Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Evolution

2012-03-18T21:58:35Z

Jackmondoo23:

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

== Doctors poll results ==

I don't think this poll is appropriate to include. How many doctors have to study evolutionary biology? They don't, it's not relevant to their medical knowledge to have an advanced understanding of evolution.

For what it's worth you might as well say x% of engineers/policemen/politicians accept evolution. These people are all laymen in evolution, they will have the same level of understanding as people on the street. Why not include a poll taken from people who really have to understand evolution for their work, such as geneticists/archaeologists/biologists/etc? That would be far more applicable, don't you agree?

I suggest the poll is either removed as it asks people who are unsuitable to answer the question, or we use a new poll that includes suitable people. I would be more than happy to provide more suitable polls for you to use in your article if you wish :-). --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 10:33, 29 February 2012 (EST)
:Hi again. As no-one has raised an objection I'm assuming that it's ok to go ahead and make this change? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 10:33, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Houston, we have anti-evolutionism campaign lift off ==

News item: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/our-question-evolution-campaign.html Houston, we have anti-evolution campaign lift off]
[[File:Rocket.jpg|200px|right]]
{{clear}}

:Why is Conservative allowed to link to his own personal website? This isn't the place for his spam, and its not like the site has any new or interesting information about it. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 15:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== Factual error ==

Evolution itself has been confirmed as fact. The mechanism of evolution is what's still theory. Someone might want to fix this.[[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 14:56, 18 December 2011 (EST)
:I disagree, evolution has never been confirmed as fact. I suggest having a look at [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:39, 18 December 2011 (EST)
::No, I'm quite serious, evolution itself (the concept that species change gradually over millions of years) has been proven as fact. The only thing that's a theory now is the mechanism of evolution. Just Google "Evolution in the Galapagos" and you can see for yourself. Also, most of the articles I've visited on Conservapedia are rife with inaccuracies, so I'm afraid an outside source is required if you want me to take your counter-claim seriously. [[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 12:57, 19 December 2011 (EST)
:::I agree with FactCheck that referencing a Conservapeida page would be almost as bad as referencing a Wikipedia page, and that obviously I don't think anyone denies micro-evolution; it has been proven. However, I don't think saying, "Someone might want to fix this" is very constructive at all. Why don't you fix it? I don't believe that fact that FactCheck really wants to make sure "Conservapedia stays Trustworthy," in fact, I would speculate that Factcheck isn't a conservative at all. Most likely an atheist. Of course, this entire topic needs massive revision. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
::::He can't fix it because one of the sysops has protected this page and refuses to unprotect it. Mainly to prevent the massive revision it badly needs. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 10:36, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Oh--Sorry. Hmmmmm. He must be worried of vandalism or something. Maybe we can post here exactly what changes we would make were we able to, and then people with the authority can decide what to keep and what to throw out. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
:::::::The agnostic [[Carl Sagan]], who said he obtained his greatest scientific insights smoking marijuana, claimed evolution is a fact. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:36, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Yuck. What a hack. I hate pot-smokers almost as much as I hate agnostics (and I really hate agnostics--what a cop-out). Carl Sagan was certainly wrong--evolution could never be proven, but I think FactCheck47 was referring to what is called microevolution. That is the phenomenon observed with the Galapagos Finches. It will be important for us to distinguish upon this point because a lot of what liberals try to do is prove microevolution (which is fairly easy) and then conclude that all life must come from evolution (ridiculous). But if we get into an argument over whether or not microevolution exists we will lose. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 12:26, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Evolution as a theory or hypothesis ==
[[File:ScientificMethodflowchart.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Evolution is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.]]
As you can see from Karajou's image, the word "theory" indicates that evolution has been backed up by experimental evidence. However, this is not the case. I propose removing references to evolution as a theory and replacing with references to it as a "hypothesis", which is what it fits under. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:Hi, I don't believe in evolution, but it's not fair to say it hasn't been tested. It certainly hasn't been proven, and we should focus on that. And I would say it is falsifiable, for example if fossils didn't exist, they would be hard pressed (of course evolutionists would probably try to argue it anyways no matter what the actual evidence says). Anyways, the most famous such test would be the 'Chromosome fusion hypothesis,' which is an axillary hypothesis to they theory of evolution, which predicts chromosome fusion in one of the human chromosomes; it was confirmed in 2004. The paper is easy to find, albeit technical. Here's the youtube link by one of the authors of the paper:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 11:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::NickP, excellent point. That is addressed here: http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Unqualified_to_be_a_scientific_theory Second, theory has a number of definitions. Third, a lot of people are finding the article by doing search engine searches vis a vis "theory of evolution" and since there is more than one definition of theory, I think it is better to leave it the way it is. However, in a few minutes, I will create article space for you to address this issue and then I can link to the article within the [[evolution]] page. Give me a few minutes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Here are some articles that could be created: [[Evolution as hypothesis]],[[Evolution is a religion]], [[Evolution disproved]], [[Disproving evolution]], [[Evolution and Karl Popper]], [[Evolution is a lie]] and [[Evolution is a deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::::Those are good ideas for articles that can be linked to from here. I'll try to help where I can, but I can't say biology is my strength, so I'm not sure how useful I'll be. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:33, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No big deal. I have a lot of irons on the fire now anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:40, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Perhaps I did not study this article closely enough, but in it I saw nothing pertaining to the Hardy Weinberg Principle. Because the Hardy Weinberg Principle is essential to understanding why such a good number of evolutionists believe what they do, I would urge for it to be included in this article. --X. Dulks
:Well, I'm not sure because the article isn't about how evolution works or why people might believe it. If you want, you could create a [[Mechanisms of Evolution]] page or something like that. I guess you could even create a [[Why some people might believe in Evolution]] page, as long as you were super careful to follow the Conservapedia guidelines. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 18:30, 28 January 2012 (EST)
::A well done [[Mechanisms of microevolution]] article would be an excellent article and be much more encyclopedic/less speculative.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:46, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:::Yes good point. The article should be [[Mechanisms of microevolution]]. The "microevolution" v "Evolution" is indeed important. Actually, there is already a [[Natural selection]] article, and I believe an inclusion of the Hardy Weinberg Principle there would be good as well if not entirely sufficient in itself. I don't know if X. Dulks wants to take that on. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 13:44, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism ==
[[File:Eagle and fish.jpg|thumbnail|right|400px|A supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] writes: "Feeble goal setting is fitting for passive and apathetic evolutionists, but not for Bible believing Christians. In 2012, our group desires to soar like eagles and make evolutionary dogma our prey."[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/linda-schaible/6063077714/ Flickr], Title: Lock&Dam14-Bald Eagle & Fish, Flicker username: LAShibes, see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism]

