Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-09-09T00:11:37Z

Googly: Removed some silly stuff about BHO's name

''"Obama" redirects here. For other uses see [[Obama (disambiguation)]].''

'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (allegedly born in Honolulu,<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961) is the 2008 nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] for [[President of the United States of America|president]].<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref> Obama has served as a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] for three and a half years. On August 23 he chose Joe Biden as his running mate. In 2007, Obama was the most [[liberal]] Senator.<ref>http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/</ref> If elected, Obama would be the first [[Affirmative Action President]].
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Obama on the campaign trail, stands with folded hands while [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] honor the flag while placing their hands over their heart during the [[National Anthem]].]]

Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a [[teleprompter]] and rarely allows tough questions.<ref>After one debate against [[Hillary Clinton]] in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.</ref><ref name="teleprompter">http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails miserably at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet, as displayed in the Saddleback Forum. He has made several gaffes revealing that he is a [[Muslim]] unaware of basic [[American History Lectures|American history]]:

:Obama declared, "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith"<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zQK_EhDhZQ</ref>

:Obama displayed ignorance about the attack on [[Pearl Harbor]] when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_ignorance_watch_1.asp</ref>

:Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states.<ref> [http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2008/col20080528.asp Barack Potatoe Obama?]</ref> He could never explain where the false number of 57 came from, but it has been observed that there are 57 [[Islamic]] states and Obama was educated at an [[Islamic]] grade school while he lived in an [[Islamic]] country.<ref>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/</ref>.

Obama's middle name, "Hussein", means "good" or "handsome" in Arabic and is a common given name for both Christians and Muslims in West Asia and North Africa. "Obama" is an African surname of the [[Luo tribe]]. After he became politically ambitious, he declared himself to be a [[Christian]]. In his book, Obama oddly claims to have been baptized without giving his age or date, and later gave a date that postdates his political ambition (1992).</ref>

Obama downplays his [[Islamic]] background by claiming that his [[Kenya|Kenyan]] [[Muslim]] father was a "confirmed [[atheist]]" before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics or non-religious.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_14.html</ref> There is apparently no evidence of any Christian activities or local church participation by Obama while he was in Massachusetts from 1988 to 1991. Finally, Obama abruptly left his church in Chicago in 2008 when it became politically controversial, without first finding another church to join.

Asked to explain why working-class [[Democrats]] do not support him while campaigning for the [[Pennsylvania]] primary, Obama replied "it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref> In response to outrage when his remarks were unexpectedly publicized, Obama replied, I "didn't say it as well as I should have."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref>

To counter the view by many that Obama is an elitist, he began running campaign ads claiming that he "worked his way through college and Harvard Law." This claim was an exaggeration as Obama only held summer jobs while in college and law school<ref>http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_work_claim.html</ref>, and he would have likely benefited from special scholarships not available to most students.

Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago; in fact, he held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref> For most of his time there he was regarded by the university as a professor.<ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

In his 1995 memoir, ''Dreams of my Father'', Obama admitted doing illegal drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, which he referred to as "blow" and "pot" respectively, in his high school years and into his college years, before claiming to choose a different path in life.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref> Recently, he has begun wearing one again for reasons that are likely political pandering.

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961 and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Obama's campaign "is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer."<ref>http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama was born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr. and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. However, clearly Obama would have taken days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays. After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

For college, Obama initially attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before transferring to [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]] and graduating without honors with a Bachelor of Arts degree, majoring in political science. Obama refuses to describe his academic performance at Columbia despite commenting about New York during this period and despite disclosures of the academic record for all other major-party presidential candidates since at least 2000.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/</ref>

After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989, which used racial [[quotas]] for membership. He was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990, a story that was immediately promoted in the [[New York Times]].<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260&scp=3&sq=Obama%201990&st=cse</ref> He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law", which is not a professor-level position, at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as the director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by the out-of-state candidate [[Alan Keyes]].

A March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref>

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] makes him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held a single hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he only visited in 2008.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.

In June 2008, Obama voted with the Democratic party to kill the sunset provision of the [[Bush]] tax cuts. By letting these tax cuts expire, single mothers with two kids will pay an additional $1,800 annually. Married couples with incomes of $50,000 will pay an additional $2,180 annually. Elderly couples will pay an additional $2,000 anually and a family of four will pay 191% more per year in taxes. Barack Obama often claims to be for taxing the rich their fair share. By voting to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, Obama is taxing most middle class and blue collar families.

Obama and the Democratic-led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.<ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008</ref> The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. It depletes our volunteer military personel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed.

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:{{fact}}

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

Barack Obama continued to collect money for a 2010 Senate re-election campaign as late as June 2008, and has filed reports recently indicating that money is still pouring into this fund. This is especially notable because it is an efficient way of sidetracking donations from his Presidential race. The website<obamasenate2010.gov> is now defunct.

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. From his remarks, he states that he has "one more to go" and stated he couldn't visit Hawaii and Alaska, indicating he meant to say, "forty-seven states".

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, and went on to become the unofficial Democratic nominee.

At a campaign event in Elkhart, Indiana, a seven-year-old girl asked Barack Obama why he wants to be President. He replies,
'''"America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children."''' <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/08/09/mostly-mia-obamas-downer-america-delivered-7-year-old Media Mostly MIA on Obama's 'America No Longer What It Once Was' Downer Delivered to 7 Year-Old] Newsbusters.org, August 9, 2008</ref>

Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.

On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Healthcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States."

On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presents the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.

On August 14th, the campaign announced it had received donations from 2 million individuals.

The Democratic party feels it necessary to keep all questions about Obama at a safe distance. It is an unprecedented move to keep secrets about a Presidential candidate. The following questions remain sealed from the public. <ref>[http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/08/who-sent-obama-why-has-he-refused-to.html Who sent Obama? Why has he refused to release these basic documents?] ObamaWTF.blogspot.com</ref>

# Certified Copy of original Birth certificate(see certificate controversy below)
# Columbia College records
# Columbia Thesis paper
# Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups
# [[Harvard]] College records
# Illinois State Senate records
# [[Illinois]] State Senate schedule
# [[Law]] practice client list and billing records/summary
# Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mothers
# Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
# Occidental College records
# Parent's [[Marriage]] Certificate
# Record of baptism
# Selective Service Registration
# Trips schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
# Scholarly articles
# Access to his Grandmother
# List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists

== Positions and Qualifications ==
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act".<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> That bill "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make partial-birth abortion legal again." <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008</ref>
The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 <ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html</ref>. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama<ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008</ref> The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008</ref>The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Baracks wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter<ref>[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004</ref> in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the mother's womb.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act</ref> With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref>{{QuoteBox|"if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."}} Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.
[[Image:Features ayers1.jpg|175px|thumb|right|[[Weather Underground]] co-founder Bill Ayers<ref>http://foia.fbi.gov/weather/weath1a.pdf</ref> stomps on the American flag in this 2001 pose for Chicago Magazine.]]

Obama, having been asked about his associations with [[William Ayers]], an unrepentant [[terrorist]],<ref>[http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/]</ref> he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own. Ayers and his wife, [[Bernardine Dohrn]], hosted a fundraiser for Obama in their home in 1995 at the start of Obama's politcal career. Obama compares his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008</ref>
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take "extreme" positions or would use terrorist tactics.
"The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions"

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref>

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref name="teleprompter" /> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book and community organizing.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<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.</ref><ref>[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>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

After [[D.C. v. Heller]], Obama claimed to support Second Amendment rights.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

He believes children should be taught sex education in kindergarten, although in what he refers to as "an age-appropriate manner".<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

Barack Obama in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to argue that the Iraq War should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to "dumb wars". At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Obama has said that he does not know whether he would have voted for or against the Iraq War. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraeus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.

Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President George Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him 'George Bush'.
* "I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy," Obama said <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/], CNN Obama blasts Bush McCain, May 16, 2008</ref>
* "For all his talk about independence, the centerpiece of John McCain's economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies," <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/10/obama_takes_the_offensive_vs_mccain/] Boston Globe Obama takes offensive vs. McCain, June 10, 2008</ref>
* "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists." <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403386.stm], BBC Obama attacks Bush over Iran , May 15, 2008</ref>
* Obama called the U.S. economy a disaster thanks to "John McCain's president, George W. Bush" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_mccain/2008/08/18/122924.html No More Hugs: Obama Tears Into McCain] AP, August 18, 2008</ref> Side note, George W. Bush is also Barack Obama's President.

== Foreign policy experience ==

In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.<ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/</ref>

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

Obama and his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. The church embraces black liberation theology and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons.
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. In May 2008, Obama left his church. His response blames the media and not the rhetoric on display <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, may 31, 2008</ref>{{QuoteBox|“It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace..."}} Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statements "G-d damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "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."

[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]

[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside."}}<ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref>

Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.

{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref>

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref>

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of "mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners" on the campaign trail.<ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008</ref>

[[McCain]] Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set "an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/mccain_obama/2008/06/17/105265.html], AP McCain Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set, June 17, 2008</ref>

===Birth Certificate Controversy===
There has been some controversy over the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate and his Constitutional eligibility to hold the office of President.<ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxZmIwNTg0OWVhMWJkODNmZjI4ZjY4Mjg2OWRmNzI=]</ref> After initially refusing to produce a birth certificate in response to such rumors, the Obama campaign eventually endorsed a document posted on the Daily Kos as
authentic.<ref>[http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/12/11012/6168/320/534616 Obama's Birth Certificate]</ref> The response is split regarding the birth certificate. Some commentators, such as those at the National Review, are satisfied with the document.<ref>[http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk=]</ref> However, an analyst at the Israel Insider website, has concluded based on a photographic analysis of the document that the birth certificate has been altered and is likely not Obama's true birth certificate.<ref>[http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm]</ref>

On August 21st, 2008, Factcheck.org published an article regarding the controversy.<ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html Born in the U.S.A.]</ref> The site stated, "FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship." In addition, the site posted high-resolution photographs of the birth certificate, which clearly showed the raised seal, stamp of Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka, and certificate number. The birth date corresponds to a birth announcement published in the ''Honolulu Advertiser '' on Sunday, August 13, 1961. <ref>http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-born-in-hawaii-wrong-can-of-worms/</ref>

A Philadelphia attorney, Phillip Berg, has filed a lawsuit against the DNC and Barack Obama. Berg maintains that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia. Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator's use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of "multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries" remains on the table. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama] Newsbusters.org, August 22, 2008</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]
*[http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 Voting Record of Barack Hussein Obama]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-09-08T23:45:49Z

Googly: /* Tone of the article on Obama */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]

== No longer presumptive ==

He's the real-deal nominee at this point. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]] 13:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:He's presumptive in the sense that Obama is far too inexperienced to be President. [[User:Redstatepride|Redstatepride]] 18:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

== Education In Jakarta, Indonesia ==

All students in Indonesia, regardless of religion get off for Islamic holy days including Nabi Isa which we know as Christmas. It's disengenuous to make a claim that because he went to a public school and got an Islamic holy day off that there's some nefarious connection. Muslims that attend Catholic school have to attend Mass whether they like it or not.--[[User:EmpressG1973|EmpressG1973]] 17:01, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

I think the point is that Barack Hussein Obama was observing an islamic holy day when he is claiming to be Christian. It just does'nt add up to alot of people and should make Christians think twice about him. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

Actually it was his '''school''' that was observing the holiday. When a child attends a school, they can't just choose which days they want to take off. Your argument is ridiculous.-- [[User:rkstiner|rkstiner]]

How is my point incorrect? You can nit-pick it all you want but Obama attended a muslim school and observed muslim holidays. Thats all there is to it. Take your liberal name-calling elsewhere. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

:So a Jew who attends a public school in this country doesn't go to school on Christmas, so he is therefore observing a Christian holiday? Making him, I suppose, a Christian? Doesn't make sense. [[User:MichaelR|MichaelR]] 16:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

::You shouldn't have to defend it at all. Barack Hussein Obama is very likely a muslim there is strong evidence to suggest it. Since when is being a muslim such a bad thing? It's not, unless your running for President and try to lie about it. --[[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]]

== Reversion Explained ==

We don't post a politician's self-serving claptrap. Obama catered to anti-patriotic donors to win the nomination. There's no real dispute about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:Remember, Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy, and children read this website. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::What's your point? That children don't need to know he flip flopped on wearing a flag pin? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 15:39, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is that children especially should be told the truth. Include the flip-flopping by all means, but also include his explanation for why he did flip-flop. This has more validity then stating "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." Adequate to whom? By what criteria is the inadequacy judged? If he had explained it by saying "it's none of your business", or did not offer an explanation, then certainly that would qualify as "without adequate explanation." Remember: Conservapedia is billed as trustworthy. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I agree that citing his explanation and then explaining why conservatives find it inadequate would be an improvement. I would make said improvement, but I am currently hard "at work". [[User:TJason|TJason]] 16:09, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action President ==

I reverted the removal of "affirmative action president" for now. Corey, can you explain why this is racist? If affirmative action isn't racist, why is describing someone as an "affirmative action president" racist? Is your problem with the description that it is racist? Or that it is untrue? I think these are two separate issues. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 10:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:This speaks to what I think is an enormous problem with affirmative action (no, I'm not a complete supporter), claiming that a minority only got a job because they are a minority. I think that claiming that Barack Obama's political success comes only from his being black is racist demagoguery, or at least rhetoric designed to incite racial tensions. I have no doubt that there are some people who support Obama only because of the color of his skin, just the same as there are those who oppose him only for the same reason. Also, I will not say that there isn't a desire by many people to see somebody other than white male in the White House. But this is not the ''only'' reason most of Obama's supporters have for supporting him, as the term "affirmative action president" suggests. He has political experience and he is a deft politician, which figures greatly in a political campaign. I would implore anybody who considers Obama to have no accomplishments to compare his life to that of our sitting president before 2000. Some time in office, a string of business failures, and questionable service in the Texas Air National Guard. Fortunately for G.W. Bush, his father is Bush 41. Bush supporters discuss his successes as his own doing. Claiming that Obama's are not his own because he is black sounds rather racist to me. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::George W. Bush was governor of Texas; some people consider that to be a political accomplishment. I think you will have to go pretty far back to find a candidate for President whose entire political career was two years as a Senator. In 1988 Dan Quayle was blasted for his lack of experience for a Vice Presidential candidate, and he had already served many more years in the Congress than Barack Obama has. Like it or not Obama was fasttracked and bypassed the usual protocols because of the color of his skin. Whether or not this is appropriate is left to each individual to decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A governorship is certainly a political accomplishment, one which George W. Bush would probably have been unable to attain were it not for his father's name. There is hardly any information on the George W. Bush entry on this site pertaining to his life before his presidency, the details of which would likely lead many people to conclude that were George H.W. Bush not so well-connected his son would not be president. In contrast, the opening paragraph of Obama's entry uses his race to attack him politically. I find this hard to rationalize. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::There is not usually an understood litmus test for governor. Some people are longterm politicians, others are not. For instance Arnold held only minor political appointments before he became governor of California. But the Presidency has generally required proving yourself in some capacity. Bush was a well respected governor who received high marks. Carter, Clinton, and Reagan had all been governors. Someone running for President who has not successfully governed a state and has only been in Congress for 2 years is very out of the ordinary. Again, note what Quayle was put through and he was only a Vice Presidential candidate. That being said, I am not necessarily supporting the article in the form it has taken. I have not read it in quite some time, but if it is a leadoff then that would seem to be inappropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:47, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Obama's experience is fair game, and I agree that he has not had as much time in political office as the average candidate. I think that using race as an issue detracts from this fair and logical line of debate. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::I don't think that the term "affirmative action president" suggests that affirmative action is the '''only''' reason Obama is where he is. I think the term is supposed to denote that his being black is a '''major''' force behind his success. Also, I think the term brings to light that, historically, this is a first. No previous nominee has been the beneficiary of affirmative action in the way Obama has. At any rate, ''I'' won't revert the edit if you remove it again, since you've made your case and I am not willing to fight to keep it in. I suspect others might, though. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Where has he explicitly benefited from affirmative action programs? This is a "heads, I win, tails, you lose" situation. If he doesn't get into Harvard Law or win an election, it's because of lack of merit. If he succeeds, it's because the standards were lowered due to his race. This is an extremely dubious political argument. Attack him on his policies, voting record, character, or fitness to lead: fire as they bear! That's our process, and it's a good process. But these race arguments are petty, desperate, and drag our political discourse down to a despicable level. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:04, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::I am pretty sure that Harvard Law Review has an affirmative action policy, but I will have to check. Regardless, I think the term also covers "implicit" affirmative action that has benefited Obama (e.g. a white candidate with his experience would not be taken seriously). [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:10, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"Implicit" affirmative action seems to be in the realm of vagueness and speculation. I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment 1: "Everything you post must be true and verifiable." [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:25, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Like I said, I'm not really willing to fight over this. We are at least in agreement that this is a distraction from the real issue: his actual positions. I reverted the edit because I thought what was said in the edit comment should have been spelled out in the talk page. It has been. Therefore, if you want to remove the reference again, I won't revert it again.[[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I have no intention of perpetuating a pointless revert war, either, and I agree that discussion of the real issues suffer because of such statements. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:32, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Alleged" birth revert ==

Even the National Review doesn't dispute the [http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWVjN2I1MjlhM2ZjZjRjYzBkODAxZjZkZGQyYWNkMDk= authenticity of Obama's birth certificate.] Why is Obama's birth information being censored by this website? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:30, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::There is no censorship here. Removing any mention that there is doubt about the authenticity of his birth certificate is censorship, imho. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 12:34, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::However, the way rumor is so prominently injected into the article within the first five words is clear weasel-wording. A separate section regarding the issue would be more appropriate than saying that he was "allegedly" born somewhere, and I wouldn't oppose such a section. Seeing as how you usually hear the word "allegedly" on the news while watching a video of a perp walk, it is unnecessarily loaded language. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 12:42, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And accusing senior CP members of "weasel-wording" isn't loaded? You should watch your step. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:46, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:: We know many [[liberal]]s love [[deceit]], and the birth certificate posted by [[Obama]]'s campaign has obvious defects. Even its number is blotted out for unexplained reasons. There are still unanswered questions about his place and date of birth, and what is on his real certificate, which his campaign has not released. We provide the information about this and let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Then maybe the thing to do would be to dedicate a separate section to present the issue. It would be much clearer and provide more information than the status quo. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:16, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

::::I have reverted another removal of the word "alleged" since there are still unanswered questions about his birth certificate. Is the consensus that this should be made into a new section? [[User:TJason|TJason]] 17:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I would agree with a section. This entire article could do with a better layout and more sectioning. Our John McCain article is better in this regard - perhaps we could use this as a blueprint? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 17:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) We seem to be in agreement. I'll make a section tomorrow, under the "Published Criticism" section. I would like to add that I love it when people of different viewpoints can meet in the middle. Good night. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:44, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
:I like the changes you have made. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::(edit conflict) Thank you. As discussed, I added a section regarding the birth certificate controversy and removed "alleged" from the intro paragraph. I tried to make it as evenly written as I could. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

::Also, what is up with the tag at the beginning of the article? I don't know what this is used for, but it doesn't appear to be doing anything except make "span" the first word in the article. [[User:TJason|TJason]] 11:44, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

:::1. You're right- I scanned the diff and thought he removed the Daily Kos ref. 2. I don't know. I never noticed it before. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:46, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

== We have a problem ==

Okay... to start things off I am deathly afraid of this man getting elected and think he would ruin our wonderful nation. I do think that the media is helping him and realize that he is basically "the chosen one." My conservative principles help me make all of those opinions. Heres the thing. This place exists because someone thought that wikipedia was biased and unfair... but honestly... some of this stuff borders on propaganda! For Pete's sake our job as conservatives is too tell the truth and expose things about him. This page is going too far. I'm embarrassed to know that my fellow conservatives wrote this! This page can still be dedicated to exposing the truth about "the chosen one." But we'll be SO much more effective if we do it properly and fairly. If you want to contact me its easier to do so at my wikipedia talk page of the same name. Thank you and lets try to do better please. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 15:32, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Hussein Obama's Birth Certificate Number ==

I copied this from the [[Talk:Main_Page#Obama_Born_In_U.S.A.|Main Page Talk section]] to here because you all might find it of interest. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

----
:[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Look at this photo], is this Barack Obama's birth certificate? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 23:44, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

::It's interesting that they finally give the, so-called authentic, birth certificate number in this supposedly unfaked photo. It is '''151 1961 - 010641'''. The reason I bring this up, and I think the REAL reason this was masked, is because numerological analysis shows something very disturbing. If you add up the three sets of digits thus:<blockquote>151 + 1961 + 010641 = 12753</blockquote>and then add the individual digits of the result thus:<blockquote>1 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 3 = 18</blockquote>the final result, 18, is the product of three sixes (3 x 6 = 18). Three sixes, or [[666]], sort of speaks for itself. I just thought this was interesting. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:22, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
----

I think it's rather obvious that AdmiralNelson doesn't take this site seriously. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 20:51, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Does anyone? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:05, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm giving it a chance. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 21:14, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:::So am I. I new here and was hoping to find stuff that would challenge my beliefs, so far not much luck. [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 21:21, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I quote myself? '''I just thought this was interesting.''' For "seriousness" [[Special:Contributions/AdmiralNelson|I stand by my record]]. Feel free to check it out. --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 11:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

==Lawsuit==
The guy filing the lawsuit doesn't dispute the fact that he he was born in Honolulu. He is disputing that Obama is a US citizen after he lived in Indonesia. So why does it say allegedly born still? [[User:Visitor|Visitor]] 19:08, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: I think he does dispute it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Dilution ==

Don't dilute the entry by referring to the silly text messaging stunt in the first paragraph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:Can I put it down in the Presidential Campaign section instead then? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:49, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Requested change ==
Original text:
{{Cquote|On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party by the Democratic National Committee. The nomination became official when Hillary Clinton conceded on June 7th.}}
Requested new text:
{{Cquote|Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee on June 3rd after receiving a majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates. His only remaining primary opponent, [[Hillary Clinton]], conceded the race on June 7th. On August 23, Joe Biden was announced as Obama's vice-presidential nominee. Obama became the official Democratic nominee on August 27 at the Democratic National Convention, when Hillary Clinton's motion to end the roll call vote of the states and select Obama by acclamation was passed.}}
This more accurately describes what happened and updates the section with last week's events. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 17:02, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
===Another===
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=506483&oldid=505653 This link] should be commented out until [[Essay: The Special Interests Candidate| this abysmal essay]] is fixed. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

==Pearl Harbor issue==

The entire section regarding his comments about Pearl Harbor has got to go. There is no reason to imply that someone leaving an 's' off the word 'bomb' (''bomb'''s''''' did fall on Pearl Harbor, that much is true, right?) means they ignore or disdain American history. I'm guessing the McCain article makes no immediate mention of his confusion over the borders of Iran, or his lack of knowledge about the situation in Iraq, illustrated by the fact that he mixed up the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. Do either of those things make sense? NO! I'm sure John McCain knows what he's talking about, and I'm sure he's not confused about the issues at hand. Obviously, which course of action he chooses to follow is eternally and rightly up for debate, and if we want to highlight that debate about Obama, then that's fine. But it's ridiculous - nay, ridicule-worthy - to say that Obama leaving out an 's' means he thinks Pearl Harbor was nuked. That's so stupid it turns neurons into Pop Rocks. [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 19:51, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

No, it should stay, the man's an idiot, clearly. Also - I added the "any educated person would know" bit, which Jareddr just removed. But I'd point out that many of the younger generation ''don't'' know that it wasn't one bomb. I've even spoken to young folk who confuse Pearl Harbor with Hiroshima, and think that the nuclear bomb was dropped on Pearl Harbor! It's remarkable how uneducated some of today's public-school educated youth are. Also, people from foreign countries may not know the context of Obama's gaffe. Perhaps that point might be allowed back in - Jareddr, if you want to re-word it yourself maybe? I think it's kind of important, the stupidity of his point might be missed otherwise. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 14:55, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:Then state something to the effect of, "In actuality, multiple bombs were dropped on Pearl Harbor during the Japanese mission." You didn't say anything about being foreign-educated, only "any educated person..." If you want to place it in context using my above phrasing, go ahead. But the entire section has already been set up to switch verbal miscues for "idiocy" so no need to pile on, as they say.

