flagrant deletion sprees, I implore you to do so. Asking him to stop won't do a thing. He literally is incapable of changing his ways. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 22:57, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
:Well I do hope that asking him to change will help him overcome his irritating habit of deleting pages, I am prepared to create a bot. Unfortunately, I have no experience with the MW api, sooo, I see a lot of googling, and asking for technical help in my foreseeable future. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:42, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

==User:C Reply==
I have no intention of leaving, but between C's actions and [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] choosing to ignore the problem(as well as any message I write to him now), it's hard to stay motivated to keep trying to make the site better. I'll stick around for now and continue to fight for this site, but I have this sinking feeling that it is only a matter of time before I'm perma-banned. Thanks for the support though, hopefully those of us who actually care will be able to prevail in the end. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 14:24, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
:On a related note... am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in C's repeated use of the 90/10 rule as a reason for banning (including the block of [[User:FWilliamM|FWilliamM]] a mere 40 minutes after your unbanning him) when 38% of his own last 500 edits were to talk pages? [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:28, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::I do try to unblock the users unfairly blocked by that admin. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 01:17, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
:::I know you do and my earlier comment wasn't aimed at you. I was just frustrated with his antics last night and needed to express that to someone. Thank you for doing what you can. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 08:32, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

List of Conservative or pro-Conservative Hollywood stars

2013-04-27T12:24:29Z

Fnarrow: dead end page links

{{uncited}}1. [[Ronald Reagan]] The 40th [[President of the United States]] (1981-89) and the first modern [[Conservative]] President . 
2. [[John Wayne]] One of the greatest [[actor]] in [[American]] history and an [[icon]] of American cultural. A patriot and prominent conservative [[Republican]]. An outspoken of anti-[[communist]] movement, he worked hard to defend American cultural and America’s involvement in [[Vietnam]] when it was attacked by lefts and [[Socialists]]. 
3.[[Clint Eastwood]] A great actor, [[director]], [[producer]], [[composer]] and cultural icon in American [[film]] industry. He is a long time supporter of Republican Party. He appeared as a guest speaker in 2012 [[Republican National Convention]]. 
4.[[Charlton Heston]] A longtime Conservative and the president of the [[National Rifle Association]] from 1998 to 2003. 
5.[[Kirk Cameron]] A famous child star an active evangelical [[Christian]] evangelist 
6.[[Patricia Heaton]] An [[actress]], [[comedienne]], producer and [[model]]. A Republican and consistent life ethicist,her name was in an advertisement in the [[Los Angeles Times]] (17 August 2006) that condemned [[Hamas]] and [[Hezbollah]] and supported [[Israel]] in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict.
7.[[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] An icon of [[Hollywood]] action movies. He elected as Republican [[Governor]] of [[California]] and endorsed [[John McCain]] at 2008 Presidential election although her wife is from [[Democratic]] [[Kennedy family]]. 
8.[[Mel Gibson]] A prominent actor, film director, producer, screenwriter and long time Conservative. Several Conservative movies he made like [[The Patriot]], [[The Passion of the Christ]], [[We were Soldiers]] which already become classics. 
9.[[Bruce Willis]] An icon of Hollywood action movies. He was the guest speaker at the 2000 Republican National Convention and he is a supporter of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. His name was in an advertisement in the Los Angeles Times on August 17, 2006, that condemned Hamas and Hezbollah and supported Israel in the 2006 Israel-[[Lebanon]] war. He also is a supporter of [[gun rights]]. 
10.[[Stephen Baldwin]] A Conservative, Baldwin was supporter of the [[John McCain|McCain]]–[[Sarah Palin|Palin]] presidential ticket after [[Mike Huckabee|Huckabee]] dropped out of the 2008 presidential race. He floated the possibility of entering [[New York City]]'s 2013 mayoral race as an opponent of his brother [[Alec Baldwin]] who is an outspoken [[liberal]] and previously suggested that he may run himself. 
11.[[Jon Voight]] A Conservative, he endorsed former New York City Mayor [[Rudolph Giuliani]] for the 2008 Republican Party nomination. He provided the narration for a video biography of Alaska governor Sarah Palin that appeared on McCain's campaign website. He was a guest at the 2008 Republican National Convention. In November 2009 he was a featured speaker, at a [[Tea Party]] protesting the healthcare reform legislation, and again on March 20, 2010. he endorsed [[Mitt Romney]] for the Republican 2012 nomination. 
12.[[Robert Downey,Jr]] A supporter of Republican. 
13.[[Chuck Norris]] An icon of Hollywood action movies and a long time Republican. He has donated more than $32,000 to Republican candidates and organizations since 1988. He is a supporter of gun rights and a column for the conservative news website [[WorldNetDaily]]. He supports the California Proposition 8 ban on [[same-sex marriage]]. In 2012, he endorsed Mitt Romney. 
14.[[Adam Sandler]] An actor, comedian, [[screenwriter]], [[musician]], film producer and a Republican. He donated $2,100 to Republican Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign the same year. 
15.[[Dennis Hopper]] an actor, filmmaker and [[artist]], He donated $2,000 to the [[Republican National Committee]] in 2004 and an equal amount in 2005.
16.[[Kelsey Grammer]] A Republican , he was a guest at President [[George W. Bush]]'s first inauguration. He endorsed Rudy Giuliani in the 2008 presidential primary and later campaigned for John McCain in the general election. He promotes [[RightNetwork]], a conservative start-up American television network.[58] He endorsed [[Michele Bachmann]] for the Republican nomination for president in 2012. 
17.[[Robert Duvall]] He was personally invited to Republican President George W. Bush's inauguration in 2001. In September 2007, he announced his support for Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.[29] He worked the floor at the GOP's 2008 national convention[30] and, He narrated most of the videos for the convention. In September 2008, he appeared on stage at a John McCain-Sarah Palin rally in [[New Mexico]].In 2012, Duvall endorsed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. 

[[Category:Conservative]]

Limitations of science

2013-04-27T05:11:28Z

Fnarrow: This is not an article, it is only a quote. Recommending merge with Global warming or other article it supports

{{merge|Global warming}}"The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they're scared stiff of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing." [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock]

== External links ==

*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=315 Limitations of science and its method] - Apologetics Press
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAOCDSyBlwU John Lennox - Limitations Of Science] - video

[[Category:Science]]