== Your failure to accept evolution ==

Over 98% of scientists and a higher figure for biologists accept evolution. These are well-trained people who have a high level of scientific knowledge and know what they're talking about. Unlike your faith-based, unscientific nonsense creation "theory", evolution has abundant evidence and there is NOT ONE peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal. Hmm... I wonder why? Could it be that the scientific community knows more than a bunch of idiots who keep denying Darwin when there is abundant evidence everywhere? --[[User:Jackmondoo23|Jackmondoo23]] 17:32, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
:Jackmondoo, you seem frustrated that Darwinism hasn't gained far better traction in the world in terms of public acceptance - despite having 150 plus years to do so. Given that [[global atheism]] is shrinking and is expected to shrink at an accelerated rate, the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]] and the inability of Darwinists such as yourself to satisfactorily answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] things are not going to go better for Darwinism in terms of public acceptance and likely to grow much worse. By the way, are you an atheist? If so, do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
: I don't care how much traction evolution has received among the public. Considering that 25% of the public think Obama is a foreigner, it is quite obvious that most of the public aren't exactly mentally advanced. You say global atheism is decreasing, '''state your source'''. Also, I have never heard of the '15 Q's', but I'm sure it's yet another creationist campaign that, like all creationist campaigns, are never taken seriously and end up forgotten about after a couple of months. I am an atheist, but before I give evidence for atheism, I want to know where you got the 'global atheism is shrinking' statistics from, because most polls suggest the opposite, at least for agnosticism anyway. --[[User:Jackmondoo23|Jackmondoo23]] 17:58, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

Liberal

2012-03-18T21:52:33Z

Jackmondoo23:

[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|180px|President [[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that John Maynard Keynes was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ Keynes's "Jew Boy" Quickie, The Atlantic]
</ref> ]]
[[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref>]]