:Besides, you don't see anything on McCain's pages about him "not knowing" the difference between Sunni and Shiite, referencing Czechoslovakia (a now defunct country), or calling Putin the President of Germany.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:58, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK, I'l do that then Jareddr, thanks for the suggestion. As to the McCain entry, I don't think we need to highlight those issues, they're a distraction. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 15:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::True, we don't want to confuse the readers about the candidate storylines. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The entry should be removed, since McCain failed to state how many homes he owns is no where to be seen on the McCain article. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 15:43, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Don't be ridiculous, Samuel. Many everyday Americans have trouble remembering how many homes they own. Sometimes they own a home, but it's in someone else's name, or it's just a vacation lodge, or it's a few homes on one piece of property. Ask people on the street how many homes they own, and I guarantee very few will answer! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:46, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: McCain isn't running to be a real estate agent for the country.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:52, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::True, but he spoke about real estate business, and it's undeniably a large factor in the economy, which is a current problem. Compare that to Obama and 60 years ago? Oh Please. Thanks for the sarcasm Jared. :P [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 16:39, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Obama isn't running to be a history teacher for the country either, though. One could argue that if you're going to enforce a populist message, and cast yourself as an "everyman" and your opponent as "elite", you should be able to answer how many homes you have on command. We're not looking for net value, just a (presumably) single-digit number. I'm not aware of any "everyman" that forgets that number, but I'm sure some "elite" may forget. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:07, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Obama can try that next, Samuel: "Who cares about what happened at Pearl Harbor? That was 60 years ago!!!" Good luck to him and his supporters with that absurd approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::What's more absurd is putting words in my mouth (as well as Obama's, apparently?), as if I were trying to say that I didn't care about Pearl Harbor. I said no such thing. I was comparing something that happened over 60 years ago to present time in relevance to gaffe, nothing more and nothing less, in comparison to Obama's article and McCain's. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 19:29, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Obama's gaffe was about an essential element of American history that defines our country; McCain's was not. We do expect presidents to know important aspects of American history. We really do. We don't care if they can tell you how wealthy they are, or how many houses they own.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::And yet McCain's belief in an Iraq/Pakistan border - and his belief that a country named "Czechoslovakia" still exists - shows how out of touch he may be with the issues that matter NOW.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 19:42, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

:I won't compare the semantics of how you measure the impact and importance of a slip-up, but it ''is'' rather telling that the Obama article prominently features such a slip-up while the McCain article apparently doesn't. This doesn't compute. Both of them have had weird moments ("President Putin of Germany", anybody?), and in fact, everybody has slip-ups. Bushisms, anybody? So why do we have to pick on Obama's mistakes alone?
:An encyclopedia needs consistent standards. Entries about similar topics should be comparable. They should be similar in style. They should follow the same intuitive standards.
:Overall, the McCain article looks like a very good example of how such an entry should look like (kudos to those who made it that way), and the Obama article is a prime example of something that would look great on some obvious right-wing propaganda site, but ''not'' in an encyclopedia. The part before the TOC should be condensed and moved to another part of the article. The intro section (the part before the TOC) is supposed to be an ''intro''. It should briefly sum up who he is and what he does, period. Then come biography sections, then his political stuff, then the Presidential campaign. And THERE you should feature the notable events or slip-ups. I'm most definitely no Obama supporter, but when comparing the McCain and Obama articles, you don't have to do a deep analysis to figure out that this site is way more political activism than encyclopedia, and I think that should change. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

== Citation Needed ==

The first sentence in the second paragraph about Barack Obama reads this:
Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a teleprompter and rarely allows tough questions.

It then gives the citation down at the bottom, which reads this:
After one debate against Hillary Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.

I don't think that's a real citation. Does a link not need to be provided? Just like anybody can type anything on the main page, anybody can type anything as the citation too. I would suggest either finding legitimate proof to this claim, or just take it down.

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

The whole tone of this article on Barack Obama is appalling. It is poorly written, inaccurate, misleading, insulting and thoroughly vile. I would be ashamed to publish such contemptible stuff.

: That's your first -- and only -- contribution here. Hope you can do better than that!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:17, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

== Tone of the article on Obama ==

I see someone is watching the Obama talk page like a hawk. I stand by my previous remarks and hope to be adding many more in the near future.

: Good for you. And my hope is that you'll have better contributions to this site than what you've done so far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:25, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

:: I have to say that to a foreigner, this article reads like one-sided drivel. Some of it is so blatantly ridiculous that it gives a negative impression of the people writing it, not Obama. Surely you should be attacking him over his policies rather than a non-existent issue over where he was born or some completely pathetic nonsense about him taking holidays at the same time as other kids in his school. (Amazing but true: Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist children in Britain take holidays at Christmas and Easter; they don't volunteer for extra classes on those days.) This article reads as though you've given up all hope of defeating him on political grounds and are just falling back on rather silly personal remarks. Surely you can do better than that! (Kindly read that as constructive criticism.) [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:45, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Dinosaur

2008-09-02T00:02:13Z

Googly: Birds

{{Taxonomy
|name=Dinosaur
|image=Fdt566e4.jpg
|caption=
|superkingdom=
|kingdom= Animalia
|subkingdom=
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=
|infraphylum=
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=
|class=Sauropsida
|subclass=Diapsida
|infraclass=Archosauromorpha
|superorder=Dinosauria
|order=Ornithischia; Saurischia
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|family=
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Dinosaurs''' ([[Greek]]: δεινός (ΙΡΑ: /dɛinos/) and σαύρος (/sauɾos/); ''terrible lizard'') were [[reptile|reptilian]] creatures. Most groups of dinosaurs are now extinct, with the important exception of [[birds]], which belong to the Therapod group of dinosaurs.
Τhey are known for their large size, although some species weighed just a few ounces, as do many modern birds.
Τhe word ''dinosaur'' was coined in 1841 by [[Richard Owen]]<ref>Grigg, Russell, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1956/ Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Creation''
14(3):10–14, June 1992</ref>, from the Greek words for "terrible lizard", and reflected the creatures' large size and fearsome appearance to the early paleontologists.

==Description==
Dinosaurs are classified into two orders based upon differences in pelvic structure: ''Saurischia'' ("lizard-hipped"), in which the ''pubis'' is pointed forward and down; and ''Οrnithischia'' ("bird-hipped"), in which the ''pubis'' is pointed towards the rear.

===''Saurischia''===
Ηerbivorous species were almost all quadrupedal. Τhey carried peg-like teeth which cut, rather than chewed, plant material; grinding of food was aided by gastroliths. Carnivorous species were exclusively bipedal.
*Sauropoda
::Species of this infraorder are characterized by long necks and tails, barrel-shaped bodies, and column-like legs. Ιn three families (notably Diplodocidae, Βrachiosauridae, and Τitanosauroidea) there are species which are of extreme size, in excess of 125 feet in length and 100 tons, making them the largest animals to have walked the earth.
:::''[[Apatosaurus]]''
:::''[[Brachiosaurus]]''
:::''[[Ultrasaurus]]''
:::''[[Seismosaurus]]''
:::''[[Argentinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Diplodocus]]''

*Τheropoda
::Εxclusively bipedal; forearms meant for grasping or holding. Fossil evidence for several species indicate pack hunting.
:::''[[Coelophysis]]''
:::''[[Ornithomimus]]''
:::''[[Allosaurus]]''
:::''[[Tyrannosaurus]]''
:::''[[Deinonychus]]''
:::''[[Velociraptor]]''
:::''[[Giganotosaurus]]''

===''Οrnithischia''===
Species of this group were all herbivorous; most were quadrupedal. Front teeth were lacking, while a predentary bone was present in the front of the lower jaw. Several species (mainly within ''Ceratopsia'') had a distinctive parrot-like beak.
*Ceratopsia
::Species of this infraorder carried one or more horns on their heads, as well as a shield-like frill to protect the neck.
:::''[[Triceratops]]''
:::''[[Pachyrhinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Torosaurus]]''
:::''[[Protoceratops]]''
:::''[[Styracosaurus]]''
*Stegosauria
::Large dinosaurs with a row of bony plates on top of their backs, and several spikes used as a defensive weapon at the end of their tails.
:::''[[Stegosaurus]]''
:::''[[Huayangosaurus]]''
:::''[[Kentrosaurus]]''
*Αnkylosauria
::Ηeavily-armored dinosaurs, some with a row of spikes along each side, and possessing a bony tail club.
:::''[[Ankylosaurus]]''
:::''[[Euoplocephalus]]''
:::''[[Edmontonia]]''
*Οrnithopods
::Large, herd-dwelling dinosaurs that could run bipedaly. Several species had a "boss" of bone on their heads (Ρachycephalosaurs) which may have been used for head-butting similar to bighorn sheep; others a crest of bone (hadrosaurs) which may have been sound resonators.
:::''[[Camptosaurus]]''
:::''[[Iguanodon]]''
:::''[[Pachycephalosaurus]]''
:::''[[Parasaurolophus]]''
:::''[[Edmontosaurus]]''
:::''[[Bactrosaurus]]''
:::''[[Maiasaura]]''

==Ηighlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==
[[Image:Osborn.jpg‎‎|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]
Ιn the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Εxploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and Νew Μexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Τheir museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

Οsborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. Τhese paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in [[Theory of evolution|evolution]], which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. Αs the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Βoth sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... Νo doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... Βut there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.<ref>Μitchell, Ρeter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Εncyclopædia Βritannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (ΤΟΝ-VΕS), p. 906</ref>

[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Ιndiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Οuter Μongolia.

Ιn the 1970, Robert Βakker catalyzed a new era of dinosaur paleontology with evidence that dinosaurs were fully warm-blooded ([[endotherms]]) and fast-moving.<ref>Βenton, Μichael J. (2000), ''Vertebrate Ρaleontology'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632056142&id=PQuKO7xqjNQC&pg=PA217&lpg=PA217&dq=%22robert+bakker%22&sig=imoHNyurTTCpztNV0Pp2EU7Fj6c p. 217]</ref>

==Dinosaur Species==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Αlthough many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''Νational Geographic''</ref>

== Different Ρerspectives ==

Εver since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Εarth. Υoung-Εarth creationists reject the [[uniformitarian]] time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Creationists also reject the now-popular idea that some dinosaurs evolved into birds.

===Creationary Ρerspective===
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]
[[Young earth creationists]] believe, from the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the [[creation week]]<ref>''Genesis'' 1:25</ref> approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans.
Αs such, they reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.

Τhey believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Μinistries Ιnternational''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 Νo. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Αrk are still around today.<ref Νame="Τoday">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 Νo. 4 p. 12.</ref>

Τhey use [[archaeological]],<ref>For example, cave paintings. See later in this article.</ref> [[fossil]],<ref>See, for example, [[Tyrannosaurus Rex]].</ref> and documentary<ref>For example, There are numerous references to dinosaur-like dragons in medieval literature and the [[Bible]].</ref> evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.

Βecause the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." Ηowever, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,<ref>Αllan Κ. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 Νo. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Αnswers in Creation''</ref>, although others have claimed that Βehemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. Υoung-Εarth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a "tail like a cedar".

==== Εxtinction ====

Creationists reject the "Great Ιmpact Τheory", pointing out multiple problems with this theory. <ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref>

Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with a "Νew Τheory of Dinosaur Εxtinction" and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Μichael Μatthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Αnswers in Genesis''</ref> Ιt is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.<ref>[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21082 More Than a Meteor Likely Killed Dinosaurs 65 Million Years Ago], ''SpaceRef.com''</ref>

====Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings====

Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg‎|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]
* Τhere have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.
** Α thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Χinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Τoday.{{fact}}
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''[[Μokele-mbembe]]''<ref name="Τoday">[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. Τhe reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from the [[University of Chicago]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Αnother biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Τoday" />
** Dinosaur-like creatures have been seen by several people in two different parts of [[Papua New Guinea]] since 1990.<ref>Αnon., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/381 A living dinosaur?], ''Creation'' 23(1):56, December 2000. Ιrwin, Βrian, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5847 Theropod and sauropod dinosaurs sighted in PNG?] 1st July, 2008 (Creation Μinistries Ιnternational).</ref>
* Τhere are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** Αn expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Ρaleontology with the United States Νational Μuseum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** Τhe [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
** Εngravings in the floor of [[Carlisle Cathedral]] appear to be of dinosaurs. Τhey are on the tomb of bishop Richard Βell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Βatten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''Τhe Creation Αnswers Βook''.</ref>
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
** Τhe description of the "[[Thunder bird]]" of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.<ref name="Τoday" />

* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs.
** Τhe World Βook Εncyclopedia states that: "Τhe [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. Τhey are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref>. Dragons exist in the folklore of many Εuropean and Αsian cultures.<ref name="WΒ2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Βook Μillennium 2000 CD RΟΜ</ref> World Βook Εncyclopedia says, "Ιn Εurope, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. Βut in Αsia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref name="WΒ2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] [[New Years' Day]] celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Εvery other creature on the calendar is a real creature.
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the artwork the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]]]]
* Τhat dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the [[Wollemi Pine]] <ref>Wollemi Ρine ''Βiotechnology Αustralia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Οf California, Βerkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>Μore on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.

* Τhe recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Μinistries Ιnternational''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====
Creationists contend that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Μinistries Ιnternational''</ref> <ref>Αndy ΜcΙntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 Νo. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

Ιn his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>}}

Creationists also cite the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Mayr]]<ref>Μatthews, Μichael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1208mayr.asp 99 and still fighting God], 8th December, 2003 (Αnswers in Genesis).</ref> who stated the following:
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref>}}

Τhe Μarch 2003 issue of ''Scientific Αmerican'' is also cited by creationists:
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>}}

Creationists also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David Ν. Μenton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Αnswers in Genesis''</ref>

===Εvolutionary/Οld Εarth Ρerspective===

Τhe view of [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. Ιn this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be an asteroid) about 65 million years ago.
Τhis precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Εxtinction====

Αccording to most scientists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. Τhis event would have obliterated most life on Εarth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Αlthough these scientists dispute the nature of the Κ-Τ Εvent (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed Κ-Τ Εvent was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Εarth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Εarth considerably.<ref>Κevin Ο Ρope, "Μeteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Τertiary boundary," Ρroceedings of the Νational Αcademy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> Αccording to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''Νational Geographic''</ref> Α layer of rock containing high concentrations of [[Iridium]], a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is said to be due to the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ιbid''</ref> Τhe evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the [[Yucatán]] Ρeninsula of the supposed age of this layer.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''Νational Geographic''</ref> <ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html</ref> Creationists assert that the assumptions underpinning the methods used by modern geologists are incorrect, and even though the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not constitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs—although the abundance of dinosaur fossils in rocks found higher in the rock layers than the impact is drastically less than their abundance in rocks lower down.{{fact}}

====Αn Εxplosion of new species ====

Τhe mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. Αs a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. Αccording to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Βennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and Βirds====

Αs a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. Τhis is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''Νational Geographic''</ref> Cladists place modern birds within the clade dinosauria, meaning that they consider all bird species today as, technically, dinosaurs.<ref>[http://tolweb.org/Dinosauria/14883/1999.01.01 Tree of Life Web Project.] 1999. Dinosauria. Version 01 January 1999 (temporary). Αccessed 30 Μay 2007.</ref>

==Dinosaur fossils and Ηuman Fossils and Geological Strata ==
Ιt is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.<ref name="ΗaD">Ηodge, Βodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Αnswers'' 1(1):52, Μay 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html Claim CH710] (Τhe ΤalkΟrigins Αrchive)</ref>
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.<ref name="ΗaD" />

Εvolutionists point out that [[radiometric dating]] of rocks containing dinosaur bones shows them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Υoung Εarth Creationists believe that these methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.

Creationists note that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus assert that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.<ref name="ΗaD" />
Μoreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. Τhis is in fact what we find.<ref name="ΝΑΒ">Ηodge, Βodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the Νew Αnswers Βook), 2006.</ref>

Αpproximately 70% of the Εarth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. Ιn addition, creation scientists assert there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.<ref name="ΝΑΒ" />
Αlso, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.<ref name="ΗaD" />

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

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]

Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math

2008-08-07T01:09:14Z

Googly: Scepticism about appropriateness of curriculum for 9th-graders

"Critical Thinking in Math" is an experimental course with four independent purposes in mind:

*sharpen the analytical skills of students and improve their math [[College Board]] scores

*awaken an interest in [[mathematics]] by students who did not realize they had extraordinary aptitude for math, the future [[Bernhard Riemann]]s

*encourage adults to keep their minds sharp through mathematics, and fend off mental decline

*help parents who would like to teach math to their [[homeschooled]] children

The experiment is to use only fundamental or elementary techniques to accomplish the above results. No tools beyond about 9th grade math are required, and motivated students younger than 9th grade will not have difficulty with the concepts.