'''Over 98% of scientists and a higher figure for biologists accept evolution. These are well-trained people who have a high level of scientific knowledge and know what they're talking about. Unlike your faith-based, unscientific nonsense creation "theory", evolution has abundant evidence and there is NOT ONE peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal. Hmm... I wonder why? Could it be that the scientific community knows more than a bunch of idiots who keep denying Darwin when there is abundant evidence everywhere? --[[User:Jackmondoo23|Jackmondoo23]] 17:32, 18 March 2012 (EDT) '''

A '''liberal''' (not to be confused with a ''leftist''), is someone who represents or is in support of some form of liberalism. This often includes social progressivism. Particularly in the [[United States]], the term may also be associated with irreligious people, or those who otherwise disagree with moral or social standards held as traditional by many American [[Christian|Christians]]. Some may be [[Christian]], but they are rarely immensely committed to Christianity. Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties and today is increasingly [[statist]] and, as in Europe, inclined towards the [[welfare state]]. Liberalism has changed over the years and degenerated into arguably economically delusional views and nontraditional ideology.

For example, [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are almost in cahoots with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

Liberals currently use two clauses to try and expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The general welfare clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich out of existence and redistributing that money. The commerce clause on the other hand is in the constitution and says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government vastly expanding its power. The latest example is [[Obamacare]]. In Obamacare, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states. This is clearly a stretched interpretation of the clause as there is a difference between regulating commerce and forcing citizens to participate in commerce that Congress can regulate.

Polling data over several decades has consistently shown that more Americans identify as conservative than as liberal, by a ratio of 2:1.<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance</ref> A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Spending money on government programs (the significant economic problems in the [[Eurozone]] due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)
* Government solving economic problems<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the only reason Muslim extremists hate us is because of bad foreign policy <ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* Prohibition of teacher-led [[prayer]] in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Affirmative action<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* Government-funded medical care, such as [[Obamacare]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* The denial of traditional [[gender roles]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]] and homosexual adoption
* [[Tax and spend]]
* Support for economic sector regulations<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Support and spreading of [[political correctness]]
* Support of non-syndicalist [[labor union|labor unions]]
* Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from premarital sex<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref> and environmental organizations, for example [[Greenpeace]]</ref>
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition to the integration of church and state.
* Opposition to full private property rights.<ref> For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Withholds support to the [[War on Terrorism]] and the [[War in Iraq]]
* Tolerance of different ideas and lifestyles
* Supports financially irresponsible policies
* Following policies which are proven to be incorrect
* Do not support a laissez-faire capitalist economy and support regulation of business
* Encouragement of [[Global Warming|global warming alarmism]]

According to current dictionaries and their own beliefs, a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"<ref>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00</ref> or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] liberals give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and charity]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

=== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ===
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his lack of charitable giving]].

== Liberalism and bestiality ==

See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|260px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]
[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of bestiality (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]] (Princeton University is a very liberal school - see: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]).<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity. <ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref> In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref>

Joe Carter's ''[[First Things]]'' article entitled ''The Dangerous Mind'' declares concerning Peter Singer declared:
{{cquote|Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the [[Animal rights|animal liberation movement]] and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).<ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>}}

On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality "rights" have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality "rights" (see: [[Homosexuality and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/ The dark side of sexual freedom: American 'zoophiles' take on the language of equality - October 5, 2011 - The Telegraph]</ref>

In 2010, the liberal state of [[Washington]] has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: [[Washington state and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/state_ranking.php?year=2010&search=go Pet Abuse -2010]</ref><ref>[http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php 2010 United States Census data]</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ 2011 Political map - CNN]</ref>

In 2005, four legislators in the liberal state of [[Massachusetts]] tried to soften it bestiality laws.<ref>[Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]</ref>
[[File:NBC Tower.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[LifeSiteNews]] reported:"In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to [[adultery]] were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref> See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]] ]]
The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the [[Old Testament]] [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]).

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686 A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.]</ref> The atheist population [[Atheism and suicide|has a higher suicide rate]] and [[Atheism and marriageability|lower marriage rates]] than the general population (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and health]]). In addition, ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men.<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/08/socially-autistic-atheist.html</ref>

For more information please see:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Liberalism and bestiality]]

*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]

*[[Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality]]

*[[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Sweden|Liberal Sweden and bestiality]]

*[[Bestiality and Britain|Godless Britain and bestiality]]

*[[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality|The liberal Netherlands and bestiality]]

*[[Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality]]

*[[Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments]]
=== Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant ===

''See also:'' [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>

Below is an excerpt of the chant:
{{cquote|Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>}}

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in North America Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly liberal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: SIN. Liberals (1) '''s'''hift the subject, they (2) '''i'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''n'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]
{{cquote|There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

=== American liberalism, demographics and expected tipping point in the decline of American liberalism ===
''
See also:'' [[American atheism]] and [[Decline of atheism]] and [[Global atheism]]

Due to the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]] in traditional cultures and their influence on Western [[Christianity]] and the higher birth rate of [[Conservative Christianity|conservative Christians]] and religious conservatives, social conservatism is expected to rise.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning America:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Infamous liberals ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.|ANSWER - Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]]
*[[CAIR|CAIR - Council on American-Islamic Relations]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[PETA|PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[SEIU|SEIU - Service Employees International Union]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

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

==See Also==

* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]
* http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Bill Clinton

2012-03-18T21:51:35Z

Jackmondoo23:

{{Officeholder
|name=Bill Clinton
|image=billclinton.jpg
|party=Democratic
|spouse=[[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]
|religion=[[Baptist]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=42nd
|terms=January 20, 1993 – January 20, 2001
|vp=[[Al Gore]]
|preceded=[[George H. W. Bush]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[George W. Bush]]
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=40th and 42nd
|state=Arkansas
|terms=January 9, 1979 – January 19, 1981; January 11, 1983 – December 12, 1992
|preceded=[[Joe Purcell]] (first term) [[Frank D. White]] (second term)
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Frank D. White]] (first term) [[Jim Guy Tucker]] (second term)
}}
{{Officeholder/attorneygeneral
|jurisdiction=Arkansas
|number=50th
|governor=David Pryor
|deputy=n
|terms=January 3, 1977 – January 9, 1979
|preceded=[[Jim Guy Tucker]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Steve Clark]]
}}
}}
'''Bill Clinton''' was the best president who ever lived, (formally '''William Jefferson Clinton'''; born William Jefferson Blythe III) (b.August 19, 1946),was president of the United States, elected in 1992 and reelected in 1996. Previously he had served as governor of Arkansas. His administration was characterized by sustained prosperity, a budget surplus, free trade internationally, military interventions in southeastern Europe, reform of the [[New Deal]] welfare system, and an impeachment. While Clinton takes economic credit, most of the success in his era can be traced to Republican majorities in Congress that crafted welfare reforms and a budget surplus. The House of Representatives would impeach Clinton for [[obstruction of justice]] and [[perjury]], while the Senate would fail to convict, and he served out his term. Clinton was later found in contempt by a federal judge for lying under oath and he subsequently was disbarred for ethical violations. Clinton, a policy wonk, was (with Ronald Reagan) one of the two best campaigners in recent decades. Although a mediocre speaker Clinton became known as "the Great Campaigner." His discursive style is personal and intimate, yet, thanks to television, was vicariously enjoyed by large audiences. Like Ronald Reagan. Clinton used his rhetorical skills to achieve political success; he survived despite legislative defeats, repeated scandal (he was notorious as a womanizer) and an actual impeachment.<ref> Whittington (1997)</ref>

After leaving the White House, he became a very well-paid speaker. His wife, [[Hillary Clinton]], was elected to the Senate in 2000 from New York, reelected in 2006, and in 2007 was the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 before losing and becoming Secretary of State. Clinton became the major fundraiser and campaigner for his wife, and tried but failed to use his special appeal to the African American vote to neutralize her main opponent, [[Barack Obama]]. Obama named Hillary Clinton [[Secretary of State]] and thus far Bill Clinton has kept a low profile.

== Early Life ==
Clinton was born in Hope,<ref> [[Mike Huckabee]] was born in Hope in 1955, but did not know Clinton.</ref> Arkansas, a month after his father William Jefferson Blythe II, a salesman, was killed in an auto accident. He was raised by his maternal grandparents until age 4, when his mother Virginia Kelly (1923-1994), a nurse, married Roger Clinton (1909-1967), a car dealer. Roger was an alcoholic and violent; the marriage was tempestuous, including a divorce and a remarriage in 1962. A life-long Southern Baptist, Clinton graduated from the Hot Springs public high school in 1964. He attended Georgetown University in Washington D.C., where he became active in Democratic politics and won prestigious Rhodes scholarship to Oxford University in England. He was a bit player in the anti-Vietnam war movement, and managed to stall the draft until he received a high lottery number, an evasion that became controversial in his first presidential campaign. He attended Yale Law School (JD 1973). A hail fellow well met, Clinton developed a vast network of friends. He met [[Hillary Clinton]] at Yale; they married in 1975 and had one daughter, Chelsea in 1980.