This course seeks the contributions of both teachers and students to make it as effective as possible. It will begin in September. Possible topics include:

*a comparative look at different techniques of proof

*major problems that remain unsolved using elementary techniques

*a look at the history of the development of math

*an analysis of what skills [[College Board]] exams test, and how to improve those skills

Please feel free to add other topics and suggestions, and add your name below as a teacher or student interested in this field:
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:08, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Draft Curriculum ==

*different methods of proof: [[constructive proof]], [[elementary proof]], induction, contradiction, existence, [[infinite descent]]
*defining and redefining key concepts: [[integer]]s, [[infinity]], [[prime number]]s, [[proof]]
*controversy about proof by contradiction
*17 different ways to prove that there are an infinite number of [[prime number]]s
*[[transcendental numbers]] - how do we know they exist?
*Goldbach's Conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem
*Unsolved problems: proving that there are infinitely many [[twin primes]]
*[[Brun's constant]]
*Problems solved only with proof-by-contradiction: always a prime between n and 2n (n>1)
*[[perfect number]]s
*[[additive factoring]]
*[[prime number theorem]]
*Types of math problems presented in [[College Board]] exams, [[math contests|American math contests]] and UK math contests [http://www.wpr3.co.uk/UKMT/jmc.html][http://www.wpr3.co.uk/UKMT/imc.html][http://www.wpr3.co.uk/UKMT/smc.html]
*Interesting problems in number theory and Euclidean geometry
*greatest mathematicians in history, and why
*Axiom of Choice, why it has been controversial, and its use in Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem
*Set theory in general
*Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems are interesting; they are applicable not only in maths and logic, but also move into philosophy.
*Hilbert's program (although of course the above renders null its aims!)
*Formal mathematical logic
Students on the course
*I would like to join this. Is it alright if I live in the UK? Your profile suggests that you live in the US, but I am always eager for maths. [[User:AungSein|AungSein]] 18:13, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:: That's fantastic. Of course you're welcome in the UK. You have great colleges there, and produced some fantastic physicists. Please help build a curriculum (see above). Lord willing, maybe we can make some inroads into some unsolved problems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:29, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
[[category:mathematics]]
::: Well I come from Burma, but the colleges and university there are good. Your point about unsolved problems is good, too - have you heard of the folding@home project? It is a different concept, I know, but perhaps relevant - maybe what one brilliant mathematician might struggle at, us many lesser minds might gain insight into! I would also recommend for point 3 the UKMT papers [http://www.wpr3.co.uk/UKMT/jmc.html][http://www.wpr3.co.uk/UKMT/imc.html][http://www.wpr3.co.uk/UKMT/smc.html] - I do not know about how it is in the USA, but they are typical here. [[User:AungSein|AungSein]] 20:06, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::: Your additions to the above curriculum are superb! Thanks much, and thanks also for the links to those U.K. tests. I just printed one out am reviewing it. Questions look challenging but doable, which is what we want. Lord knows that students can really improve after practicing on lots of those types of tests. We also have high school contests in the U.S. here: [[Math contests]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:37, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::: AungSein, a second student in this class took the UKMT Junior contest you cited, and she marked 17 correct, 5 wrong, and 3 non-answered. How did you do on that test?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
*I'm interested in this math critical thinking class too. --[[User:Luke314|Luke314]] 16:38, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Fantastic! Welcome and Godspeed. Please click "Watch" on this page so that you can easily see updates as September approaches. This will be a great learning experience. Feel free to make suggestions on the curriculum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:42, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*I'm interested also, as a teacher. (Credentials on request, of course.) Is this class going to happen? What I see here doesn't look very well-subscribed. Is there another page somewhere, listing details of the class? Details of the Curriculum? Discussion of same? Teaching the axiom of choice or Gödel's incompleteness theorems really correctly sounds like quite an ambitious undertaking, but I'd like to give it a try. [[User:Robert|Robert]] 20:42, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:: That's great, Robert! We don't have a lot of students yet but it is still only August. We plan to start mid-September and I welcome your input on the curriculum. I expect the interest in this to grow as it has in the American Government course (now up to 45 participants). Much will be accomplished by this math course for the immense benefit of the participants. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:08, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

*I am also interested in participating in the project as an adult student. [[User:StevenW|StevenW]] 20:46, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

*I'm just wondering. How can things like axiom of choice, Fermat & Wiles, open problems, etc, can be covered. They say that nothing above 9th grade math is required. Will there be two different classes? [[User:Rincewind|Rincewind]] 11:58, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*I'd love to join, I'm just a bit confused on the requirements in terms of homework, editing, et cetera. [[User:GlobeGores|GlobeGores]] 18:07, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I'm interested in joining the course by I'm not sure how it all works. Can someone steer me in the right direction?- [[User:Schaefer|Schaefer]] 21:57, 20 December 2007 (EST)

*I'm really interested in this. Any idea of when it's due to start? [[User:KTDiputsho|KTDiputsho]] 14:53, 15 April 2008 (EDT)
*What is the "controversy about proof by contradiction" that you mention? It's news to me that there's any controversy about one of the standard tools of a mathematician. [[User:Googly|Googly]] 19:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You'll learn lots of new things here, if you keep an open mind. When resorting to proof by contradiction, it is impossible to know if the result is due to the falsehood of the proposition or an undetected contradiction in the math itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:25, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Errors in the mathematics can cause an incorrect conclusion in any kind of proof. What's so special about proof by contradiction? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 20:44, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::On an unrelated note, is this class still supposed to happen? It's been over a year since it was announced. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 20:46, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Sorry Aschafly, but your second sentence is just not correct. Are you teaching this Critical Thinking in Maths course yourself? If so, I'd say you've got some pretty muddled ideas which you need to straighten out before you let yourself loose on students. There's nothing at all second-rate about a proof by contradiction. [[User:Googly|Googly]] 20:47, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
*You say: "No tools beyond about 9th grade math are required, and motivated students younger than 9th grade will not have difficulty with the concepts." I think 9th-graders will struggle with Goldbach, Wiles, Hilbert... [[User:Googly|Googly]] 21:09, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Elementary proof

2008-08-07T00:55:33Z

Googly: Silver plate was awarded by IMU precisely because Wiles was too old to win Fields Medal

An '''elementary proof''' or '''elementary technique''' in mathematics is a [[proof]] that uses only [[real numbers]] or [[real analysis]] rather than the use of [[complex analysis]].<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ElementaryProof.html</ref> Elementary proofs cannot be broken down into smaller proofs of the same proposition.

The [[Prime Number Theorem]] has long been proven using complex analysis ([[Riemann Zeta function]]), but in 1949 and 1950 an elementary proof by [[Paul Erdos]] and [[Atle Selberg]] earned Selberg the highest prize in math, the [[Fields Medal]]. In contrast, [[Andrew Wiles]]' proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] did not use elementary techniques. Wiles was awarded an honorary silver plate by the [[International Mathematical Union]] for his exceptional work.<ref>http://www.mathunion.org/medals/Fields/Prizewinners.html</ref>
He was ineligible to be awarded the Fields Medal, which is awarded only to mathematicians no older than 40.<ref>http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/98/q3/0827-wiles.html</ref>)

===Sources===

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Mathematics]]

American History Lecture Two

2008-08-07T00:50:50Z

Googly: Undo revision 496557 by Aschlafly (Talk) Beg your pardon, but it's a fact that truth is a defence against claim of libel in UK jurisdictions

Students have entered enough terms in Lecture One to enable us to move on to Lecture Two. But before we start our second lecture for American history, we review some test-taking tips for multiple-choice history exams. View a history exam like a contest or a game. Part of your score is how much you know going into the exam, but a big part is how much you try on the test itself.

MANY OF THE ANSWERS TO A HISTORY EXAM CAN BE FIGURED OUT DURING THE TEST. The key is not to give up on questions that you don’t think you know the answer to. You can get many of them right. The person in the class who knows the most history probably won’t be the person who gets the highest score. The highest score will usually go to the person who tries the hardest during the test.

'''Tip Number One''': Understand the question. Read it twice if necessary. Pause after reading it to make sure you understand its point. Never, ever try to answer a question you do not understand. You can improve your score by 10% on each exam by making sure you understand each and every question before attempting to answer it.

'''Tip Number Two''': Pay particular attention to qualifiers in questions, such as “EXCEPT”. Every exam there are many students who miss questions because they overlook “EXCEPT”. For example, consider this question: “The Articles of Confederation contained all the following EXCEPT:” If you ignore the “EXCEPT” then you will answer the question incorrectly.

'''Tip Number Three''': Eliminate the wrong answers before picking the right one. Draw a line through the wrong choices.
Examples of wrong answers that can be immediately eliminated:
 Wrong dates or time period
 Answer doesn’t match the question – e.g., answer is generally true, but not limited to time period of question.
 Two answers are too similar to each other.
 The answer violates common sense.
 The answer is familiar for reasons unrelated to the question E.g., “Magna Carta” (not in American history)
 The answer is too general.
 The answer is too broad, or too sweeping, or too strong.
 The answer is too awkward
 The answer is something you never heard of. Don’t pick it based on hope.

Cross out wrong answers. Try to cross out 3 answers to narrow the choice to 2 answers. If you guess at that point, you have a 50% chance of getting it right.

In fact, students who take the AP exam are encouraged to guess on multiple choice questions even if they can only eliminate one or two answers. Every time you eliminate a choice, your chance of answering correctly increases greatly.

'''Tip Number Four''': Stay on track. Expect to miss a few, but move on to answer the questions you can. This is like a round of golf: expect to miss some shots. Skip a question that confuses you. Move on and then return to the question later. But make sure you leave space on your answer sheet for any question you skip.

'''Tip Number Five''': There are many ways to find the correct answer for a question. Try several different approaches until you get the right answer. For example, put the event in the context of other events. Use all the information that is given you. Ask yourself if you could answer the question without ever taking U.S. History (sometimes you can.) Be clever. You will maximize your score by being as clever as possible.

'''Tip Number Six''': Don’t outsmart yourself. There are no trick questions. There are traps to avoid falling into, but nothing too clever. Your first impression about which answer is correct is usually your best choice. Don’t second-guess yourself into a wrong answer.

----

Let’s continue now with the Colonies around the turn of the century (from 1600 to 1700). Keep the periods separate in your mind: 1600s and 1700s. In the 1600s most of colonies were just getting started (except ). In the 1700s, the colonies were established and were just growing stronger. I should be able to mention an event and you should be able to tell me if it happened in the 1600s or 1700s.

In 1688, there was upheaval in England. The people there overthrew [[King James II]], who was Catholic. His daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange took the throne and reinstated Protestantism, and adopted the [[English Bill of Rights]]. A century later this would inspire the American Bill of Rights.

In 1692, the [[Salem Witch Trials]] began. There was a panic that some girls, just about your age, were practicing witchcraft. Girls were prosecuted for this. Some were convicted and then executed. The authorities thought that these criminal prosecutions would help expose the ways of the devil for the benefit of everyone. Then someone observed that killing all these people may itself the work of the devil. Finally one of the accused said that the wife of the governor was also a witch. Then they put a stop to the prosecutions and freed everyone who was still alive. The whole episode did not make the Puritans look very good.

1700-1750: [[salutary neglect]]. Colonies during this time were very different from each other. The same is true today with respect to homeschooling. If we were holding this class just 50 miles west in Pennsylvania, each of us would have to register each year with our school district, take tests, and follow a state curriculum. But we do not have to do any of that in New Jersey.

Freedoms in the colonies varied widely also. In the colony of New York, for example, [[John Peter Zenger]] got in big trouble for publishing something critical of the governor. The New York governor demanded that Zenger be prosecuted and thrown in jail for criticizing him. Zenger was put on trial. On the first day of the trial, a good defense attorney from Philadelphia appeared to defend Zenger for free. The defense attorney argued to the jury that it should not be a crime to say something that is true, even though it may embarrass the governor. The judge told the jury that the law says that can be a crime called “libel”. But the jury ignored the law and held in favor of Zenger: “not guilty.” This case established the very important right unique to America: the right of freedom of the press. To this day we have that right in America.

The case helped convince Americans of the importance of the right to a jury trial, which was later written into our Constitution.

The trial also established an important power of the jury to ignore the law and hold in favor of a defendant even though the law says he is guilty. This is known as “jury nullification”.

[[Debate]]: Do you think a jury should be able to ignore the law in order to find a defendant “not guilty”?
 
'''1730-1740: The Great Awakening''':

In the 1700s, the colonies grew in size. The colonies grew to 2M in population, much more than the French settlements of only 100,000. The colonies were not just the English. Germans came here, African slaves came here involuntarily, Scotch-Irish immigrated here and settled in Appalachia. William Penn was advertising for immigrants to come to Pennsylvania. Colonists also began to migrate to Ohio, and conflicted with French fur trade with Indians. The French constructed forts in Ohio, and the governor of Virginia sent a 21-year-old named George Washington to check out what was going on in 1754. In Western Pennsylvania, at Fort Necessity, French defeated and captured him and his troops. They made him sign a statement in French (which George Washington did not understand) that his men had assassinated some Frenchmen. Then they released George Washington. He remembered that lesson and in the Revolutionary War made sure he had an aide who could understand French. That aide would be Alexander Hamilton.

George Washington is the most honored person in all of American history. Why was he so great? Was he so great? He was not a brilliant man. He was not a great military general. In terms of military strategy, he was not particularly good. He was inept during the French and Indian War, for example. He did not write anything of value.

'''Debate''': [[George Washington]]. Was he great, and if so, why?

In 1755, the British sent General [[Edward Braddock]] to confront French, but they ambushed and beat him badly nearly Fort Duquesne (pronounced DOO CANE). In 1756, war broke out between the French and English in Europe and things got very serious.

Eventually a smart fellow named [[William Pitt]] was elected as Prime Minister in England. The city of Pittsburgh is named after him. Pitt believed in appointing generals based on merit, not seniority or friendship. Pitt recognized the importance of the colonies and began investing significant money and resources. He started beating the French. Under Pitt’s leadership, he captured [[Fort Duquesne]] in 1758, then Quebec in 1759, and then Montreal in 1760. He started winning other places in world also, including India. In 1763 the Treaty of Paris was signed that eliminated French and her Indian allies as a threat to colonists.

But there was a change in the King of England even before 1763: [[King George III]] assumed the throne in 1760, and wanted to end the war quickly. Pitt wanted more war by England and resigned in 1761. A new prime minister gains power in England in 1763: George Grenville. England was angry that colonists didn’t pay fair share of war, and England wanted to make peace with Indians. It passed the Proclamation Act of 1763 to forbid colonists from settling west of Appalachians and stop buying land from Indians. Kind of like today’s problem with new Israeli settlements in areas claimed by Palestinians. Like the Israeli settlers, colonists were angry at this restriction, and ignored it.

Now that a new Prime Minister was in power who wanted peace, and wanted the colonies to pay its share of the war costs. Prime Minister Grenville started taxing colonists, and enforcing the taxes. He taxed sugar, then prohibited colonies from issuing paper currency.

He humiliated the colonists with legal intrusions: writs of assistance to search businesses without a court order or warrant. He violated ancient rights. He passed the Quartering Act to require colonists to house British troops at their own expense.

Next came the Stamp Act of 1765: it required that printed materials, like newspapers, bear stamp showing that coin tax had been paid. The public, and especially the media, was outraged. This sparked the colonies to meet with each other in the Stamp Act Congress, which was attended by 9 colonies. Riots broke out, and colonists boycott tax and British goods. Britain repealed the law, but passed the Declaratory Act asserting right to legislate for colonies in future.

The colonists developed a strong argument: taxation without representation. Britain said colonists had “virtual” representation. Colonists said adequate representation was impossible because England is so far away.

1767: Townshend Act imposes more taxes. It taxed paper, lead, paint and tea in colonies to pay salaries of royal judges and governors. Singled out New York and Massachusetts to suspend their assemblies for failing to levy taxes to house and feed British troops in their colonies. The Act tried to avoid inciting the wrath of all colonies. But the colonists boycotted British goods again, and once again the boycott was very effective.

'''Debate''': should England have been able to impose direct taxes on the colonies?

Boston Massacre in 1770, when troops shot and killed a mob for throwing snowballs (some having rocks) at it.

Green Mountain Boys: Ethan Allen wanted to protect his land holdings in the disputed area that became Vermont; they captured Fort Ticonderoga in 1775 (first American act of aggression).

There was relative calm in 1770-73. But Rhode Island smugglers burned the British ship Gaspee in 1772.

Tea Act of 1773. Large British tea company lobbied for and obtained monopoly rights from the England. EXPLAIN MONOPOLY. Had a huge inventory of tea. Received an exception from the tea tax and proceeded to import this huge inventory to Boston Harbor, where it would undersell the colonial merchants. The Puritans up there in Massachusetts were outraged. They tried to have the tea turned back to England, but the royally appointed governor refused. Led by Samuel Adams, a group of roughnecks dressed up as Indians and went on board the ship, and dumped all of its tea into Boston Harbor. It had the entire night to do it.

The British responded by revoking Massachusetts’ charter, closing Boston Harbor, installing a British general as governor, and repealing liberties like the right to hold town meetings.

The British also passed the Quebec Act, which gave the Canadians part of the Ohio Valley, which infuriated colonists. It also gave the French more freedoms, such as freedom of religion for the Catholic Church there. Colonists were angered because (1) they felt people in Quebec were getting more freedoms than they had and (2) they feared establishment of an Anglican Church in America.

The [[First Continental Congress]] was held in 1774. 12 colonies (not Georgia) agreed to disobey Coercive Acts, withhold taxes, cut trade, and arm the people.

The [[Second Continental Congress]] was held in 1775: made written money and named George Washington head of [[Continental Army]], who governed during the Revolution.

The boycott hurt England. The British commander in charge of America, General [[Thomas Gage]], decided to march by surprise from Boston to Concord to seize a storehouse of rebel guns and ammo, and maybe arrest some leaders.

[[Paul Revere]] then went on his midnight horseback ride to alert the colonists, and they were ready. War broke out.

Jan. 1776: [[Thomas Paine]]’s [[Common Sense]] pamphlet argued against divine rule and economic reasons to stay w/ Britain, in plain language. Often written books or pamphlets were a bigger force than military battles.

July 4, 1776: Declaration of Independence. All men are created equal. Natural inalienable rights. Listed grievances against crown (by then we no longer recognized Parliament). Frequent invocation of God. Used philosophy of John Locke: government is a social compact, and rebellion is justified when the government breaks its end of the bargain. John Locke actually wrote the original constitution for the Carolinas in the 1669, but it proved unworkable.

Causes of American Revolution: (1) accustomed to much independence and self-determination, Tory effort to regulate and tax was bitterly opposed by Colonies (and by Whigs in England); (2) British burdens hurt nearly all Colonists in all walks of life; (3) taxes hit at a bad time: postwar depression; (4) legally, colonies disagreed with “virtual representation”; (5) religious reason: many colonists disliked Anglicans (and Catholics), and feared England would install an Anglican bishop; (6) colonists disliked English class distinctions; (7) 1/3 of colonists were not even English, and broad geographic separation; (8) accepted John Locke’s philosophy of natural rights and social contract; (9) bright prospect for future by colonists. Independence was inevitable, as with other British colonies, but came quicker than for most.

1/3rd of the colonists were loyal to Britain. Washington’s army was only 18,000, less than a third the size of attendance at Giants Stadium. The British won early battles at [[Bunker Hill]] in Boston, in Canada, and in New York. We started winning on Christmas Eve in Trenton in 1776, then later at Princeton. Big win was at Saratoga in upstate NY in October 1777, when 6,000 British soldiers surrendered. [[Benedict Arnold]] led our army brilliantly then, before he became a traitor and went over to the British side. That was the turning point because the French then entered on our side.

The British were beating the Patriots badly in the South. The British captured Charleston in 1780, taking 5,500 soldiers and huge amounts of weapons. Finally, we installed General [[Nathanael Greene]], one of our best generals. He started inflicting heavy casualties on the British, and they retreated from the Carolinas to Yorktown, VA.

In May 1781, French arrived with two fleets, and we trapped the British at Yorktown, Virginia. They had to surrender their entire army of 8000. But the British still held New York, and didn’t finally sign a peace treaty until February 1783. They gave up east of the Mississippi, from Canada to Florida. We promised to treat the Loyalists and English creditors (people owed money by colonists) fairly. We didn’t.

'''Assignment''': Enter or improve at least 10 topics relating to this lecture, which are highlighted below (or you can highlight terms that have not yet been highlighted). Example topics are "William Pitt" or "Benedict Arnold." Simply input one of those or another historical term in the upper-left hand box and click "Go". If the term does not yet exist, then click the link to enter a description. If the term is already described, then improve the description or enter another historical term.

The instructor will be evaluate your work based the number and quality of the entries, with feedback provided on your "Talk" page here. At the end of this course there will be recognition and ranking of the top students. Examinations will only be provided to students who complete these assignments. '''The next lecture will be posted when sufficient terms are filled in for this lecture.'''

[[Category:United States History]]

Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math

2008-08-07T00:47:30Z

Googly: /* Draft Curriculum */ Proof by contradiction

Mathematics

2008-08-07T00:41:37Z

Googly: Undo revision 496551 by Aschlafly (Talk)See User talk:Googly

'''Mathematics''' is the study and practice of rigorous inference about abstract structures. It includes many practical results concerning quantity and measure, such as calculations involving numbers, financial accounting, geometric construction of building, astronomical calculations, calendar dating, telling time, engineering, physics, chemistry, etc. but also more abstract issues such as establishing the conditions under which certain kinds of equations and formulas have solutions. [[Applied mathematics]] concerns the use of mathematical methods for practical purposes. [[Pure mathematics]] involves reasoning about abstract structures. The main areas are:

* [[Algebra]]. Broadly, speaking algebra concerns 'addition' and 'multiplication', but in the widest possible sense. The objects that are being added or multiplied can be numbers, as in [[Number theory]], but they can also can be more general structures such as [[matrix|matrices]], [[function]]s, [[polynomial]]s, [[vector]]s or many others. Concentrating on addition and multiplication does not exclude subtraction or division, since subtraction is formally considered to be addition of an [[additive inverse]] and division is considered to be multiplication by a [[multiplicative inverse]]. That is, subtracting 3 from 2 is rigorously defined to adding the number -2 to 3. Minus two is called the additive inverse of +2. Similarly, dividing 3 by 2 is formally defined in terms of multiplying 3 by (1/2), where 1/2 is the multiplicative inverse of 2. Abstract algebra is the study of [[algebraic structures]] such as [[group]]s, [[Ring (mathematics)|rings]], and [[Field (mathematics)|fields]].