== Early Political Career ==
After returning to Arkansas as a law professor at the university, Clinton was elected state Attorney General in 1976. In 1978, he was elected Governor of Arkansas, becoming the youngest governor in the country at age 32 . Though defeated in 1980, Clinton won back the governorship in 1982 and held it until becoming President in 1992.

===Civil Rights record===

In December 1989 a three-judge district federal court held Bill Clinton's state-wide legislative reapportionment plan violated Section 2 of the [[Voting Rights Act|Voting Rights Act of 1965]], 42 U.S.C. 1973. 1990 the [[Supreme Court]] of the United States found in the case of ''[[Clinton vs Jeffers]]'' <ref>Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in [http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900402.txt Clinton vs Jeffers] No. 90-394 (1990) on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991).</ref> the former Arkansas Governor and [[Democratic]] president had violated the Voting Rights Act. The Justices findings were,

{{Cquote|Bill Clinton does not dispute here -- that "violations of the [[Fourteenth amendment|fourteenth]] or [[fifteenth amendment]] justifying equitable relief have occurred in Arkansas."

In May 1990, the district court turned to those claims, holding that "the State of Arkansas has committed a number of constitutional violations of the voting rights of black citizens." J.S. App. A5. In particular, the court determined that the "State has systematically and deliberately enacted new majority-vote requirements for municipal offices, in an effort to frustrate black political success in elections traditionally requiring only a plurality to win." In 1990...Devotion to majority rule for local offices lay dormant as long as the plurality system produced white office-holders. But whenever black candidates used this system successfully -- and victory by a plurality has been virtually their only chance of success in at-large elections in majority-white cities – the response was swift and certain. Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory.}}

The court therefore concluded that

{{Cquote|This series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly unconstitutional. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot. The inference of [[bigotry|racial motivation]] is inescapable.}}

===Early Scandals===
Clinton was involved in several scandals while Governor of Arkansas. He converted governmental resources for personal use by having Arkansas state policemen arrange and stand guard during his extramarital rendezvous with women.<ref>Thomas C. Reeves, ''[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n14_v10/ai_14988880 Why Troopergate matters to voters]'', ''Insight on the News,'' April 4, 1994.</ref>

His close personal business partnerships with James and Susan McDougall in a failed Savings and Loan business venture led to investigation of the [[Whitewater]] affair. Several of the people involved with the sale of land prior to the Clinton presidency were indicted, but prosecutors never charged either Clintons with a crime.

==Democratic Leadership Council==
The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) formed in early 1985 to formulate a moderate Democratic agenda. With [[Al From]] as executive director and Georgia Senator [[Sam Nunn]] as chairman, DLC comprised mostly Southern Democratic congressmen. They sought to rebuild the party's image after a series of defeats by Reagan and Bush. They wanted to assure voters that the moderate-conservative wing of the party was alive and well, and that its policy initiatives fit with mainstream American values. After the 1988 defeat, From asked Clinton in March 1990 to become the first DLC Chair from outside Washington. He and Clinton recruited state and local officials from around the country for the DLC, trying out some of the policy initiatives developed by the affiliated think tank the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI). Proposals that found their way into Clinton's 1992 platform included:
* Apprenticeship programs for non-college-bound skilled workers
* A program of national service for college students (with student loan forgiveness)
* A ROTC-style program to train new police officers in colleges
* An enhanced Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor
* Government-subsidized individual savings accounts for Social Security.

The two DLC manifestos and Clinton's 1991 "New Covenant" speech accounted for more than 60% of the promises in the 1992 Democratic platform. <ref> Borrelli, 432-35</ref> Clinton campaigned as a "New Democrat," with an appeal to southerners and moderates that included demands for welfare reform and support for the death penalty.
===Election of 1992===
After the surge of support for the war policy of President [[George H.W. Bush]] pushed his popularity to the 90% level, most prominent Democrats decided to wait out the 1992 election. Clinton, though little known outside Arkansas, proved the best campaigner in a weak field and won he Democratic nomination. Unexpectedly, billionaire [[Ross Perot]] entered the race (and briefly led the polls). Both Bush and Perot proved poor campaigners, as Clinton and his running mate [[Al Gore]] promised a more responsive government. Republicans tried to use the character issue, questioning his failure to serve in the [[Vietnam War]], repeating rumors of extramarital affairs, and stories of marijuana use in college days. But Bush was handicapped by a bad economy, and was wounded badly by breaking a promise to not raise taxes. Clinton hammered away at the economy--"It's the economy, stupid!" explained his campaign manager. Clinton and Gore ran as "new Democrats", promising to cut middle class taxes, reduce domestic spending, end welfare and support capital punishment. Clinton won the electoral college decisively, and outpolled Bush 43% to 37%, with 19% for Perot.

Clinton thus won easily, and entered Washington with a Democratic Congress and a vague agenda.

Clinton, the first President born after [[World War II]], represented the "baby-boom" generation.

==Presidency (1993-2001)==

===Don't ask don't tell ===
:''Main article'' : [[Don't Ask, Don't Tell]]
Upon being elected President, Bill Clinton's first act was to propose and win legislation to enforce the [[Department of Defense]]'s "Don't Ask Don't Tell" rule, which has been described by some as a major discriminatory policy legitimizing and promoting [[homophobia]] and [[bigot]]ry, causing untold personel and emotional anguish for thousands of America's service personal.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y</ref><ref>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1903545,00.html?imw=Y</ref> The Law, enacted by a [[Democratic party]] controlled [[House of Representatives]] and [[Senate]], was found [[unconstitutional]] after a suit brought by [[Log Cabin Republicans]], a homosexual rights and advocacy organization.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39089475/ns/us_news-life/</ref>

=== Taxes===
[[Image:ClintonPresident.jpg|right|thumb|275px|Bill Clinton's Presidential cabinet]] Clinton's first priority while coming into office was the economy. In an attempt to lower [[interest rates]] Clinton sent Congress a deficit reduction plan in early 1993. However, Clinton's problem was that about half of government money goes to entitlement programs such as [[social security]] and [[medicare]]. Refusing to cut domestic spending, he increased taxes on gasoline, heating oil, and natural gas, breaking his campaign pledge not to raise tax rates. On Aug. 10, 1993, the largest tax increase in history was signed into law, raising taxes by almost $280 billion over five years.<ref>J.D. Foster, Ph.D. [http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/03/tax-cuts-not-the-clinton-tax-hike-produced-the-1990s-boom#_ftn1 Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom], ''The Heritage Foundation'', March 4, 2008.</ref> Instead of middle-class tax relief, President Clinton chose to include in his $241 billion tax plan higher federal gasoline taxes, tax hikes on Social Security recipients, and steep income tax hikes on small business owners.<ref> ''The President's Forgotten Middle Class,'' Joint Economic Committee, Majority Staff, 3/22/96.</ref> Conservatives blocked some proposals, such a new $71 billion [[BTU energy tax]] that would have cost the typical family nearly $500 per year.

====Tax increases on Social Security benefits====
In 1993 President Clinton sought to increase taxes on [[Social Security]] benefits of the elderly and disabled.<ref>http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/seniorsd.txt</ref> The final version of the bill passed by the [[Democrat]]ically controlled Congress increased taxes on beneficiaries from the first 50% to 85%<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20040408115747/www.ssa.gov/OACT/HOP/hopi.htm</ref> of benefits (or "annuity payments" as they were originally called). [[Vice President]] [[Al Gore]] cast the deciding tie-breaker vote in the Senate to make the tax increase law. The Clinton-Gore tax increase on Social Security benefits imposed a 70% [[income tax]] rate on a retired couple making as little as $22,000 per year.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=vLg4iJR0J9kC&pg=PA16593&lpg=PA16593&dq=Vice+President+Gore+cast+the+tie-breaking+vote%2Bsocial+security&source=bl&ots=-ImIDX6fHa&sig=ttWVUNAIVsLQoEg1ZhCntHB_02Y&hl=en&ei=dobVTMr9HoOglAe0iuX9CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Vice%20President%20Gore%20cast%20the%20tie-breaking%20vote%2Bsocial%20security&f=false Congressional Record, Comments by Rep. Christopher Cox,] July 27, 2000.</ref>

=== Health Care takeover ===
see [[Clinton health care plan of 1993]]

In 1993, Clinton called for a national medical care system that would incorporate the 15% of the population that was entitled to emergency care but lacked broader insurance. Clinton decided on a plan using regional insurance purchasing agencies along with modest tax subsidies to combine universal coverage with cost efficiency. He and his advisors believed the plan would be acceptable to big business and the larger insurance companies, but the plan was opposed by a well-financed campaign. The plan however, put a burden on small businesses, which feared they could not afford it. The insurance industry and doctor organizations also opposed it. Republicans argued that it was too costly and relied too heavily on government. Congressional Democrats were divided on the issue. Faced with public opposition, the Clinton plan failed without even having a vote in Congress.