* [[Analysis]]. Analysis is concerned with limits and other infinite processes. This subject includes the theory of limits of sequences and series and all forms of [[calculus]], including the calculus of several variables, [[vector calculus]] and [[tensor calculus]]. Also included is [[numerical analysis]], the study of error propagation in algorithms carried out to finite precision. Additional topics in analysis include [[real analysis]] and [[complex analysis]].

* [[Geometry]] and [[Topology]]. Geometry was defined by [[Felix Klein]] as the study of [[invariant]]s under [[group]]s of [[transformation]]s. For example, the [[Euclidean transformation]]s are [[translation]], [[rotation]] and [[reflection]]. The quantities that are not altered by these transformations are things like angles and distances, so these are the subjects of interest in [[Euclidean geometry]]. Other types of transformations, such as the [[affine transformation]]s, define other types of geometry. Topology is concerned with the connectedness of objects, rather than the distance between them. It is sometimes called 'rubber sheet geometry', as it concerns properties (that is, [[arc]]s between [[node]]s in [[network]]s) of objects that would be preserved even if a diagram of them were to be stretched or shrunk. Topology began with [[Leonard Euler]]'s consideration of the [[Königsberg Bridges Problem]], which also introduced [[Graph Theory]]. [[Beck's map of the London Underground]] in 1933 used a topological distortion of the locations of the subway stations in order to produce a more useful and artistic map. [[Differential geometry]] is a specialized field of its own.

* [[Logic]] and [[set theory]]. All of mathematics can be expressed in terms of [[set]]s. Sets are defined by a collection of [[axiom]]s called the [[Zermelo-Fraenkel]] axioms. One of the axioms, the [[Axiom of Choice]], was originally the subject of much discussion but is now accepted by almost all mathematicians.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Constructive proof

2008-08-07T00:41:03Z

Googly: Undo revision 496555 by Aschlafly (Talk) See User talk:Googly

A '''constructive proof''' demonstrates the existence of a [[mathematical]] function, number or object by producing (constructing) it. This is in contrast with other styles of proof, such as proof by contradiction, which asserts the existence of an object by finding a contradiction if it did not exist. Such a proof is called '''nonconstructive'''.

The [[Axiom of Choice]] assumes the existence of a function without constructing it, and thus all proofs that rely on the [[Axiom of Choice]] are nonconstructive proofs.

The easiest way to prove the existence of [[transcendental]] numbers is by a nonconstructive proof, arguing that the set of [[real number]]s is [[uncountable]] while the set of [[algebraic number]]s is [[countable]], and thus (many) transcendental numbers must exist. Of course, finding a specific example is a much more difficult endeavor.
[[Category:mathematics]]

Elementary proof

2008-08-07T00:09:02Z

Googly: Removed absurd insinuation about reason why Wiles not awarded Field Medal

An '''elementary proof''' or '''elementary technique''' in mathematics is a [[proof]] that uses only [[real numbers]] or [[real analysis]] rather than the use of [[complex analysis]].<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ElementaryProof.html</ref> Elementary proofs cannot be broken down into smaller proofs of the same proposition.

The [[Prime Number Theorem]] has long been proven using complex analysis ([[Riemann Zeta function]]), but in 1949 and 1950 an elementary proof by [[Paul Erdos]] and [[Atle Selberg]] earned Selberg the highest prize in math, the [[Fields Medal]]. In contrast, [[Andrew Wiles]]' proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]] did not use elementary techniques. Wiles did not receive the Fields Medal for his exceptional work because he was 41 years old when he published his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and was therefore ineligible for the Fields Medal, which is awarded only to mathematicians no older than 40.<ref>http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/98/q3/0827-wiles.html</ref>)

===Sources===

{{reflist}}

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Proof

2008-08-07T00:06:36Z

Googly: Correction: elementary proof

==Mathematical proof==
A mathematical proof is a step-by-step demonstration of the truth of a mathematical theorem. Proofs build on [[axiom | axioms]], which are statements that are assumed to be true without proof, as well as previously-proved [[theorem | theorems]].

Several types of proofs are widely used, such as [[Reductio Ad Absurdum | proof by contradiction]]
and [[proof by induction | proof by induction]]. Proofs that do not rely on distant fields of maths are sometimes called [[elementary proof | elementary proofs]].

==Scientific proof==
Unlike the [[theorem | theorems]] of [[mathematics | mathematics]], [[science | science]] does not seek to prove that its [[theory | theories]] are true. Instead, the [[scientific method | scientific method]] seeks to check whether the predictions implied by a theory are observed in nature. Therefore, as philosopher of science [[Karl Popper | Karl Popper]] argued, science can only hope to show that a theory is false. But scientists recognize that science ''can never prove'' that a theory is true in the same sense that a mathematical theorem is true. Therefore scientists never claim that their theories are [[fact | facts]]. Instead, science searches for theories that are not disproved by currently-known experimental observations. Insofar as theories are consistent with nature, they may serve as a guide to improve [[technology | technology]] for example and can be considered as true in laymen's terms.

== Legal Proof ==
In American courts, crimes are proved "beyond reasonable doubt" to a jury, based on the jury's own analysis of the admissible evidence. Other legal issues may be decided by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not).

[[category:Mathematics]]
[[category:Science]]
[[category:Law]]

Mathematics

2008-08-07T00:03:16Z

Googly: Correction: Axiom of Choice

Conservapedia:Critical Thinking in Math

2008-08-06T23:47:15Z

Googly: Puzzled about "controversy about proof by contradiction"

Constructive proof

2008-08-06T23:44:47Z

Googly: Statement about lower value of proof by contradiction was incorrect

American History Lecture Two

2008-08-06T22:43:25Z

Googly: Accuracy: truth is a defence against a claim of libel in UK jurisdictions

American History Lecture One

2008-08-05T22:27:11Z

Googly: /* Exploration */ For clarity

Welcome to "American history," also known as "United States history." This will become your favorite course. It has something for everyone: heroes, villains, criminal trials, funny mistakes, competitions, politics, literature, gold, silver, war, and peace. You name it, American history has it. We are going to have some fun in this course.
 
We will start without a textbook, to encourage students to be more proactive in learning history. If we can find a good textbook or reference source, then we'll distribute it a few weeks into the course.
 
The Pilgrims came to America with a group not much bigger than our class, traveling a boat called the "Mayflower" that was not much bigger than our classroom. Just before arriving on shore, they agreed to a written agreement or "compact" to bind them after they arrived. The very first words of their "[[Mayflower Compact]]" were "In ye name of God Amen."
 
Just as our Nation's founders started with a prayer, so do we. Prayer clears out the noise in our minds. We are looking for knowledge and inspiration here, and that comes from God. In most countries parents do not have the freedom even to have a class like this. The main reason we have freedoms is because America was established on principles of liberty, and religious devotion in America remains among the strongest in the world today, as it was 250 years ago.
 
Today is a critical time in our nation's history, and this class may be as important to the future as the Mayflower voyage was. Let's begin.

== College Board Exams ==

This course will give you the foundation for taking three different College Board exams (usually a student takes only one of the three): the [[CLEP]], the [[AP]], and the [[SAT II]]. The CLEP is a multiple-choice exam that is recognized by most (but not all) colleges as a way to earn college credit. It costs about $50 and is administered on computers at local colleges, usually once a month. The AP, or Advanced Placement exam, is given only once a year in May at local high schools, and is more expensive. It includes both multiple-choice and essay questions, and is used by different colleges to give credit for courses. In 2009, the AP exam for U.S. History is scheduled for Friday, May 9.
 
The SAT II in American History is an inexpensive multiple-choice exam that takes only an hour and is given at high schools on Saturdays once a month, October through June. No college credit is given for it, but it is used for college applications to recognize achievement. The SAT II is the most biased of the three exams, and is known for emphasizing liberal culture and matters of race and gender. The CLEP exam is probably the least biased on the three.
 
Each of these College Board exams can be taken as often as one likes, though it is difficult to take the AP exam more than once because it is offered only once a year, and it is expensive to retake the CLEP exam. The SAT II, which is cheaper, is the easiest to take more than once and colleges only look at the highest score.
 There is absolutely no requirement to take any of these College Board exams as part of this course, and references to the exams are used more as a way of helping you see the "big picture," as in how much time should be spent on a particular period or historical topic. Our class has only two required, multiple-choice exams: a midterm and a final. This course will also help students improve their test-taking skills on multiple-choice exams. We will also have weekly homework assignments consisting of short-answer questions.
 

== What Students Find Challenging About History ==

Students find the following aspects of American history challenging:

* interpreting political cartoons
* keeping the different periods of American history separate, yet connected; seeing the trends
* understanding the importance of economic issues in shaping history
* improving speed in reading and retaining historical information, such as answering history questions quickly
* dealing with [[liberal]] bias in the selection and presentation of questions on College Board exams:
** denial of [[Christian]] and [[conservative]] achievement
** overemphasis on [[liberal]]s and their beliefs, and denial of their failures
** obsession with materialism and inborn characteristics like race and gender

Common mistakes by students in history courses include:

* failure to recognize that American politics is always a battle between two sides
* memorizing dates without understanding the sequence of events (exams rarely ask about dates, but do ask about sequence)
* getting bogged down in detail and failing to see the big picture
* misunderstanding questions
* forgetting that people in the past were similar in nature to people today; they were motivated by religion, money, power, etc., and laziness has always been a problem

== The Key to Mastering History ==

The key to mastering history is to find what you like and understand, and then use it as your foundation to learn everything else. In other words, first find and learn what you like, and then learn everything else by connecting it to what you know. Use the same technique that we all use to for directions: pick a landmark or a place that you know how to get to, and then figure out how to go from there to where you need to go.
 
For example, if you are most interested in religion, then learn about the 13 colonies based on their different attitudes towards religion. If you are most interested in one colony, then learn about it and how it relates to other colonies. If you like military history, then use that as your starting point.
 
Perhaps you like politics the most. In that case, you'll want to memorize the presidents and leaders of Congress, and relate historical events to their times in office. Or perhaps you enjoy legal issues, and reading about what the courts do. If so, then you'll want to focus your attention on the major rulings of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] throughout American history, and relate other historical events to those decisions.
 
On the SAT II U.S. History exam, the breakdown by subject matter is as follows:
 Political History - 32-36%
 Economic History - 18-20%
 Social History - 18-22%
 Cultural and Intellectual History - 10-12%
 Foreign Policy - 13-17%

The biggest part of the exam by far is politics, mostly concerning what happened in the federal government in [[Washington, D.C.]].

The "cultural and intellectual history" portion seems important to the exam but actually it is mostly cultural rather than intellectual history, and the questions are liberal in nature (e.g., asking about an artist who liberals like). Also, what counts as "economic history" is not what you might expect. There are almost no questions about the [[conservative]] gold standard, for example, even though that issue the political scene throughout history (and was even an issue in [[Ron Paul]]'s campaign for presidency in 2008). Instead, questions about economic history on the SAT II are likely to be about unions, the treatment of workers, alleged corruption of big business, and gender and racial issues.

Notice what is missing on the College Board exams: military history. Unfortunately, many educators in the [[United States]] dislike the military, and that bias shows up on the exams. No questions are there about battles or key military strategies and decisions. The only time the military shows up on these exams is when they have a political impact, and then they qualify as political history.

== Periods in American History ==

American history can be broken into about 20 time periods:

* settlement by paleo-indians
* discovery by Europeans, exploration by Europeans and settlement by Europeans
* colonial
* birth of the nation
* growth of the nation
* Jacksonian Democracy
* pre-Civil War
* [[Civil War]]
* [[Reconstruction]]
* [[Gilded Age]]
* [[Imperialism]]
* World War I
* Roaring Twenties and followed by the [[Great Depression]]
* World War II
* [[Cold War]]
** Korean War
** Vietnam War
* Reagan [[conservatism]]
* Post-Reagan Prosperity and the dot-com boom
* [[9/11]] and terrorism

On the SAT II in U.S History, the breakdown of questions is like this:

 Pre-Columbian history to 1789 - 20%
 1790 to 1898 - 40%
 1899 to the present - 40%

Hence nearly half the exam is on the last century on the SAT II, and only about 18 or 19 questions are devoted to all of pre-exploration, exploration, settlements, the colonies, the documents that founded the nation, the American Revolution, and the election of George Washington. That means there are no more than 3 or so questions (out of a 90-95 questions on the exam) about the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

== Why America? ==

Maybe we could write most of American history just by predicting what would probably happen. Imagine a big chunk of land in between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. There are people who live on the land. Ask yourself: why would Europeans want to go there? What reasons can you think of?
 
Search for gold. Convert the natives to Christianity. Conquer the natives. Obtain freedom. Why do your parents homeschool? For some of the same reasons. Go there for the same reason people climb a mountain: because it is there! Escape where you are. Set up a special religious community. Meet new people and make new friends. Trade goods with the people. Learn from the people. Have adventures and then write about them.
 
What is likely to happen if a bunch of Europeans go this land? Conflicts with the natives. Conflicts with other European countries. Conflicts with the mother country that sent the settlers. New opportunities for improvements, for new products, for new businesses, for new religions, for new systems of government.
 
Who is going to pay for exploration and settlement? Kings. Investors. Do-gooders. Churches. Mostly nobody.
 
Who is going to do the hard labor needed to set up a new community, like chopping down trees, working the farms, constructing buildings? There is almost no money to pay anyone. Families might do some. [[Indentured servants]]. Slaves.
 
It also helps to look for unifying themes to organize events in your mind. One theme that helps explain American history works well is the overall expansion of Christianity, for 2000 years. Why did [[Christopher Columbus]] and other explorers risk their lives to come to the New World? To spread Christianity. Why did families then risk their lives to settle here? To establish religious communities free of persecution. Two hundred years later, why did Massachusetts prohibit slavery and why did abolitionists President [[John Quincy Adams]] devote their lives to ending slavery? Because their religious values told them slavery was wrong.
 
There are other possible themes also. How about the desire to make more money, or make some money? How about the urge for self-government, to be in charge of oneself free from a monarchy? How about the advance of technology and its affect on how we live? There are many possible themes to American history and we will have fun debates about them.
 
From 1789 until today, we have had an American President. He is not more important than others. If I had to name the ten most important Americans in history, I would only include one president in the list (the first one, [[George Washington]]). But memorizing the list of 43 presidents can help you organize all the other facts. When someone asks me what was happening in 1962, then I think of who was president and then remember the issues of that time. The presidents become like drawers, one per president, filled with issues and events.
 
But before 1789 there was no president. How are we going to organize that? One way is to focus on the three most important colonies, [[Virginia]] (1607), [[Massachusetts]] (1620) and [[Pennsylvania]] (1681), and relate the other 11 colonies and events to them. Another way is to look at the battles that occurred before the [[American Revolution]], such as the [[French and Indian War]] in 1754-60.
 
Regardless, by the end of this course, you will be able to hear an event and describe what was going on at that time. You will be able to tell me what happened before the event, and what happened afterwards.
 
Don’t try to memorize hundreds of dates. Instead, when you see a date, think what happened before and after it. There are only about ten dates that you need to know. All other dates, such as those in the event list, are there just for the purpose of ordering events. For example, no one will ask you when Georgia was founded as a colony. But you may be asked whether it was the first or last colony founded. (It was the last colony established.) Another example: [[Quebec]] was founded in 1608. Don’t remember the 1608, but remember that Quebec was founded one year after [[Jamestown]] was established (1607 – one of the few dates you should memorize!)
 
If you have a good memory, then memorize the facts. If memorization is difficult for you, then focus on the trends and movements in history. This course gives you four different ways to learn the material: (1) the lectures, (2) Conservapedia, (3) the event list and (4) the homework assignments. Different students will learn better from some approaches than others. It’s your job to find what works best for you. At the end your progress will be measured by multiple choice exams.
 
This class is a different approach to American history than most courses that take all year. Learning in a simple and quick manner can sometimes be better. It’s easier to see how events relate to each other. It’s easier to see the big picture. When you want to find your way somewhere, do you want a road map that has every single detail and building on it? No, that is too hard to read. You want a map that has the important things on it. Same with studying history: don’t allow yourself to be sidetracked by unimportant details. Focus on the big stuff.

== Settlement ==
Paleo-indian peoples migrated to the Americas in four main periods of migration, beginning 15000 years ago and lasting until 4000 years ago, stabilizing populations in the mainland and surrounding islands over the following period and developing a wealth of culture and unique advancements. Some of these, such as the Adena burial mounds and Mississippian platform towns, have lasted even into the current era.<ref>Melissa L. Meyer, Dean R. Snow, Charles L. Cohen, Russell Thornton, Donald A. Grinde Jr., Leah Dilworth "Indian History and Culture" The Oxford Companion to United States History. Paul S. Boyer, ed. Oxford University Press 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Tampa. 4 August 2008 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t119.e0758-s0002></ref>

== Exploration ==

Starting in the Middle Ages, Christian Europe began to use its knowledge, wealth and [[faith]] to extend move beyond its horizons. Christian Europeans fought the Holy [[Crusades]] from 1095 to 1291 to protect pilgrims to [[Jerusalem]] against Moslem attacks. Some Europeans were motivated to spread the [[Gospel]]. Others were motivated by a desire to increase their wealth, such as by finding gold. Supporting both types of people was increased knowledge about science and geography: Europeans knew that they could reach the Orient by traveling West '''''around''''' the world. What they did not know is what they would find, if anything, by sailing West, before they reached the Orient.
 
It took enormous courage, determination and financial support to sail West into the complete unknown. It also took more than a desire to get rich, because there were easier ways to make money. That additional desire was a passion to spread Christianity to new civilizations. In 1482, a determined Christian Italian explorer named [[Christopher Columbus]] sought financing to sail west in order to reach India. He tried Portugal for raising money, but it already had its own successful explorers. Why would Portugal need Columbus? Portugal declined to support him, and Columbus turned to Spain, which was now Christian after having driven the Muslims out. In 1492, Spain funded Columbus' daring proposal to sail West to reach the Orient.
 
Before we describe this further, however, it is necessary to note that around A.D. 1000, the Scandinavian [[Leif Ericson]] discovered [[Vinland]] where the present [[Newfoundland]] is, and even founded a small colony there, although it ultimately failed after probably a few decades of settlement. There appears to be no evidence that they settled further south, in [[New England]]: "People have been looking hard for hundreds of years and there is no archaeological evidence in this part [New England]— it's certainly possible, the Vikings were incredible boat handlers — '''but there is no evidence'''," observed one university history professor.<ref>http://farshores.org/a04viki.htm</ref>.
 
So back to what Columbus did achieve. He set sail in three ships. First sighted land in late 1492. On Christmas eve, December 24, 1492, one of Columbus's ship, the [[Santa Maria]], reached the island of [[Haiti]]. Columbus named the settlement “La Navidad,” meaning “The Nativity,” and dropped off 40 men with a promise to return to them the next year. Columbus then wrote to the King and Queen of Spain the following in his Journal: “In all the world there can be no better or gentler people. Your Highnesses should feel great joy, because presently they will be Christians, and instructed in the good manners of your realms.”
 
But he had grossly underestimated the size of the world, and when he reached San Salvador, Haiti (Hispaniola) and Cuba he thought he reached the Far East. So he called the natives Indians. He left some men there but they were killed by the natives. Columbus reported back that new people had been found to evangelize with Christianity.
 
Soon Spain and Portugal divided the Americas with the [[Line of Demarcation]], drawn by the Pope. The [[Treaty of Tordesillas]] moved the line in 1493. It was a North-South line that gave Spain North America and the western part of South America, but Portugal received Brazil. That’s why Brazilians speak Portugese to this day.
 
<discuss how Columbus returned to Europe, and then found the same location on his second trip> Columbus sailed on three subsequent voyages, but never achieved his goal and died discredited. What was his motivation? Primarily to spread Christianity, but also to find gold to reward his sponsors and fund further expeditions. Ultimately, his purpose focused on a dream to liberate Jerusalem, as the Crusades attempted.
 
What influence did Columbus have? He gave Spain [[Haiti]], [[Puerto Rico]], [[Jamaica]] and [[Cuba]] by 1515. Spain then settled Florida (St. Augustine), and later Santa Fe, New Mexico. Spanish [[Hernando Cortes]] conquered the Aztecs in central Mexico (1521), and [[Francisco Pizarro]] conquered the Incas of Peru (1531). They seized much gold in the process.
 
But while Spanish soldiers came to America, Spanish women did not. So there were not many distinct, permanent Spanish settlements. Also, the Spanish were also entirely subservient to their King back in Europe. Separate governments did not develop.
 
Other European powers were exploring North America also. The French explored the St. Lawrence and settled Quebec, where French is still spoken to this day. The French also explored the Mississippi, and settled the towns of Saint Louis (named after a French king) and New Orleans.
 
The Dutch explored and settled the Hudson River, and calling that region New Netherlands and buying and naming Manhattan New Amsterdam.
 
The Swedish settled in Delaware; Germans settled later in Pennsylvania.
 
Explorer [[John Cabot]] discovered the North American coastline for England in 1497. But no settlements were attempted by the English for about another 100 years.
 
The reason is that North America didn’t have what the explorers were looking for. America lacked valuable natural resources. There was no gold, which is what Europe wanted. In 1576, the British explorer [[Martin Frobisher]] even hauled 200 tons of material back to England, hoping it was gold. It wasn’t.
 
There wasn’t anything else of value to Europe either. New England was too rocky near the coast to develop farms. The mid-Atlantic region or Chesapeake area, where Maryland and Virginia are today, was infested with malaria. Winters were cold, and summers were hot.
 