Skocpol (1996) suggests the major mistake may have been in emphasizing the cost-reducing aspect of the plan, not realizing that Americans were willing to pay for a government program that would provide generous benefits to them. The fear that Clinton's proposals would lead to the sort of health care rationing prevalent in Canada and other countries further troubled the voters. Starr (1997) notes that Clinton sought to achieve liberal ends of universal coverage through the conservative means of managed competition among private health plans, with a backup cap on the rate of growth in average insurance premiums. This approach had a political as well as policy rationale. It was meant to be the basis of an alliance that could include conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans and thereby achieve the majorities necessary for congressional passage. But what we saw as compromise, they did not -- especially as the very locus of the political center shifted to the right during the debate. Health care reform that seemed "inevitable" to many serious observers at the start became unthinkable by the end. Polls showed strong initial support, but he never secured passage in either house of Congress and Republican victory in the 1994 elections doomed his plans.

=== 1994 Republican Revolution ===
Clinton's popularity had slipped by 1994 and the GOP, under [[Newt Gingrich]] launched a national midterm campaign based on a Republican "Contract with America." They proposed lower taxes, welfare reform, tougher anti-crime laws, term limits for Congress, revised rules in Congress and a balanced budget amendment.

In the elections of 1994, the Democrats lost 54 seats in the House of Representatives, and 8 seats in the Senate (followed by two defections after the election), giving the Republicans a majority in both houses of Congress for the first time since 1954. The Republicans also had a net gain of 12 governors' seats in that election.

Analysts have suggested many causes for the drastic change in political sentiment in the country between 1992 and 1994; among the causes suggested were voter disgust at Congressional scandals mainly implicating Democrats, voter distrust of Clinton after the presentation and defeat of the Clinton health care reform proposal--dubbed "Hillarycare"; the nationalization of the election by Gingrich's "Contract with America", and more skilled framing of issues by the Republicans in 1994.

In their first 100 days the House did pass the Contract with America, however, the GOP Senate failed to go along and Clinton's vetoes defeated the Contract.

===Dirty tricks and blackmail===
FBI special agent Gary Aldrich reported, James Carville and former Clinton adviser, now [[ABC News]] anchor [[George Stephanopoulos]] confirmed, after the Gingrich revolution of 1994 the Clinton administration ran a dirt-digging operation out of the Office of the White House Chief of Staff. "They hired upwards of 36 lawyers to staff the operation to handle 40 different cases," Aldrich, on White House duty at the time, said. "Once it became known that they had such an operation, then the blackmail itself took place." Carville and Stephanopoulos stated publicly there would be a "scorched-earth policy", and that everyone who had "skeletons in their closet" would be exposed.<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_23_16/ai_62896460/</ref> [[CNN]] has reported private divorce papers of Newt Gingrich were indeed removed from what was alleged sealed storage at the Carroll County, Georgia courthouse, "when he (Gingrich) became the center of attention." The documents were later made public by CNN.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/politics/gingrich-divorce-file/index.html</ref>

=== Government Shutdown ===

In 1995 President Clinton and Congressional Republicans fought a bitter battle over the new federal [[budget]]. Clinton vetoed the Republican budget bill, claiming that it cut social programs. Speaker Gingrich believed that Clinton would back down and approve the budget. If not the entire government would shut down because of lack of funds. Clinton allowed just that, and by doing so gained political capital by successfully blaming that shut down on Republicans. Soon afterword, Clinton and the Congress reached an agreement to a balanced budget.