There was no livestock – no horses and no cattle, until the Spanish imported them. Florida was a swamp, and did not even have orange trees until the Spanish explorer [[Ponce de Leon]] planted them in 1515.
 
North America was a joke to many in England. Its Parliament passed a law in 1597 authorizing the deportations of convicted criminals to America and other colonies. In 1605, a satirical book entitled “Eastward Ho!” was published that mocked attempts to settle in Virginia.
 
Think about it. Would your family uproot and move, at great risk to your lives, to a place that had no civilization or anything of value? Do we see families moving to the middle of the desert in Arizona, or to cheap land in the middle of Wyoming? Only very rarely.
 
England’s first settlement of North America was in 1585, on [[Roanoke Island]] in Virginia. More than 100 families settled there. In a few years they had all disappeared, and it’s a mystery to this day what happened. They could have died from disease or starvation. They could have been killed by Indians. No one knows. It’s called the “[[Lost Colony]].”
 
About the same time, however, England had a huge success in Europe. Spain had ruled the high seas for most of the 1500s, until England destroyed the Spanish Armada in 1588. That left England with the potential to gain control of the oceans and world trade over the seas. England could protect its colonies against other European powers.

== Settlements ==

Some Englishmen invested money in what was called a “[[joint stock company]],” which was similar to a modern-day corporation, for the purpose of finding gold or other treasures. Called the “[[Virginia Company]],” it established the first permanent settlement for England in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. It was a disaster and the investors never received a profit. The men who settled in Jamestown were gentlemen who expected to get rich with little effort. They lacked a common purpose and wasted their time searching for treasure, or simply doing nothing at all. Unwilling to work to grow their own food, they almost starved to death.
 
'''1607''' is one of the few dates you should memorize. This was after the Spanish had settled in Florida, but before the French had settled in Quebec. So remember the sequence in settling America: Spanish, English, and then French.
 
Initially, from 1607-1608, the Jamestown settlement lived under socialism, whereby the group shared its food with everyone no matter how much or little he worked. This economic system was a complete failure as no one had any incentive to do any work. In September 1608, [[John Smith]] was elected president of the governing council. He ruled for a year and installed a conservative economic system: “don’t work, don’t eat!” Under this new system, food production increased and by 1614 there was plenty to eat.
 
But Jamestown settlers were there to find fortune, and there was not any gold or silver. Indians had discovered tobacco and Europeans were beginning to become addicted on it. Many Europeans recognized that tobacco was bad for them, and some wanted to prohibit it. In 1613, Englishman [[John Rolfe]], who married the Indian [[Pocahontas]] in Virginia, began growing tobacco to export to Europe. The King banned the growing of tobacco in England, so Rolfe had no competition. Cash began pouring in for the tobacco, and this so-called “cash crop” became highly profitable for the Jamestown settlers. Tobacco continued to be very profitable throughout a large part of American history, particularly in the south.
 
Despite profiting from the sale of tobacco, the Jamestown settlement had other difficulties. It had made peace with Indian [[Chief Powhatan]], whose daughter Pocahontas married settler [[John Rolfe]]. But after Powhatan died, his brother led a sudden attack on the settlers in 1622, massacring 357 out of a total of only 1200.
 
But Indian strife was only one of many problems. Labor was in short supply for working the fields. Settlers began importing indentured servants, who received free travel to the colonies in exchange for a promise to work for seven years. But Virginia also turned to a cheaper approach to labor: importing slaves from West Africa beginning in 1619 to work the crops.
 
In 1624 King James (of “King James Bible” fame) took back the Virginia colony and established it as a royal charter. King James was left with a problem colony that enslaved workers and grew tobacco. More trouble lay ahead. In 1676, Nathanial Bacon was a Virginia settler who decided to take the law into his own hands. He first massacred Indians in western Virginia, then took his small army of rebels to Jamestown, where he burned it down because the governor had refused to allow him to kill the Indians. Bacon himself soon died from a disease. The governor returned and hung two dozen of his supporters. How Virginia produced four of our first five presidents is amazing. You can think about this and answer on the homework assignment.
 
By then there were many other settlements in North America. The most important were two settlements in Massachusetts, which has a much harsher climate than Virginia, particularly in the wintertime. But their motivation was religious, not financial. Puritans were unhappy with the direction of the Church of England, feeling it was too much like the Catholic Church. Two different groups of Puritans set out for North America. One group wanted to purify the Church of England by remaining in the Church but in a more perfect community. The other group wanted to separate completely from the Church of England. Both groups landed by chance within 100 miles of each other in Massachusetts.
 
The first group, the “Pilgrims”, set sail from Plymouth, England and intended to land near the mouth of the Hudson River (now New York City), which was the northern part of the Virginia Company’s territory. But their ship, the “Mayflower”, was blown off course and they landed up on Cape Cod in Massachusetts in 1620. Outside of any official government, they decided on the boat to establish the first civil government in North America by signing the Mayflower Compact. They landed in December, and half died due to disease in their first New England winter. But the following spring a friendly Indian introduced them to corn, or maize, the marvelous food discovered by Indians. They had a plentiful harvest that fall, and celebrated their first Thanksgiving with the Indians that fall. In 1623, their new Governor [[William Bradford]] gave every member a plot of land and allowed the free market to develop. By 1624, the community was doing so well that it was actually making more food than it could consume and began exporting its corn. [[William Bradford]] and [[Edward Winslow]] kept diaries during the settling of Plymouth, which are recorded in a small, but fascinating book called ''Mourt's Relation''.
 
Corn is a tremendous contribution by Indians to the world that increasingly sustains peoples worldwide. Corn did not exist in Europe during the Middle Ages. Cheap and easy to grow, corn has become one of the most popular foods worldwide, rivaling rice and soybeans. For that we can thank the Indians.
 
Encouraged by the success of the Pilgrims, a new groups called the [[Massachusetts Bay Company]] obtained a royal charter and sent a larger group of Puritans to settle in New England, though this time with the purpose of purifying the [[Church of England]] with a more perfect community than in England itself. It was well-financed and led by the very capable [[John Winthrop]], who had been trained at Oxford. It landed in Salem, Massachusetts in 1629 and immediately moved to Boston Harbor. It never looked back, thriving almost immediately despite the harsh winter climate. Within five years the [[Great Migration]] of religiously motivated settlers followed them from England. Their numbers and power grew. By the 1640s, the community was participating in robust trade by sea with England, the West Indies and on occasion West Africa.
 
What is a “colony”? “Colony” defined: “a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state.” (Merriam-Webster dictionary)
 
The growing colonies in Massachusetts and Virginia could not have been more different from each other, and it is remarkable they ever joined the same country. Massachusetts was highly religious and motivated by faith. Virginia was marginally religious and motivated by money. Massachusetts, more religious, had vocal opponents of slavery and neighboring Vermont was the first state to prohibit slavery in its Constitution, in 1777. Virginia welcomed slavery. Massachusetts grew the Indian crop of corn. Virginia grew the Indian crop of tobacco. Massachusetts settlers made greater efforts to get along with Indians and treat them fairly. Massachusetts attracted new settlers based on religion. Virginia attracted new settlers based on the “headright system,” by which land (usually 50 acres) was given to those who paid for the passage to the colony of an immigrant, who usually agreed to work as an “indentured servant” for free for fixed number of years on the land.
 
The stark contrast between Massachusetts and Virginia would ultimately lead, nearly 250 years later, to the Civil War.
 
While Virginia institution of slavery was spreading to the colonies of [[Maryland]], [[Carolina]] and, later, [[Georgia]], [[Massachusetts]] was spreading a different sort of institution: religious intensity. [[Roger Williams]] was an extraordinary individual of such great faith that found even the Puritans lacking in their treatment of Indians. Williams also disagreed with how the Puritans combined government and religion, and had even executed several Christians based on differences with the Puritan faith. Williams was fabulous with languages and learned to communicate with many different Indian tribes, and even lived with them at times in spite of the danger. He left the Puritans in Massachusetts and started the colony of Rhode Island, which to this day has prided itself on its independence. Rhode Island was the only state to refuse to support a colonial tax on imports after the Revolution, and the only colony to refuse to ratify the Constitution until long after [[George Washington]] was President. Rhode Island, under Roger Williams’ direction, separated state government from religion. No mandatory church attendance, and no funding of churches with tax revenues were allowed in Rhode Island.
 
But while Roger Williams was highly moral, others in Rhode Island made it the biggest importer of slaves in all the colonies. So censoring religion may have a price. In contrast, in the larger Massachusetts, taxes funded religious institutions for nearly 200 years, until at least the 1830s. It successfully prohibited slavery. Another devout Christian who disagreed with the Puritans and left them was named [[Anne Hutchinson]]. She, however, was later killed by Indians.
 
One prominent text claims, under “Rhode Island,” that “This belief [by Roger Williams] in the separation of church and state became a cornerstone of the American Constitution in 1787.” That is completely false. Roger Williams was long dead by 1787, and there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. Rhode Island did not even send any representatives to draft the Constitution and it had no role in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. In fact, Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until after George Washington was elected president, and even then it took much arm-twisting to compel Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution. But some people want to keep religion out of government, and they refuse to admit that the First Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a national church by the government.
 
In between Massachusetts and Virginia there was a third approach: that taken by Pennsylvania. William Penn was another extraordinary Englishman. He converted to become a Quaker in England and began practicing that religion in violation of English law. He was arrested and prosecuted, but the jury refused to convict him. The king owed his father money, and gave the son what is today Pennsylvania. It was nothing but woods at the time. But William Penn founded his colony based on one principle: religious freedom for all. He advertised in Europe and attracted peoples of many nationalities in addition to the English.
 
Penn was very kind to the Indians and soon had the most popular colony in America. Philadelphia became America’s greatest city, surpassing Boston in population in the 1700s. Only Pennsylvania and Maryland survived in the long-term under private ownership. Virtually all the other colonies were eventually taken over by the King of England, often due to troubles that arose in the colony.
 
There were other colonies. Pennsylvania was founded over 50 years *after* Virginia and Massachusetts. Georgia was founded over 50 *years* after Pennsylvania, which means over 100 years after Virginia and Massachusetts. Philanthropist [[James Oglethorpe]] founded Savannah in Georgia in 1733 for poor debtors in jails of England. Also created a buffer colony between South Carolina and Spanish Florida. Oglethorpe was very religious and very strict. Too strict for the King, who took over the colony in 1751. The colony was not nearly as strong and developed as the other colonies, so the other colonies did not take it very seriously.
 
Topics for discussion:
*Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?
*Did the Vikings settle North America before Columbus did?
 
[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:Walter Gropius

2008-08-05T21:09:19Z

Googly: Wright + Lehrer

"Noted Jew"? [[User:Testing|Testing]] 15:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:I fixed that.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
1. The Bauhaus had very little to do with Frank Lloyd Wright. Neither influenced the other to any great extent.
2. If this were a more complete article about Gropius, one of the greats of modern design, it might be worth mentioning that people in one particular country (the USA) know about him from a comic song. But it seems rather trivial - even patronising - to mention this while saying virtually nothing else about him. [[User:Googly|Googly]] 17:09, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Walter Gropius

2008-08-05T21:05:38Z

Googly: Where to start... See talk page, please

'''Walter Gropius''' was a German architect who founded the [[Bauhaus school]].

{{DEFAULTSORT: Gropius, Walter}}
[[category:architects]]
[[Category:German People]]

Eric the Red

2008-08-05T21:02:03Z

Googly: Leif Eriksen in Newfoundland

[[Image:Eric the Red.png|right|thumb|200px|Eric the Red from Arngrímur Jónsson's Gronlandia.]]
'''Eric the Red''' was a 10th century [[Viking]]. He was expelled from [[Norway]] on charges of murder, and took his family away to [[Iceland]], which had been settled by Vikings about a hundred years earlier. After his involvement in several killings there, he was banished and went to [[Greenland]], where he started the first successful colony in that land around the year 985. Eric is best known as the father of [[Leif Erikson]], who started the first [[Europe]]an colony in [[America]] around the year 1000, although it ultimately lasted only a few decades.

Eric's interesting name is in the style of his times. People in that culture often assumed descriptive names, along with a "patronymic" name identifying the father. Eric's "real" name was Eric Thorvaldsson, because his father's name was Thorvald. This style of naming persists in Iceland today. But Eric had very red hair, so people called him "Eric the Red" most of the time.

Eric was a [[heathen]] all his life, although his son Leif, and probably others of his family, converted to [[Christianity]].

Two old Icelandic Sagas about Eric survive. These stories agree with each other in most regards, and contain most of what is known about Eric and Leif. They have been translated into English and are easy to find in modern libraries and bookstores.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Eric the Red}}
{{Nb_explorers}}

Talk:Viking

2008-08-05T20:57:53Z

Googly: Newfoundland

WRT the claim about days of the week: Sunday = Sun Day (Sunna), Monday = Moon Day (Mani), Tuesday = Tiw's Day (Germanic form of Tyr), Wednesday = Woden's Day (Anglo-Saxon form of Odin), Thursday = Thor's Day, Friday = Frigga's Day or Freya's Day, probably the former. Only Saturday = Saturn's Day is a Roman reference. Interesting side note: in most pagan mythologies, the sun is male and the moon is female, but in Norse mythology, it's the other way around. --[[User:Abell|Abell]] 13:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't know that that's right. See Online Etymology Dictionary which indicates that Sunday and Monday are loan translations for "day of the sun" and "day of the moon", and doesn't mention the names of the "gods" you mention.

[[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Sunday&searchmode=none Sunday]]

[[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=Monday&searchmode=none Monday]]

: You will find [http://www.crowl.org/Lawrence/time/days.html] [http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500637_761573003_-1_1/Days_of_the_Week.html] to be a good refrence for reading.
: Monday - Moon Day
: Tuesday - Tyr's Day. Tyr = Norse god of war. In French (from Latin) it is mardi - Mars Day. Mars = Roman god of war
: Wensday - Odin's Day. Odin = Norse god of the traveler. In Frech, it is mercredi - Mercury's Day. Mercury = Roman god of travel.
: Thursday - Thor's Day. Thor = Norse god of lightning. In French it is jeudi - Jupiter's Day. Jupiter = Roman god of lightning
: Friday - Frigga or Freya's day. Frigg and Freya were both ferility goddesses. In french it is vendredi - Venus's Day. Venus = Roman god of fertility
: --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:26, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Abell has asserted that Sunday and Monday are named for Sunna and Mani, but neither the Concise Oxford English Dictionary on my shelf nor the Online Etymology Dictionary bear out this assertion. I'd propose that someone confirm the etymology of the two days' names with the full OED and we accept that as the final source on the matter. In any event, the Anglo-Saxons were not Vikings....they were a Germanic culture made up largely of conquered Celts, so why is the sentence on the days of the week being named after Anglo-Saxon gods at all relevant to the Viking entry? I'm going to delete the sentence, but it might be added into an article about Scandivaian/Teutonic mythology, as trivia, or an article on the Anglo-Saxons. : --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 20:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Source on Landings contradicts Statement==

The source used to contest the idea of vikings landing in North America explicitly mentions that they did:

:"Everybody does, however, agree the Vikings made it to North America 500 years before Christopher Columbus in 1492. And few question the fur-clad Ericson and his crew of explorers dropped anchor from their open plank boats off the beach near what is now L’Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, Canada, the site that would become the only authenticated Viking settlement in North America."

The article was about vikings not having landed in what is now New England. Unless the L’Anse aux Meadows findings can be proven wrong, the contention in this article that they never landed in North America needs to be removed as misleading. -[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:59, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

With respect to Toffeeman, I think the article ought to reflect the vast majority of scholarly opinion. There's a great deal of historical and archaeological evidence that the Vikings settled for a few decades in Newfoundland. Whether they penetrated any further in North America is more controversial. I've simply reverted Toffeeman's reversion but if others wish to improve on my text, please do. But let's all please stick to the facts, not label well-established conclusions from decades of scholarship as 'liberal myths'. [[User:Googly|Googly]] 16:57, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Viking

2008-08-05T20:54:45Z

Googly: Undo revision 495343 by Toffeeman (Talk) Please see talk page

{{Middle Ages}}
[[Image:Viking.gif|right|250px]]
'''Viking''' is the name used for the warrior/trader people of [[Scandinavia]] ([[Norway]], [[Sweden]], and [[Denmark]]) from about A.D. 750 to 1050. In their own culture, the word "viking" referred only to their pillaging raids on other people, usually carried out by sea in distinctive boats that were advanced for their time. These raids were famously devastating, and had a major impact on the history of [[Britain]] and [[France]]. The spread of [[Christianity]] through the [[British Isles]] had led to the building of many large and wealthy [[Monastery|monasteries]] which were attractive and easy targets for Viking raids. The contemporary [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] describes the first Viking raid on the coast of Britain, at the monastery at [[Lindisfarne Abbey]] in A.D. 793, and gives a clear impression of how the local inhabitants were caught unawares and did not know how at first to respond to the approaching [[longship]]s:

''"...there came for the first time three [[ship]]s; and then the [[reeve]] rode there and wanted to compel [the Vikings] to go to the king's town, because he did not know what they were; and they killed him. Those were the first ships of the Danish men which sought out the land of the English race."''

The chronicle goes on to describe the ferocity of the raid, which was greeted with shock throughout the Christian world:

''"...wrecking, robbing, shattering and killing not only animals but priests, monks and nuns... [The raiders] slayed everything alive, dug up the altars and took all the treasures of the holy church..."''

Along with their destructive habits, Vikings were also well-known traders, explorers and settlers. They settled the islands of [[Iceland]] (870), [[Greenland]] (985) and briefly [[Newfoundland]] (around 1000), establishing a colony called [[Vinland]] nearly five centuries before [[Christopher Columbus|Columbus]]. They founded the city of [[Dublin]], Ireland, as a trading center. Vikings also expanded toward the East. They were involved in the founding of [[Russia]], and were important in the history of the Eastern Roman Empire at [[Constantinople]].

At home, Vikings were industrious farmers and fishermen. They had a distinctive culture that valued honor, hospitality, and generosity.

Vikings had a polytheistic society. They had many gods, such as [[Tyr]], [[Odin]], [[Thor]], and [[Freya]]. Stories about these gods are now called Norse Myths. Many Vikings violently opposed [[Christianity]], but for the most part eventually succumbed to it through persuasion, example and use of force<ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/420178/Norway/39303/Christianization</ref>.

Vikings who are still famous in our time are [[Eric the Red]], discoverer of Greenland, and his son [[Leif Ericson]], the first known European to visit what is now called America.

== References ==
<references/>

== See also ==
*[[Maine]]
*[[Odin]]

==Sources==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/ BBC education]
*[http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/start.html MNH education]
*[http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/ Viking Answer Lady]
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/657 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle] at [[Project Gutenberg]]

[[Category:anthropology]]
[[category:European History]]

American History Lecture One

2008-08-05T20:53:17Z

Googly: /* Exploration */ Vikings again

Welcome to "American history," also known as "United States history." This will become your favorite course. It has something for everyone: heroes, villains, criminal trials, funny mistakes, competitions, politics, literature, gold, silver, war, and peace. You name it, American history has it. We are going to have some fun in this course.
 
We will start without a textbook, to encourage students to be more proactive in learning history. If we can find a good textbook or reference source, then we'll distribute it a few weeks into the course.
 
The Pilgrims came to America with a group not much bigger than our class, traveling a boat called the "Mayflower" that was not much bigger than our classroom. Just before arriving on shore, they agreed to a written agreement or "compact" to bind them after they arrived. The very first words of their "[[Mayflower Compact]]" were "In ye name of God Amen."
 
Just as our Nation's founders started with a prayer, so do we. Prayer clears out the noise in our minds. We are looking for knowledge and inspiration here, and that comes from God. In most countries parents do not have the freedom even to have a class like this. The main reason we have freedoms is because America was established on principles of liberty, and religious devotion in America remains among the strongest in the world today, as it was 250 years ago.
 
Today is a critical time in our nation's history, and this class may be as important to the future as the Mayflower voyage was. Let's begin.

== College Board Exams ==

This course will give you the foundation for taking three different College Board exams (usually a student takes only one of the three): the [[CLEP]], the [[AP]], and the [[SAT II]]. The CLEP is a multiple-choice exam that is recognized by most (but not all) colleges as a way to earn college credit. It costs about $50 and is administered on computers at local colleges, usually once a month. The AP, or Advanced Placement exam, is given only once a year in May at local high schools, and is more expensive. It includes both multiple-choice and essay questions, and is used by different colleges to give credit for courses. In 2009, the AP exam for U.S. History is scheduled for Friday, May 9.
 
The SAT II in American History is an inexpensive multiple-choice exam that takes only an hour and is given at high schools on Saturdays once a month, October through June. No college credit is given for it, but it is used for college applications to recognize achievement. The SAT II is the most biased of the three exams, and is known for emphasizing liberal culture and matters of race and gender. The CLEP exam is probably the least biased on the three.
 
Each of these College Board exams can be taken as often as one likes, though it is difficult to take the AP exam more than once because it is offered only once a year, and it is expensive to retake the CLEP exam. The SAT II, which is cheaper, is the easiest to take more than once and colleges only look at the highest score.
 There is absolutely no requirement to take any of these College Board exams as part of this course, and references to the exams are used more as a way of helping you see the "big picture," as in how much time should be spent on a particular period or historical topic. Our class has only two required, multiple-choice exams: a midterm and a final. This course will also help students improve their test-taking skills on multiple-choice exams. We will also have weekly homework assignments consisting of short-answer questions.
 

== What Students Find Challenging About History ==

Students find the following aspects of American history challenging:

* interpreting political cartoons
* keeping the different periods of American history separate, yet connected; seeing the trends
* understanding the importance of economic issues in shaping history
* improving speed in reading and retaining historical information, such as answering history questions quickly
* dealing with [[liberal]] bias in the selection and presentation of questions on College Board exams:
** denial of [[Christian]] and [[conservative]] achievement
** overemphasis on [[liberal]]s and their beliefs, and denial of their failures
** obsession with materialism and inborn characteristics like race and gender

Common mistakes by students in history courses include:

* failure to recognize that American politics is always a battle between two sides
* memorizing dates without understanding the sequence of events (exams rarely ask about dates, but do ask about sequence)
* getting bogged down in detail and failing to see the big picture
* misunderstanding questions
* forgetting that people in the past were similar in nature to people today; they were motivated by religion, money, power, etc., and laziness has always been a problem

== The Key to Mastering History ==

The key to mastering history is to find what you like and understand, and then use it as your foundation to learn everything else. In other words, first find and learn what you like, and then learn everything else by connecting it to what you know. Use the same technique that we all use to for directions: pick a landmark or a place that you know how to get to, and then figure out how to go from there to where you need to go.
 
For example, if you are most interested in religion, then learn about the 13 colonies based on their different attitudes towards religion. If you are most interested in one colony, then learn about it and how it relates to other colonies. If you like military history, then use that as your starting point.
 
Perhaps you like politics the most. In that case, you'll want to memorize the presidents and leaders of Congress, and relate historical events to their times in office. Or perhaps you enjoy legal issues, and reading about what the courts do. If so, then you'll want to focus your attention on the major rulings of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] throughout American history, and relate other historical events to those decisions.
 
On the SAT II U.S. History exam, the breakdown by subject matter is as follows:
 Political History - 32-36%
 Economic History - 18-20%
 Social History - 18-22%
 Cultural and Intellectual History - 10-12%
 Foreign Policy - 13-17%

The biggest part of the exam by far is politics, mostly concerning what happened in the federal government in [[Washington, D.C.]].

The "cultural and intellectual history" portion seems important to the exam but actually it is mostly cultural rather than intellectual history, and the questions are liberal in nature (e.g., asking about an artist who liberals like). Also, what counts as "economic history" is not what you might expect. There are almost no questions about the [[conservative]] gold standard, for example, even though that issue the political scene throughout history (and was even an issue in [[Ron Paul]]'s campaign for presidency in 2008). Instead, questions about economic history on the SAT II are likely to be about unions, the treatment of workers, alleged corruption of big business, and gender and racial issues.

Notice what is missing on the College Board exams: military history. Unfortunately, many educators in the [[United States]] dislike the military, and that bias shows up on the exams. No questions are there about battles or key military strategies and decisions. The only time the military shows up on these exams is when they have a political impact, and then they qualify as political history.

== Periods in American History ==

American history can be broken into about 20 time periods:

* settlement by paleo-indians
* discovery by Europeans, exploration by Europeans and settlement by Europeans
* colonial
* birth of the nation
* growth of the nation
* Jacksonian Democracy
* pre-Civil War
* [[Civil War]]
* [[Reconstruction]]
* [[Gilded Age]]
* [[Imperialism]]
* World War I
* Roaring Twenties and followed by the [[Great Depression]]
* World War II
* [[Cold War]]
** Korean War
** Vietnam War
* Reagan [[conservatism]]
* Post-Reagan Prosperity and the dot-com boom
* [[9/11]] and terrorism

On the SAT II in U.S History, the breakdown of questions is like this:

 Pre-Columbian history to 1789 - 20%
 1790 to 1898 - 40%
 1899 to the present - 40%

Hence nearly half the exam is on the last century on the SAT II, and only about 18 or 19 questions are devoted to all of pre-exploration, exploration, settlements, the colonies, the documents that founded the nation, the American Revolution, and the election of George Washington. That means there are no more than 3 or so questions (out of a 90-95 questions on the exam) about the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

== Why America? ==

Maybe we could write most of American history just by predicting what would probably happen. Imagine a big chunk of land in between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. There are people who live on the land. Ask yourself: why would Europeans want to go there? What reasons can you think of?
 
Search for gold. Convert the natives to Christianity. Conquer the natives. Obtain freedom. Why do your parents homeschool? For some of the same reasons. Go there for the same reason people climb a mountain: because it is there! Escape where you are. Set up a special religious community. Meet new people and make new friends. Trade goods with the people. Learn from the people. Have adventures and then write about them.
 
What is likely to happen if a bunch of Europeans go this land? Conflicts with the natives. Conflicts with other European countries. Conflicts with the mother country that sent the settlers. New opportunities for improvements, for new products, for new businesses, for new religions, for new systems of government.
 
Who is going to pay for exploration and settlement? Kings. Investors. Do-gooders. Churches. Mostly nobody.
 
Who is going to do the hard labor needed to set up a new community, like chopping down trees, working the farms, constructing buildings? There is almost no money to pay anyone. Families might do some. [[Indentured servants]]. Slaves.
 
It also helps to look for unifying themes to organize events in your mind. One theme that helps explain American history works well is the overall expansion of Christianity, for 2000 years. Why did [[Christopher Columbus]] and other explorers risk their lives to come to the New World? To spread Christianity. Why did families then risk their lives to settle here? To establish religious communities free of persecution. Two hundred years later, why did Massachusetts prohibit slavery and why did abolitionists President [[John Quincy Adams]] devote their lives to ending slavery? Because their religious values told them slavery was wrong.
 
There are other possible themes also. How about the desire to make more money, or make some money? How about the urge for self-government, to be in charge of oneself free from a monarchy? How about the advance of technology and its affect on how we live? There are many possible themes to American history and we will have fun debates about them.
 
From 1789 until today, we have had an American President. He is not more important than others. If I had to name the ten most important Americans in history, I would only include one president in the list (the first one, [[George Washington]]). But memorizing the list of 43 presidents can help you organize all the other facts. When someone asks me what was happening in 1962, then I think of who was president and then remember the issues of that time. The presidents become like drawers, one per president, filled with issues and events.
 
But before 1789 there was no president. How are we going to organize that? One way is to focus on the three most important colonies, [[Virginia]] (1607), [[Massachusetts]] (1620) and [[Pennsylvania]] (1681), and relate the other 11 colonies and events to them. Another way is to look at the battles that occurred before the [[American Revolution]], such as the [[French and Indian War]] in 1754-60.
 
Regardless, by the end of this course, you will be able to hear an event and describe what was going on at that time. You will be able to tell me what happened before the event, and what happened afterwards.
 
Don’t try to memorize hundreds of dates. Instead, when you see a date, think what happened before and after it. There are only about ten dates that you need to know. All other dates, such as those in the event list, are there just for the purpose of ordering events. For example, no one will ask you when Georgia was founded as a colony. But you may be asked whether it was the first or last colony founded. (It was the last colony established.) Another example: [[Quebec]] was founded in 1608. Don’t remember the 1608, but remember that Quebec was founded one year after [[Jamestown]] was established (1607 – one of the few dates you should memorize!)
 
If you have a good memory, then memorize the facts. If memorization is difficult for you, then focus on the trends and movements in history. This course gives you four different ways to learn the material: (1) the lectures, (2) Conservapedia, (3) the event list and (4) the homework assignments. Different students will learn better from some approaches than others. It’s your job to find what works best for you. At the end your progress will be measured by multiple choice exams.
 
This class is a different approach to American history than most courses that take all year. Learning in a simple and quick manner can sometimes be better. It’s easier to see how events relate to each other. It’s easier to see the big picture. When you want to find your way somewhere, do you want a road map that has every single detail and building on it? No, that is too hard to read. You want a map that has the important things on it. Same with studying history: don’t allow yourself to be sidetracked by unimportant details. Focus on the big stuff.

== Settlement ==
Paleo-indian peoples migrated to the Americas in four main periods of migration, beginning 15000 years ago and lasting until 4000 years ago, stabilizing populations in the mainland and surrounding islands over the following period and developing a wealth of culture and unique advancements. Some of these, such as the Adena burial mounds and Mississippian platform towns, have lasted even into the current era.<ref>Melissa L. Meyer, Dean R. Snow, Charles L. Cohen, Russell Thornton, Donald A. Grinde Jr., Leah Dilworth "Indian History and Culture" The Oxford Companion to United States History. Paul S. Boyer, ed. Oxford University Press 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Tampa. 4 August 2008 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t119.e0758-s0002></ref>

== Exploration ==

Starting in the Middle Ages, Christian Europe began to use its knowledge, wealth and [[faith]] to extend move beyond its horizons. Christian Europeans fought the Holy [[Crusades]] from 1095 to 1291 to protect pilgrims to [[Jerusalem]] against Moslem attacks. Some Europeans were motivated to spread the [[Gospel]]. Others were motivated by a desire to increase their wealth, such as by finding gold. Supporting both types of people was increased knowledge about science and geography: Europeans knew that they could reach the Orient by traveling West '''''around''''' the world. What they did not know is what they would find, if anything, by sailing West, before they reached the Orient.
 
It took enormous courage, determination and financial support to sail West into the complete unknown. It also took more than a desire to get rich, because there were easier ways to make money. That additional desire was a passion to spread Christianity to new civilizations. In 1482, a determined Christian Italian explorer named [[Christopher Columbus]] sought financing to sail west in order to reach India. He tried Portugal for raising money, but it already had its own successful explorers. Why would Portugal need Columbus? Portugal declined to support him, and Columbus turned to Spain, which was now Christian after having driven the Muslims out. In 1492, Spain funded Columbus' daring proposal to sail West to reach the Orient.
 
Before we describe this further, however, it is necessary to note that around A.D. 1000, the Scandinavian [[Leif Ericson]] discovered [[Vinland]] where the present [[Newfoundland]] is, and even founded a small colony that ultimately failed. There appears to be no evidence that they settled further south, in [[New England]]: "People have been looking hard for hundreds of years and there is no archaeological evidence in this part [New England]— it's certainly possible, the Vikings were incredible boat handlers — '''but there is no evidence'''," observed one university history professor.<ref>http://farshores.org/a04viki.htm</ref>.
 
So back to what Columbus did achieve. He set sail in three ships. First sighted land in late 1492. On Christmas eve, December 24, 1492, one of Columbus's ship, the [[Santa Maria]], reached the island of [[Haiti]]. Columbus named the settlement “La Navidad,” meaning “The Nativity,” and dropped off 40 men with a promise to return to them the next year. Columbus then wrote to the King and Queen of Spain the following in his Journal: “In all the world there can be no better or gentler people. Your Highnesses should feel great joy, because presently they will be Christians, and instructed in the good manners of your realms.”
 
But he had grossly underestimated the size of the world, and when he reached San Salvador, Haiti (Hispaniola) and Cuba he thought he reached the Far East. So he called the natives Indians. He left some men there but they were killed by the natives. Columbus reported back that new people had been found to evangelize with Christianity.
 
Soon Spain and Portugal divided the Americas with the [[Line of Demarcation]], drawn by the Pope. The [[Treaty of Tordesillas]] moved the line in 1493. It was a North-South line that gave Spain North America and the western part of South America, but Portugal received Brazil. That’s why Brazilians speak Portugese to this day.
 
<discuss how Columbus returned to Europe, and then found the same location on his second trip> Columbus sailed on three subsequent voyages, but never achieved his goal and died discredited. What was his motivation? Primarily to spread Christianity, but also to find gold to reward his sponsors and fund further expeditions. Ultimately, his purpose focused on a dream to liberate Jerusalem, as the Crusades attempted.
 
What influence did Columbus have? He gave Spain [[Haiti]], [[Puerto Rico]], [[Jamaica]] and [[Cuba]] by 1515. Spain then settled Florida (St. Augustine), and later Santa Fe, New Mexico. Spanish [[Hernando Cortes]] conquered the Aztecs in central Mexico (1521), and [[Francisco Pizarro]] conquered the Incas of Peru (1531). They seized much gold in the process.
 
But while Spanish soldiers came to America, Spanish women did not. So there were not many distinct, permanent Spanish settlements. Also, the Spanish were also entirely subservient to their King back in Europe. Separate governments did not develop.
 
Other European powers were exploring North America also. The French explored the St. Lawrence and settled Quebec, where French is still spoken to this day. The French also explored the Mississippi, and settled the towns of Saint Louis (named after a French king) and New Orleans.
 
The Dutch explored and settled the Hudson River, and calling that region New Netherlands and buying and naming Manhattan New Amsterdam.
 
The Swedish settled in Delaware; Germans settled later in Pennsylvania.
 
Explorer [[John Cabot]] discovered the North American coastline for England in 1497. But no settlements were attempted by the English for about another 100 years.
 
The reason is that North America didn’t have what the explorers were looking for. America lacked valuable natural resources. There was no gold, which is what Europe wanted. In 1576, the British explorer [[Martin Frobisher]] even hauled 200 tons of material back to England, hoping it was gold. It wasn’t.
 
There wasn’t anything else of value to Europe either. New England was too rocky near the coast to develop farms. The mid-Atlantic region or Chesapeake area, where Maryland and Virginia are today, was infested with malaria. Winters were cold, and summers were hot.
 
There was no livestock – no horses and no cattle, until the Spanish imported them. Florida was a swamp, and did not even have orange trees until the Spanish explorer [[Ponce de Leon]] planted them in 1515.
 
North America was a joke to many in England. Its Parliament passed a law in 1597 authorizing the deportations of convicted criminals to America and other colonies. In 1605, a satirical book entitled “Eastward Ho!” was published that mocked attempts to settle in Virginia.
 
Think about it. Would your family uproot and move, at great risk to your lives, to a place that had no civilization or anything of value? Do we see families moving to the middle of the desert in Arizona, or to cheap land in the middle of Wyoming? Only very rarely.
 
England’s first settlement of North America was in 1585, on [[Roanoke Island]] in Virginia. More than 100 families settled there. In a few years they had all disappeared, and it’s a mystery to this day what happened. They could have died from disease or starvation. They could have been killed by Indians. No one knows. It’s called the “[[Lost Colony]].”
 
About the same time, however, England had a huge success in Europe. Spain had ruled the high seas for most of the 1500s, until England destroyed the Spanish Armada in 1588. That left England with the potential to gain control of the oceans and world trade over the seas. England could protect its colonies against other European powers.

== Settlements ==

Some Englishmen invested money in what was called a “[[joint stock company]],” which was similar to a modern-day corporation, for the purpose of finding gold or other treasures. Called the “[[Virginia Company]],” it established the first permanent settlement for England in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. It was a disaster and the investors never received a profit. The men who settled in Jamestown were gentlemen who expected to get rich with little effort. They lacked a common purpose and wasted their time searching for treasure, or simply doing nothing at all. Unwilling to work to grow their own food, they almost starved to death.
 
'''1607''' is one of the few dates you should memorize. This was after the Spanish had settled in Florida, but before the French had settled in Quebec. So remember the sequence in settling America: Spanish, English, and then French.
 
Initially, from 1607-1608, the Jamestown settlement lived under socialism, whereby the group shared its food with everyone no matter how much or little he worked. This economic system was a complete failure as no one had any incentive to do any work. In September 1608, [[John Smith]] was elected president of the governing council. He ruled for a year and installed a conservative economic system: “don’t work, don’t eat!” Under this new system, food production increased and by 1614 there was plenty to eat.
 
But Jamestown settlers were there to find fortune, and there was not any gold or silver. Indians had discovered tobacco and Europeans were beginning to become addicted on it. Many Europeans recognized that tobacco was bad for them, and some wanted to prohibit it. In 1613, Englishman [[John Rolfe]], who married the Indian [[Pocahontas]] in Virginia, began growing tobacco to export to Europe. The King banned the growing of tobacco in England, so Rolfe had no competition. Cash began pouring in for the tobacco, and this so-called “cash crop” became highly profitable for the Jamestown settlers. Tobacco continued to be very profitable throughout a large part of American history, particularly in the south.
 
Despite profiting from the sale of tobacco, the Jamestown settlement had other difficulties. It had made peace with Indian [[Chief Powhatan]], whose daughter Pocahontas married settler [[John Rolfe]]. But after Powhatan died, his brother led a sudden attack on the settlers in 1622, massacring 357 out of a total of only 1200.
 
But Indian strife was only one of many problems. Labor was in short supply for working the fields. Settlers began importing indentured servants, who received free travel to the colonies in exchange for a promise to work for seven years. But Virginia also turned to a cheaper approach to labor: importing slaves from West Africa beginning in 1619 to work the crops.
 
In 1624 King James (of “King James Bible” fame) took back the Virginia colony and established it as a royal charter. King James was left with a problem colony that enslaved workers and grew tobacco. More trouble lay ahead. In 1676, Nathanial Bacon was a Virginia settler who decided to take the law into his own hands. He first massacred Indians in western Virginia, then took his small army of rebels to Jamestown, where he burned it down because the governor had refused to allow him to kill the Indians. Bacon himself soon died from a disease. The governor returned and hung two dozen of his supporters. How Virginia produced four of our first five presidents is amazing. You can think about this and answer on the homework assignment.
 
By then there were many other settlements in North America. The most important were two settlements in Massachusetts, which has a much harsher climate than Virginia, particularly in the wintertime. But their motivation was religious, not financial. Puritans were unhappy with the direction of the Church of England, feeling it was too much like the Catholic Church. Two different groups of Puritans set out for North America. One group wanted to purify the Church of England by remaining in the Church but in a more perfect community. The other group wanted to separate completely from the Church of England. Both groups landed by chance within 100 miles of each other in Massachusetts.
 
The first group, the “Pilgrims”, set sail from Plymouth, England and intended to land near the mouth of the Hudson River (now New York City), which was the northern part of the Virginia Company’s territory. But their ship, the “Mayflower”, was blown off course and they landed up on Cape Cod in Massachusetts in 1620. Outside of any official government, they decided on the boat to establish the first civil government in North America by signing the Mayflower Compact. They landed in December, and half died due to disease in their first New England winter. But the following spring a friendly Indian introduced them to corn, or maize, the marvelous food discovered by Indians. They had a plentiful harvest that fall, and celebrated their first Thanksgiving with the Indians that fall. In 1623, their new Governor [[William Bradford]] gave every member a plot of land and allowed the free market to develop. By 1624, the community was doing so well that it was actually making more food than it could consume and began exporting its corn. [[William Bradford]] and [[Edward Winslow]] kept diaries during the settling of Plymouth, which are recorded in a small, but fascinating book called ''Mourt's Relation''.
 
Corn is a tremendous contribution by Indians to the world that increasingly sustains peoples worldwide. Corn did not exist in Europe during the Middle Ages. Cheap and easy to grow, corn has become one of the most popular foods worldwide, rivaling rice and soybeans. For that we can thank the Indians.
 
Encouraged by the success of the Pilgrims, a new groups called the [[Massachusetts Bay Company]] obtained a royal charter and sent a larger group of Puritans to settle in New England, though this time with the purpose of purifying the [[Church of England]] with a more perfect community than in England itself. It was well-financed and led by the very capable [[John Winthrop]], who had been trained at Oxford. It landed in Salem, Massachusetts in 1629 and immediately moved to Boston Harbor. It never looked back, thriving almost immediately despite the harsh winter climate. Within five years the [[Great Migration]] of religiously motivated settlers followed them from England. Their numbers and power grew. By the 1640s, the community was participating in robust trade by sea with England, the West Indies and on occasion West Africa.
 
What is a “colony”? “Colony” defined: “a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state.” (Merriam-Webster dictionary)
 
The growing colonies in Massachusetts and Virginia could not have been more different from each other, and it is remarkable they ever joined the same country. Massachusetts was highly religious and motivated by faith. Virginia was marginally religious and motivated by money. Massachusetts, more religious, had vocal opponents of slavery and neighboring Vermont was the first state to prohibit slavery in its Constitution, in 1777. Virginia welcomed slavery. Massachusetts grew the Indian crop of corn. Virginia grew the Indian crop of tobacco. Massachusetts settlers made greater efforts to get along with Indians and treat them fairly. Massachusetts attracted new settlers based on religion. Virginia attracted new settlers based on the “headright system,” by which land (usually 50 acres) was given to those who paid for the passage to the colony of an immigrant, who usually agreed to work as an “indentured servant” for free for fixed number of years on the land.
 
The stark contrast between Massachusetts and Virginia would ultimately lead, nearly 250 years later, to the Civil War.
 
While Virginia institution of slavery was spreading to the colonies of [[Maryland]], [[Carolina]] and, later, [[Georgia]], [[Massachusetts]] was spreading a different sort of institution: religious intensity. [[Roger Williams]] was an extraordinary individual of such great faith that found even the Puritans lacking in their treatment of Indians. Williams also disagreed with how the Puritans combined government and religion, and had even executed several Christians based on differences with the Puritan faith. Williams was fabulous with languages and learned to communicate with many different Indian tribes, and even lived with them at times in spite of the danger. He left the Puritans in Massachusetts and started the colony of Rhode Island, which to this day has prided itself on its independence. Rhode Island was the only state to refuse to support a colonial tax on imports after the Revolution, and the only colony to refuse to ratify the Constitution until long after [[George Washington]] was President. Rhode Island, under Roger Williams’ direction, separated state government from religion. No mandatory church attendance, and no funding of churches with tax revenues were allowed in Rhode Island.
 
But while Roger Williams was highly moral, others in Rhode Island made it the biggest importer of slaves in all the colonies. So censoring religion may have a price. In contrast, in the larger Massachusetts, taxes funded religious institutions for nearly 200 years, until at least the 1830s. It successfully prohibited slavery. Another devout Christian who disagreed with the Puritans and left them was named [[Anne Hutchinson]]. She, however, was later killed by Indians.
 
One prominent text claims, under “Rhode Island,” that “This belief [by Roger Williams] in the separation of church and state became a cornerstone of the American Constitution in 1787.” That is completely false. Roger Williams was long dead by 1787, and there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. Rhode Island did not even send any representatives to draft the Constitution and it had no role in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. In fact, Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until after George Washington was elected president, and even then it took much arm-twisting to compel Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution. But some people want to keep religion out of government, and they refuse to admit that the First Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a national church by the government.
 
In between Massachusetts and Virginia there was a third approach: that taken by Pennsylvania. William Penn was another extraordinary Englishman. He converted to become a Quaker in England and began practicing that religion in violation of English law. He was arrested and prosecuted, but the jury refused to convict him. The king owed his father money, and gave the son what is today Pennsylvania. It was nothing but woods at the time. But William Penn founded his colony based on one principle: religious freedom for all. He advertised in Europe and attracted peoples of many nationalities in addition to the English.
 
Penn was very kind to the Indians and soon had the most popular colony in America. Philadelphia became America’s greatest city, surpassing Boston in population in the 1700s. Only Pennsylvania and Maryland survived in the long-term under private ownership. Virtually all the other colonies were eventually taken over by the King of England, often due to troubles that arose in the colony.
 
There were other colonies. Pennsylvania was founded over 50 years *after* Virginia and Massachusetts. Georgia was founded over 50 *years* after Pennsylvania, which means over 100 years after Virginia and Massachusetts. Philanthropist [[James Oglethorpe]] founded Savannah in Georgia in 1733 for poor debtors in jails of England. Also created a buffer colony between South Carolina and Spanish Florida. Oglethorpe was very religious and very strict. Too strict for the King, who took over the colony in 1751. The colony was not nearly as strong and developed as the other colonies, so the other colonies did not take it very seriously.
 
Topics for discussion:
*Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?
*Did the Vikings settle North America before Columbus did?
 
[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:American History Lecture One

2008-08-05T20:49:38Z

Googly: Vikings (reprise)

This lecture was improved, and now the changes have been removed. Why?

I made some changes to the American History lecture. My changes were deleted. Why?

They're used for Christian homeschooling and I don't think that the changes made are consistent with their paradigm. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 19:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Several edits removed credit from Christianity from the lecture. For example, edits removed this:

:The very first words of the [[Mayflower Compact]] were “In ye name of God Amen.” Just as our Nation’s founders started with a prayer, so do we. Prayer clears out the noise in our minds. We are looking for knowledge and inspiration here, and that comes from God. In most countries parents do not have the freedom even to have a class like this. The main reason we have freedoms is because Americans are more devoted to religion than in other countries.

Such edits are improper. I can't confirm the commenter above did those edits, but someone did (I don't know who the commenter above is, since he didn't sign his comment).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Starving Time? ==

Since the "Starving Time" is by most historians considered to have lasted from about 1609-1610-11, how could John Smith, who left Virginia in 1609, have become a leader of the colony afterwards? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: There was an earlier "starving time," but the lecture has changed on this point anyway. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

It has not been changed on this point. It still reads:

"From 1607-1611, the Jamestown settlement lived under socialism, whereby the group shared its food with everyone no matter how much or little he worked. This economic system was a complete failure as no one had any incentive to do any work. John Smith arrived from England and he installed a conservative economic system: “don’t work, don’t eat!” Magically, by 1614 there was suddenly plenty to eat."

Now, first of all, pretty much EVERY source I've examined uses the "Starving Time" to refer to the hard times of 1609-10 or 11. What earlier "starving time" do you have in mind, and what source refers to it as "The Starving Time?" Second, since Smith left for good in 1609, exactly how did he manage to change the Virginia settlement from a socialits to a free market economic system AFTER 1611 so that "magically, by 1614 there was suddenly enough to eat."
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Virginia had a "Straving time" almost the entire first decade of settlement. In 1613, George Percy led an attack on some natives, and despite the fact the colonists were starving, burned their cornfields (See Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom)

The above does not address my point, which is how Captain John Smith could have overseen conversion to a "free market" Jamestown economy in or after 1611 when in fact he left in 1609?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Correct. Smith did help the colony survive its early years, but he did not make Jamestown an economic success. That did not occur until nearly a decade after he departed, with the development of tobacco as a cash crop.

Which is unfortunately NOT what it says here in this Lecture. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:11, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. I editied this lecture before (and I did return to correct many of the errors), but the powers that be at Conservapedia have "locked" the lecture, somehow thinking that improvement=vandalism.

--Columbus' Landfall?--

Columbus did not land on Christmas eve. His ships sighted land on October 11th, 1492, and landed the next day. (see Columbus, Journal of First Voyage, at http://www.americanjourneys.org/, pages 108-110)[user:dw1237200)

== Slavery in Massachusetts ==

"Massachusetts did not allow slavery."

That is absolutely untrue. The Puritans in Massachussetts kept slaves and dealt in slaves until the late 18th century. Tituba, one of the first people accused in the 1692 Salem Witch trials, was a slave. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:30, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: Support, please? By the way, I note how you slipped in "dealt in slaves." No one denied that there was a slave trade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:58, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, I was trying to be fair. While Massachusetts dealt in slaves, mostly in Indian slaves and slaves from the West Indies, they were soon overtaken in that trade by Rhode Island. I do find myself musing, however, about the presumed moral superiority of a colony that you claim "did not allow slavery" (In fact, it did for well over a century) not being averse to making a few bucks off it.

::On to the cites:

::From THE PILGRIM READER,George Willison, Doubleday and Company 1953

::"For years later, in 1641, the Bay formally recognized the institution of slavery in its CODE OF FUNDAMENTALS OR BODY OF LIBERTIES, anticipating Virginia by many years in legally instituting the "peculiar institution" being the first of the English colonies to do so.

::There were Indian and Negro slaves in the Plymouth colony as early as 1646, when the authorities threatened to sell Indians or exchange them for Negroes as punishment for offenses..In 1706, Cotton Mather noted in his diary, "Received a singular blessing in the gift of a likely slave, which was a smile of heaven on this family."...slaves continued to be sold in the Boston market as late as 1788, when the traffic was forbidden."

::In short, Massachussets not only allowed slavery -- they were the first colony to institute it. Your later claim about the "Virginia institution of slavery" "spreading to the colonies of Maryland, Carolina" etc., as if Virginia had been responsible for introducing that "peculiar institution" is misleading.

::From NARRATIVES OF THE WITCHCRAFT CASES (1648-1706), edited by George Lincoln Burr, Charles Scribner Sons, 1914 Note:

::Notes: "The Rev. Samuel Parris (1653-1720)..had lived for a time in Barbadoes whence he had brought back with him THE TWO SLAVES, John and Tituba...Sara Good, who with Sarah Osburn and Parris's SLAVE-WOMAN TITUBA..."(Emphasis added)

::"...where an Indian Man attended us, he shewed several Scars, that seemed as if they had been long there, and shewed them as done by Witchcraft, and acquainted us that his Wife WHO ALSO WAS A SLAVE (emphasis added) was imprisoned for Witchcraft..."--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::: OK, you're right, there were some slaves there. But the basic point is correct: Massachusetts disfavored slavery (neighboring Vermont was the first to ban it), while Virginia welcomed it. I've made the appropriate change. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:14, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Dealing in slaves, owning slaves, and being the first English colony to institutionalize it does not indicate a strong "disfavor" of the practice during the Puritan era.

::::How in the world could you do research on the subject of slavery in the US and be unaware that it was introduced to the English Colonies in Massachusetts? How could you study the Puritans and be unaware that they kept slaves? Did you never hear of the Salem Witch Trials and Tituba? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:26, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::: PF Fox, Massachusetts was the source of the abolitionist movement. While you have shown there were a few slaves there, and I have corrected the lecture, the anti-slavery sentiment was stronger in Massachusetts than any other colony.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actually, it was Quakers -- a group the Puritans loathed and abused -- who founded the first abolitionist organization in the US, and that was in Philadelphia. Boston was certainly later a focal point for the abolitionist movement, but it's not accurate to call Massachusetts the "source," and I'd very much like to see some backup for the claim that "the anti-slavery sentiment was stronger in Massachusetts than any other colony." Credit for that should probably go to Pennsylvannia. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:54, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Not directly apropos, but when the Quaker preacher Elias Hicks (from Long Island, New York) was dying, mostly paralyzed, in 1830, "'a quilted cotton coverlet was inadvertently placed upon his bed. As the weather was severely cold, his children... used their constant endeavors to keep this coverlet upon him. But they perceived by his actions that this coverlet annoyed him, because with his hand, which was not paralyzed, he continually attempted to removed it, as something exceedingly offensive. It was at least suggested by a friend present, that the reason why he removed it, was on account of its being the product of slavery.' When... a wool blanket was substituted, Elias Hicks, feeling the wool with his fingers, nodded his pleasure." Bliss Forbush: ''Elias Hicks, Quaker Liberal,'' 1956, Columbia University Press, p. 288. The Quakers abandoned slavery among themselves by a very long, slow, relatively quiet process of personal conversion. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:43, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Thanks Dpbsmith, and PF Fox, for your information. I don't have an axe to grind here. But everything I've read suggests that the source and power of the abolitionist movement was Massachusetts. [[John Quincy Adams]]. [[Charles Sumner]]. Even [[Oliver Wendell Holmes]] in his youth. It think abolutionist newspapers were printed there also. I don't any of that coming out of Philadelphia, but I'm happy to consider more evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:07, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::And what you've read has not mentioned the role of Quakers in the abolition movement? The Pennsylvannia Abolition Society? (http://www.hsp.org/default.aspx?id=792) --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Roger Williams? ==

How does Roger Williams being dead when the constitution was written nullify his influence? Are you saying once someone is dead, their writings and philosophies can have NO influence on anyone? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:28, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

By the way, here's a cite to explain how it is Williams' concept of separation of church and state influenced our constitution -- long after Williams was dead.

"In 1787 twelve states accepted the constitution; one did not. The one hold-out was the smallest and weakest of them all, Rhode Island; and the issue was religious liberty.

The Rhode Island delegation pled, "That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored, or established by law in preference to others."

For three years the national union remained incomplete and without a constitution. Then Thomas Jefferson spoke to the delegates in support of Rhode Island: "By the Constitution you have made, you have protected the government from the people, but what have you done to protect the people from the government?"

http://www.biblebay.org/article.php?id=71. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:44, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your comments, but Rhode Island refused to ratify the Constitution for economic reasons, not religious ones. Rhode Island had control of imports and wanted to continue to tax them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:49, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::That does not alter the fact that Rhode Island's approach to religious liberty -- an approach owed primarily to Roger Williams -- was adopted by Jefferson in the drafting of the constitution. Again, is it your contention that once someone has died, they can exert NO influence? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

==Fun?==
Is that a guarantee? Also, how much does the class cost? If you cannot disclose here, just email me. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 12:32, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

: Sure, it will be fun. Learning is much more effective when it is enjoyable.

: The in-person class is a total cost of $250 per student, including all the expenses, materials, books, copying, everything. That is cheaper than the taxpayer-funded community college, and I may not even make a minimum wage on the class. Also, in contrast with public schools, I provide a discount for each sibling to give the large families a break. Participation here, of course, is free.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:40, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

::Uhh, *hopes someone will hire him soon so he can pay for this class*. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 13:39, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Also, for the assignment, how many grammatical edits would I have to do to equivocate to those 10 edits? [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 18:28, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

: I've unlocked the content page. What do you think is fair - perhaps 3 grammatical improvements equal one substantive edit?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:36, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
::Sure! Hmm... and what if someone adds to an article for this assignment, but his grammar isn't perfect. If I fix the grammar, does that count? [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 11:38, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

==What's going on here?==
Is this meant to be an actual lecture, or some sort of trailer for the real lectures? Currently it reads like a failed high school essay. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:48, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==Leif Ericson==

Leif Ericson reaching Vinland is a "liberal myth"? It seems more like a proven historical fact to me. There's even a national historic site at L'anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland where his settlement was. There has been extensive archaeological research there, and no credible historian denies it.
[[User:CogitoErgoSum|CogitoErgoSum]] 12:13, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Like CogitoErgoSum, I'm frankly staggered at this assertion. Why is it such a big deal to the author of these lectures that the first Europeans to invade America should be Christian? What next? The Romans were already Christians when they invaded Britain??? Really, this is the kind of flat-earthery that makes outsiders love to laugh at Conservapedia. [[User:Googly|Googly]] 18:53, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Given that the history professor quoted was talking only about the likelihood of Viking settlements or presence in the area of New England, and the article accepts the authenticity of the find of the short-lived Viking settlement at L'anse aux Meadows, shouldn't the reference be changed from the farshores website to, "Mr. Schlafly said so."?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

I think Mr Schafly should be very wary about reverting contributions which make this lecture state (correctly) that the Vikings colonised Newfoundland, for which there's a great deal of historical and archaeological evidence. He has used a quote from a professor who has not published primary research in Viking studies (according to his CV on the UNH website: <ref>http://www.unh.edu/history/media/History_faculty_cvs/bolstercv1107.pdf</ref>), stating that there's no evidence that Vikings settled in New England, to support his - Mr Schafly's - personal opinion that Vikings didn't settle in ''Newfoundland''. I don't see how anyone with aspirations to objectivity can contribute to CP if the conclusions from decades of research are to be cast aside simply because Mr Schafly doesn't like them and is prepared to cherry-pick, distort and misuse scholarly articles to support his personal views.

I'm now going to correct the Newfoundland references in this and related articles again and if Mr Schafly or his friends revert them or block my edit access to CP again on account of them, I think that would be pretty much definite proof that this isn't a website for conservative opinion in general but one which has no respect for scholarship and simply exists to promote Mr Schafly's personal opinions, however far they depart from reality. In which case, why would anyone trust anything else Mr Schafly says? Why, for example, should evolutionary biologists pay any attention at all to him if he himself is prepared to misuse scholarly conclusions so blatantly?

I'm still utterly baffled why it matters so much to Mr Schafly that the Vikings didn't colonise North America. Why is this a 'liberal point of view'? Any clues????? [[User:Googly|Googly]] 16:49, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
==Native Americans==

It seems like there needs to be some more material devoted to the presence of the native Americans at the beginning of this narrative, because in the current draft it's almost an afterthought. Where did they come from? When and How did they get to the Americas, and have enough time to build cultures that spanned both continents? Where did the natives go as the colonies expand into areas long-settled by the native Americans - were they assimilated, displaced, or both? These are significant points that should be included, since a course on American History can't ignore the original Americans. The Europeans profoundly changed North American history, but they were explorers, immigrants and conquerors of settled lands, not the discoverers of barren ones. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:10, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

: Good point that the lecture should have more about the Indians, but the discussion has to be factual. I'm realizing that liberal distortions exploit speculation concerning unproven origins, but I only teach demonstrable facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:22, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Newfoundland and Labrador

2008-08-04T13:30:15Z

Googly: Added l'A-o-M

'''Newfoundland''' is an island off the [[Canada|Canadian]] mainland, and is the oldest English dependency in the [[New World]]. The [[Vikings]] temporarily established a settlement in 1013AD at [[l'Anse-aux-Meadows]]. Merchants from [[England]] fished the [[Grand Banks]] as early as 1481. It became a self governing dominion in 1855 and joined confederation in 1949.

The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador includes all of the Island of Newfoundland, as well as an area of mainland, Labrador. In general usage Canadian citizens call the province "Newfoundland" still. People from Newfoundland are often called "newfies". The capital is [[St. John's]]. The population in 1991 was 568,474; 2.1% of the national population, by the 2006 census it had declined to 505,469<ref>2006 Canadian Census : [http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=PR&Code1=10&Geo2=PR&Code2=01&Data=Count&SearchText=Newfoundland&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=]</ref> or 1.6% in part because of poor economic opportunities in the Territory. It has an area of 405,720 km2. The per capita provincial income in 1992 was $15,890.<ref>[Reader's Digest Atlas of Canada, 1995, pg 51]</ref>.

== References ==
<references/>

== External Links ==
* [http://www.newfoundlandlabrador.com/ Newfoundland Tourism]

[[Category:Islands]][[Category:Canada]]

Viking

2008-08-04T13:29:31Z

Googly: Correcting stuff on Newfoundland

American History Lecture One

2008-08-04T13:23:09Z

Googly: /* Exploration */ Correcting section on the Vikings

Welcome to "American history," also known as "United States history." This will become your favorite course. It has something for everyone: heroes, villains, criminal trials, funny mistakes, competitions, politics, literature, gold, silver, war, and peace. You name it, American history has it. We are going to have some fun in this course.
 
We will start without a textbook, to encourage students to be more proactive in learning history. If we can find a good textbook or reference source, then we'll distribute it a few weeks into the course.
 
The Pilgrims came to America with a group not much bigger than our class, traveling a boat called the "Mayflower" that was not much bigger than our classroom. Just before arriving on shore, they agreed to a written agreement or "compact" to bind them after they arrived. The very first words of their "[[Mayflower Compact]]" were "In ye name of God Amen."
 
Just as our Nation's founders started with a prayer, so do we. Prayer clears out the noise in our minds. We are looking for knowledge and inspiration here, and that comes from God. In most countries parents do not have the freedom even to have a class like this. The main reason we have freedoms is because America was established on principles of liberty, and religious devotion in America remains among the strongest in the world today, as it was 250 years ago.
 
Today is a critical time in our nation's history, and this class may be as important to the future as the Mayflower voyage was. Let's begin.

== College Board Exams ==

This course will give you the foundation for taking three different College Board exams (usually a student takes only one of the three): the [[CLEP]], the [[AP]], and the [[SAT II]]. The CLEP is a multiple-choice exam that is recognized by most (but not all) colleges as a way to earn college credit. It costs about $50 and is administered on computers at local colleges, usually once a month. The AP, or Advanced Placement exam, is given only once a year in May at local high schools, and is more expensive. It includes both multiple-choice and essay questions, and is used by different colleges to give credit for courses. In 2009, the AP exam for U.S. History is scheduled for Friday, May 9.
 
The SAT II in American History is an inexpensive multiple-choice exam that takes only an hour and is given at high schools on Saturdays once a month, October through June. No college credit is given for it, but it is used for college applications to recognize achievement. The SAT II is the most biased of the three exams, and is known for emphasizing liberal culture and matters of race and gender. The CLEP exam is probably the least biased on the three.
 
Each of these College Board exams can be taken as often as one likes, though it is difficult to take the AP exam more than once because it is offered only once a year, and it is expensive to retake the CLEP exam. The SAT II, which is cheaper, is the easiest to take more than once and colleges only look at the highest score.
 There is absolutely no requirement to take any of these College Board exams as part of this course, and references to the exams are used more as a way of helping you see the "big picture," as in how much time should be spent on a particular period or historical topic. Our class has only two required, multiple-choice exams: a midterm and a final. This course will also help students improve their test-taking skills on multiple-choice exams. We will also have weekly homework assignments consisting of short-answer questions.
 

== What Students Find Challenging About History ==

Students find the following aspects of American history challenging:

* interpreting political cartoons
* keeping the different periods of American history separate, yet connected; seeing the trends
* understanding the importance of economic issues in shaping history
* improving speed in reading and retaining historical information, such as answering history questions quickly
* dealing with [[liberal]] bias in the selection and presentation of questions on College Board exams:
** denial of [[Christian]] and [[conservative]] achievement
** overemphasis on [[liberal]]s and their beliefs, and denial of their failures
** obsession with materialism and inborn characteristics like race and gender

Common mistakes by students in history courses include:

* failure to recognize that American politics is always a battle between two sides
* memorizing dates without understanding the sequence of events (exams rarely ask about dates, but do ask about sequence)
* getting bogged down in detail and failing to see the big picture
* misunderstanding questions
* forgetting that people in the past were similar in nature to people today; they were motivated by religion, money, power, etc., and laziness has always been a problem

== The Key to Mastering History ==

The key to mastering history is to find what you like and understand, and then use it as your foundation to learn everything else. In other words, first find and learn what you like, and then learn everything else by connecting it to what you know. Use the same technique that we all use to for directions: pick a landmark or a place that you know how to get to, and then figure out how to go from there to where you need to go.
 
For example, if you are most interested in religion, then learn about the 13 colonies based on their different attitudes towards religion. If you are most interested in one colony, then learn about it and how it relates to other colonies. If you like military history, then use that as your starting point.
 
Perhaps you like politics the most. In that case, you'll want to memorize the presidents and leaders of Congress, and relate historical events to their times in office. Or perhaps you enjoy legal issues, and reading about what the courts do. If so, then you'll want to focus your attention on the major rulings of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] throughout American history, and relate other historical events to those decisions.
 
On the SAT II U.S. History exam, the breakdown by subject matter is as follows:
 Political History - 32-36%
 Economic History - 18-20%
 Social History - 18-22%
 Cultural and Intellectual History - 10-12%
 Foreign Policy - 13-17%

The biggest part of the exam by far is politics, mostly concerning what happened in the federal government in [[Washington, D.C.]].

The "cultural and intellectual history" portion seems important to the exam but actually it is mostly cultural rather than intellectual history, and the questions are liberal in nature (e.g., asking about an artist who liberals like). Also, what counts as "economic history" is not what you might expect. There are almost no questions about the [[conservative]] gold standard, for example, even though that issue the political scene throughout history (and was even an issue in [[Ron Paul]]'s campaign for presidency in 2008). Instead, questions about economic history on the SAT II are likely to be about unions, the treatment of workers, alleged corruption of big business, and gender and racial issues.

Notice what is missing on the College Board exams: military history. Unfortunately, many educators in the [[United States]] dislike the military, and that bias shows up on the exams. No questions are there about battles or key military strategies and decisions. The only time the military shows up on these exams is when they have a political impact, and then they qualify as political history.

== Periods in American History ==

American history can be broken into about 20 time periods:

* discovery, exploration and settlements
* colonial
* birth of the nation
* growth of the nation
* Jacksonian Democracy
* pre-Civil War
* [[Civil War]]
* [[Reconstruction]]
* [[Gilded Age]]
* [[Imperialism]]
* World War I
* Roaring Twenties and followed by the [[Great Depression]]
* World War II
* [[Cold War]]
** Korean War
** Vietnam War
* Reagan [[conservatism]]
* Post-Reagan Prosperity and the dot-com boom
* [[9/11]] and terrorism

On the SAT II in U.S History, the breakdown of questions is like this:

 Pre-Columbian history to 1789 - 20%
 1790 to 1898 - 40%
 1899 to the present - 40%

Hence nearly half the exam is on the last century on the SAT II, and only about 18 or 19 questions are devoted to all of pre-exploration, exploration, settlements, the colonies, the documents that founded the nation, the American Revolution, and the election of George Washington. That means there are no more than 3 or so questions (out of a 90-95 questions on the exam) about the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

== Why America? ==

Maybe we could write most of American history just by predicting what would probably happen. Imagine a big chunk of land in between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. There are people who live on the land. Ask yourself: why would Europeans want to go there? What reasons can you think of?
 
Search for gold. Convert the natives to Christianity. Conquer the natives. Obtain freedom. Why do your parents homeschool? For some of the same reasons. Go there for the same reason people climb a mountain: because it is there! Escape where you are. Set up a special religious community. Meet new people and make new friends. Trade goods with the people. Learn from the people. Have adventures and then write about them.
 
What is likely to happen if a bunch of Europeans go this land? Conflicts with the natives. Conflicts with other European countries. Conflicts with the mother country that sent the settlers. New opportunities for improvements, for new products, for new businesses, for new religions, for new systems of government.
 
Who is going to pay for exploration and settlement? Kings. Investors. Do-gooders. Churches. Mostly nobody.
 
Who is going to do the hard labor needed to set up a new community, like chopping down trees, working the farms, constructing buildings? There is almost no money to pay anyone. Families might do some. [[Indentured servants]]. Slaves.
 
It also helps to look for unifying themes to organize events in your mind. One theme that helps explain American history works well is the overall expansion of Christianity, for 2000 years. Why did [[Christopher Columbus]] and other explorers risk their lives to come to the New World? To spread Christianity. Why did families then risk their lives to settle here? To establish religious communities free of persecution. Two hundred years later, why did Massachusetts prohibit slavery and why did abolitionists President [[John Quincy Adams]] devote their lives to ending slavery? Because their religious values told them slavery was wrong.
 
There are other possible themes also. How about the desire to make more money, or make some money? How about the urge for self-government, to be in charge of oneself free from a monarchy? How about the advance of technology and its affect on how we live? There are many possible themes to American history and we will have fun debates about them.
 
From 1789 until today, we have had an American President. He is not more important than others. If I had to name the ten most important Americans in history, I would only include one president in the list (the first one, [[George Washington]]). But memorizing the list of 43 presidents can help you organize all the other facts. When someone asks me what was happening in 1962, then I think of who was president and then remember the issues of that time. The presidents become like drawers, one per president, filled with issues and events.
 
But before 1789 there was no president. How are we going to organize that? One way is to focus on the three most important colonies, [[Virginia]] (1607), [[Massachusetts]] (1620) and [[Pennsylvania]] (1681), and relate the other 11 colonies and events to them. Another way is to look at the battles that occurred before the [[American Revolution]], such as the [[French and Indian War]] in 1754-60.
 
Regardless, by the end of this course, you will be able to hear an event and describe what was going on at that time. You will be able to tell me what happened before the event, and what happened afterwards.
 
Don’t try to memorize hundreds of dates. Instead, when you see a date, think what happened before and after it. There are only about ten dates that you need to know. All other dates, such as those in the event list, are there just for the purpose of ordering events. For example, no one will ask you when Georgia was founded as a colony. But you may be asked whether it was the first or last colony founded. (It was the last colony established.) Another example: [[Quebec]] was founded in 1608. Don’t remember the 1608, but remember that Quebec was founded one year after [[Jamestown]] was established (1607 – one of the few dates you should memorize!)
 
If you have a good memory, then memorize the facts. If memorization is difficult for you, then focus on the trends and movements in history. This course gives you four different ways to learn the material: (1) the lectures, (2) Conservapedia, (3) the event list and (4) the homework assignments. Different students will learn better from some approaches than others. It’s your job to find what works best for you. At the end your progress will be measured by multiple choice exams.
 
This class is a different approach to American history than most courses that take all year. Learning in a simple and quick manner can sometimes be better. It’s easier to see how events relate to each other. It’s easier to see the big picture. When you want to find your way somewhere, do you want a road map that has every single detail and building on it? No, that is too hard to read. You want a map that has the important things on it. Same with studying history: don’t allow yourself to be sidetracked by unimportant details. Focus on the big stuff.

== Exploration ==

Starting in the Middle Ages, Christian Europe began to use its knowledge, wealth and [[faith]] to extend move beyond its horizons. Christian Europeans fought the Holy [[Crusades]] from 1095 to 1291 to protect pilgrims to [[Jerusalem]] against Moslem attacks. Some Europeans were motivated to spread the [[Gospel]]. Others were motivated by a desire to increase their wealth, such as by finding gold. Supporting both types of people was increased knowledge about science and geography: Europeans knew that they could reach the Orient by traveling West '''''around''''' the world. What they did not know is what they would find, if anything, by sailing West, before they reached the Orient.
 
It took enormous courage, determination and financial support to sail West into the complete unknown. It also took more than a desire to get rich, because there were easier ways to make money. That additional desire was a passion to spread Christianity to new civilizations. In 1482, a determined Christian Italian explorer named [[Christopher Columbus]] sought financing to sail west in order to reach India. He tried Portugal for raising money, but it already had its own successful explorers. Why would Portugal need Columbus? Portugal declined to support him, and Columbus turned to Spain, which was now Christian after having driven the Muslims out. In 1492, Spain funded Columbus' daring proposal to sail West to reach the Orient.
 
Before we describe this further, however, it is necessary to note that Columbus was not the first European to visit what is now called America. Around A.D. 1000, the Scandinavian [[Leif Ericson]] established a colony which he named [[Vinland]], probably in what is now [[Newfoundland]]. Remains of a Viking-era settlement have been discovered at l'Anse-aux-Meadows in the north-east of Newfoundland island. That effort at colonisation failed around 60 years later, however, and no long-term European settlement resulted from it.
 
So back to what Columbus did achieve. He set sail in three ships. First sighted land in late 1492. On Christmas eve, December 24, 1492, one of Columbus's ship, the [[Santa Maria]], reached the island of [[Haiti]]. Columbus named the settlement “La Navidad,” meaning “The Nativity,” and dropped off 40 men with a promise to return to them the next year. Columbus then wrote to the King and Queen of Spain the following in his Journal: “In all the world there can be no better or gentler people. Your Highnesses should feel great joy, because presently they will be Christians, and instructed in the good manners of your realms.”
 
But he had grossly underestimated the size of the world, and when he reached San Salvador, Haiti (Hispaniola) and Cuba he thought he reached the Far East. So he called the natives Indians. He left some men there but they were killed by the natives. Columbus reported back that new people had been found to evangelize with Christianity.
 
Soon Spain and Portugal divided the Americas with the [[Line of Demarcation]], drawn by the Pope. The [[Treaty of Tordesillas]] moved the line in 1493. It was a North-South line that gave Spain North America and the western part of South America, but Portugal received Brazil. That’s why Brazilians speak Portugese to this day.
 
<discuss how Columbus returned to Europe, and then found the same location on his second trip> Columbus sailed on three subsequent voyages, but never achieved his goal and died discredited. What was his motivation? Primarily to spread Christianity, but also to find gold to reward his sponsors and fund further expeditions. Ultimately, his purpose focused on a dream to liberate Jerusalem, as the Crusades attempted.
 
What influence did Columbus have? He gave Spain [[Haiti]], [[Puerto Rico]], [[Jamaica]] and [[Cuba]] by 1515. Spain then settled Florida (St. Augustine), and later Santa Fe, New Mexico. Spanish [[Hernando Cortes]] conquered the Aztecs in central Mexico (1521), and [[Francisco Pizarro]] conquered the Incas of Peru (1531). They seized much gold in the process.
 
But while Spanish soldiers came to America, Spanish women did not. So there were not many distinct, permanent Spanish settlements. Also, the Spanish were also entirely subservient to their King back in Europe. Separate governments did not develop.
 
Other European powers were exploring North America also. The French explored the St. Lawrence and settled Quebec, where French is still spoken to this day. The French also explored the Mississippi, and settled the towns of Saint Louis (named after a French king) and New Orleans.
 
The Dutch explored and settled the Hudson River, and calling that region New Netherlands and buying and naming Manhattan New Amsterdam.
 
The Swedish settled in Delaware; Germans settled later in Pennsylvania.
 
Explorer [[John Cabot]] discovered the North American coastline for England in 1497. But no settlements were attempted by the English for about another 100 years.
 
The reason is that North America didn’t have what the explorers were looking for. America lacked valuable natural resources. There was no gold, which is what Europe wanted. In 1576, the British explorer [[Martin Frobisher]] even hauled 200 tons of material back to England, hoping it was gold. It wasn’t.
 
There wasn’t anything else of value to Europe either. New England was too rocky near the coast to develop farms. The mid-Atlantic region or Chesapeake area, where Maryland and Virginia are today, was infested with malaria. Winters were cold, and summers were hot.
 
There was no livestock – no horses and no cattle, until the Spanish imported them. Florida was a swamp, and did not even have orange trees until the Spanish explorer [[Ponce de Leon]] planted them in 1515.
 
North America was a joke to many in England. Its Parliament passed a law in 1597 authorizing the deportations of convicted criminals to America and other colonies. In 1605, a satirical book entitled “Eastward Ho!” was published that mocked attempts to settle in Virginia.
 
Think about it. Would your family uproot and move, at great risk to your lives, to a place that had no civilization or anything of value? Do we see families moving to the middle of the desert in Arizona, or to cheap land in the middle of Wyoming? Only very rarely.
 
England’s first settlement of North America was in 1585, on [[Roanoke Island]] in Virginia. More than 100 families settled there. In a few years they had all disappeared, and it’s a mystery to this day what happened. They could have died from disease or starvation. They could have been killed by Indians. No one knows. It’s called the “[[Lost Colony]].”
 
About the same time, however, England had a huge success in Europe. Spain had ruled the high seas for most of the 1500s, until England destroyed the Spanish Armada in 1588. That left England with the potential to gain control of the oceans and world trade over the seas. England could protect its colonies against other European powers.

== Settlements ==

Some Englishmen invested money in what was called a “[[joint stock company]],” which was similar to a modern-day corporation, for the purpose of finding gold or other treasures. Called the “[[Virginia Company]],” it established the first permanent settlement for England in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. It was a disaster and the investors never received a profit. The men who settled in Jamestown were gentlemen who expected to get rich with little effort. They lacked a common purpose and wasted their time searching for treasure, or simply doing nothing at all. Unwilling to work to grow their own food, they almost starved to death.
 
'''1607''' is one of the few dates you should memorize. This was after the Spanish had settled in Florida, but before the French had settled in Quebec. So remember the sequence in settling America: Spanish, English, and then French.
 
Initially, from 1607-1608, the Jamestown settlement lived under socialism, whereby the group shared its food with everyone no matter how much or little he worked. This economic system was a complete failure as no one had any incentive to do any work. In September 1608, [[John Smith]] was elected president of the governing council. He ruled for a year and installed a conservative economic system: “don’t work, don’t eat!” Under this new system, food production increased and by 1614 there was plenty to eat.
 
But Jamestown settlers were there to find fortune, and there was not any gold or silver. Indians had discovered tobacco and Europeans were beginning to become addicted on it. Many Europeans recognized that tobacco was bad for them, and some wanted to prohibit it. In 1613, Englishman [[John Rolfe]], who married the Indian [[Pocahontas]] in Virginia, began growing tobacco to export to Europe. The King banned the growing of tobacco in England, so Rolfe had no competition. Cash began pouring in for the tobacco, and this so-called “cash crop” became highly profitable for the Jamestown settlers. Tobacco continued to be very profitable throughout a large part of American history, particularly in the south.
 
Despite profiting from the sale of tobacco, the Jamestown settlement had other difficulties. It had made peace with Indian [[Chief Powhatan]], whose daughter Pocahontas married settler [[John Rolfe]]. But after Powhatan died, his brother led a sudden attack on the settlers in 1622, massacring 357 out of a total of only 1200.
 
But Indian strife was only one of many problems. Labor was in short supply for working the fields. Settlers began importing indentured servants, who received free travel to the colonies in exchange for a promise to work for seven years. But Virginia also turned to a cheaper approach to labor: importing slaves from West Africa beginning in 1619 to work the crops.
 
In 1624 King James (of “King James Bible” fame) took back the Virginia colony and established it as a royal charter. King James was left with a problem colony that enslaved workers and grew tobacco. More trouble lay ahead. In 1676, Nathanial Bacon was a Virginia settler who decided to take the law into his own hands. He first massacred Indians in western Virginia, then took his small army of rebels to Jamestown, where he burned it down because the governor had refused to allow him to kill the Indians. Bacon himself soon died from a disease. The governor returned and hung two dozen of his supporters. How Virginia produced four of our first five presidents is amazing. You can think about this and answer on the homework assignment.
 
By then there were many other settlements in North America. The most important were two settlements in Massachusetts, which has a much harsher climate than Virginia, particularly in the wintertime. But their motivation was religious, not financial. Puritans were unhappy with the direction of the Church of England, feeling it was too much like the Catholic Church. Two different groups of Puritans set out for North America. One group wanted to purify the Church of England by remaining in the Church but in a more perfect community. The other group wanted to separate completely from the Church of England. Both groups landed by chance within 100 miles of each other in Massachusetts.
 
The first group, the “Pilgrims”, set sail from Plymouth, England and intended to land near the mouth of the Hudson River (now New York City), which was the northern part of the Virginia Company’s territory. But their ship, the “Mayflower”, was blown off course and they landed up on Cape Cod in Massachusetts in 1620. Outside of any official government, they decided on the boat to establish the first civil government in North America by signing the Mayflower Compact. They landed in December, and half died due to disease in their first New England winter. But the following spring a friendly Indian introduced them to corn, or maize, the marvelous food discovered by Indians. They had a plentiful harvest that fall, and celebrated their first Thanksgiving with the Indians that fall. In 1623, their new Governor [[William Bradford]] gave every member a plot of land and allowed the free market to develop. By 1624, the community was doing so well that it was actually making more food than it could consume and began exporting its corn. [[William Bradford]] and [[Edward Winslow]] kept diaries during the settling of Plymouth, which are recorded in a small, but fascinating book called ''Mourt's Relation''.
 
Corn is a tremendous contribution by Indians to the world that increasingly sustains peoples worldwide. Corn did not exist in Europe during the Middle Ages. Cheap and easy to grow, corn has become one of the most popular foods worldwide, rivaling rice and soybeans. For that we can thank the Indians.
 
Encouraged by the success of the Pilgrims, a new groups called the [[Massachusetts Bay Company]] obtained a royal charter and sent a larger group of Puritans to settle in New England, though this time with the purpose of purifying the [[Church of England]] with a more perfect community than in England itself. It was well-financed and led by the very capable [[John Winthrop]], who had been trained at Oxford. It landed in Salem, Massachusetts in 1629 and immediately moved to Boston Harbor. It never looked back, thriving almost immediately despite the harsh winter climate. Within five years the [[Great Migration]] of religiously motivated settlers followed them from England. Their numbers and power grew. By the 1640s, the community was participating in robust trade by sea with England, the West Indies and on occasion West Africa.
 
What is a “colony”? “Colony” defined: “a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state.” (Merriam-Webster dictionary)
 
The growing colonies in Massachusetts and Virginia could not have been more different from each other, and it is remarkable they ever joined the same country. Massachusetts was highly religious and motivated by faith. Virginia was marginally religious and motivated by money. Massachusetts, more religious, had vocal opponents of slavery and neighboring Vermont was the first state to prohibit slavery in its Constitution, in 1777. Virginia welcomed slavery. Massachusetts grew the Indian crop of corn. Virginia grew the Indian crop of tobacco. Massachusetts settlers made greater efforts to get along with Indians and treat them fairly. Massachusetts attracted new settlers based on religion. Virginia attracted new settlers based on the “headright system,” by which land (usually 50 acres) was given to those who paid for the passage to the colony of an immigrant, who usually agreed to work as an “indentured servant” for free for fixed number of years on the land.
 
The stark contrast between Massachusetts and Virginia would ultimately lead, nearly 250 years later, to the Civil War.
 
While Virginia institution of slavery was spreading to the colonies of [[Maryland]], [[Carolina]] and, later, [[Georgia]], [[Massachusetts]] was spreading a different sort of institution: religious intensity. [[Roger Williams]] was an extraordinary individual of such great faith that found even the Puritans lacking in their treatment of Indians. Williams also disagreed with how the Puritans combined government and religion, and had even executed several Christians based on differences with the Puritan faith. Williams was fabulous with languages and learned to communicate with many different Indian tribes, and even lived with them at times in spite of the danger. He left the Puritans in Massachusetts and started the colony of Rhode Island, which to this day has prided itself on its independence. Rhode Island was the only state to refuse to support a colonial tax on imports after the Revolution, and the only colony to refuse to ratify the Constitution until long after [[George Washington]] was President. Rhode Island, under Roger Williams’ direction, separated state government from religion. No mandatory church attendance, and no funding of churches with tax revenues were allowed in Rhode Island.
 
But while Roger Williams was highly moral, others in Rhode Island made it the biggest importer of slaves in all the colonies. So censoring religion may have a price. In contrast, in the larger Massachusetts, taxes funded religious institutions for nearly 200 years, until at least the 1830s. It successfully prohibited slavery. Another devout Christian who disagreed with the Puritans and left them was named [[Anne Hutchinson]]. She, however, was later killed by Indians.
 
One prominent text claims, under “Rhode Island,” that “This belief [by Roger Williams] in the separation of church and state became a cornerstone of the American Constitution in 1787.” That is completely false. Roger Williams was long dead by 1787, and there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. Rhode Island did not even send any representatives to draft the Constitution and it had no role in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. In fact, Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until after George Washington was elected president, and even then it took much arm-twisting to compel Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution. But some people want to keep religion out of government, and they refuse to admit that the First Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a national church by the government.
 
In between Massachusetts and Virginia there was a third approach: that taken by Pennsylvania. William Penn was another extraordinary Englishman. He converted to become a Quaker in England and began practicing that religion in violation of English law. He was arrested and prosecuted, but the jury refused to convict him. The king owed his father money, and gave the son what is today Pennsylvania. It was nothing but woods at the time. But William Penn founded his colony based on one principle: religious freedom for all. He advertised in Europe and attracted peoples of many nationalities in addition to the English.
 
Penn was very kind to the Indians and soon had the most popular colony in America. Philadelphia became America’s greatest city, surpassing Boston in population in the 1700s. Only Pennsylvania and Maryland survived in the long-term under private ownership. Virtually all the other colonies were eventually taken over by the King of England, often due to troubles that arose in the colony.
 
There were other colonies. Pennsylvania was founded over 50 years *after* Virginia and Massachusetts. Georgia was founded over 50 *years* after Pennsylvania, which means over 100 years after Virginia and Massachusetts. Philanthropist [[James Oglethorpe]] founded Savannah in Georgia in 1733 for poor debtors in jails of England. Also created a buffer colony between South Carolina and Spanish Florida. Oglethorpe was very religious and very strict. Too strict for the King, who took over the colony in 1751. The colony was not nearly as strong and developed as the other colonies, so the other colonies did not take it very seriously.
 
Topics for discussion:
*Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?
*Did the Vikings settle North America before Columbus did?
 
[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:American History Lecture One

2008-08-03T22:53:57Z

Googly: /* Leif Ericson */