==1996 Reelection Campaign==
[[File:ECON1994.jpg|thumb|390px]]

After the Republicans took control of Congress by the time of the 1996 reelection campaign the economy had improved. [[Unemployment]] and inflation was low, American wages increased, crime rates fell, and the number of people on welfare declined. The [[Republican Party]] nominated Senate Majority Leader [[Robert Dole]]. Ross Perot ran again, this time on the Reform Party, but his day was past. Clinton was reelected in a landslide with 49% of the popular vote, to 41% for Dole, and 8% for Perot. His personal victory had limited coattails, with Republicans retaining a clear majority in the Senate and a narrow majority in the House. It also marked the first time since 1926 and 1928 that the Republican Party carried the House in two consecutive elections.<ref>http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/bostonherald/access/17342942.html?dids=17342942:17342942&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+11%2C+1996&author=Don+Fedr&pub=Boston+Herald&desc=A+night+to+cheer+for+conservatives&pqatl=google</ref>

==Clinton voter Coalition==
===Public Opinion: Clinton's popularity===
Needham (2005) argues the "permanent campaign" is said to have reached its apogee in the incumbent communications strategies of Clinton and British Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]]. However, their assiduous courting of public opinion while in office has been used to explain both the high approval ratings of these leaders and their unpopularity for long periods of their incumbency. This apparent paradox suggests that the permanent campaign model is too blunt an instrument to usefully describe or evaluate incumbent communications. Its assumption of continuity between election campaigning and office-holding fails to explain how the strategic terrain changes once a challenger takes office. The concepts of branding and relationship marketing can be used to highlight the difference between gaining support in the one-off transaction of an election and retaining voter loyalty in a post-"purchase" setting. The success of Blair and Clinton in establishing a relationship with voters from within office can be assessed using six attributes of successful brands: simplicity, uniqueness, reassurance, aspiration, values, and credibility. As incumbents, facing challenges in shifting strategic and institutional environments, Blair and Clinton developed messages that were simple and appealed to voter aspirations. Voters remained skeptical about the extent to which these leaders embodied values and delivered on their promises.

Suspicions often arose during Clinton's tenure about the timing of [[cruise missile]] attacks to manipulate public sympathy at crucial points when his approval ratings sagged. On several occasions <ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzhjODk1ODg4M2NiODU4Yzc3YWE1OTA1MDNmYWQ5M2Y= The Facts About Clinton and Terrorism], Byron York, ''National Review Online'', September 11, 2006. </ref> generally when the approval ratings dipped to 47%, surprise cruise missile attacks<ref>[http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/12/21/wwwh8d21.html Airstrikes Against Iraq: 'What Happens Now?'], U.S. Information Agency ''Daily Digest'', December 21, 1998.</ref> were launched which resulted in a 10 point gain in the public opinion polls. Nick Gillespie of ''Reason'' remarked,
{{Cquote|Consider, for instance, the relative lack of scrutiny accorded the August 20 cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and [[Sudan]] … immediately after the bombing, polls showed that close to half of all Americans thought the missile strikes were meant to divert attention from the president's sex life… the Sudanese bombing suggests something else as well: If and when the public's and the media's attention shifts from the president's sex life to wider-ranging inquiries about how he makes deadly serious policy decisions…"<ref>[http://www.reason.com/news/show/30827.html Bombs Away - Troubling questions about the U.S. attack on Sudan], ''Reason'', December 1998.</ref>}}

==== Voter demographics ====
[[File:Clinton1.jpg|alt=Bill Clinton|thumb|right|330px|1994 cartoon by Tom Toles shows Clinton was all things to all people]]
{| class=wikitable
! colspan="8" |The Presidential Vote in Social Groups (percentages)
|-
! rowspan="3" | ''% of 1996 total vote''
|
| colspan="6" |''% of 3-party vote''
|-
|
| colspan="3" |''1992''
| colspan="3" |''1996''
|-
! ''Social group''
! ''Clinton''
! ''Bush''
! ''Perot''
! ''Clinton''
! ''Dole''
! ''Perot''
|-
|
| Total vote
| style="text-align:right;" | 43
| style="text-align:right;" | 38
| style="text-align:right;" | 19
| style="text-align:right;" | 49
| style="text-align:right;" | 41
| style="text-align:right;" | 8
|-
|
| '''Party and ideology'''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 2
| Liberal Republicans
| style="text-align:right;" | 17
| style="text-align:right;" | 54
| style="text-align:right;" | 30
| style="text-align:right;" | 44
| style="text-align:right;" | 48
| style="text-align:right;" | 9
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 13
| Moderate Republicans
| style="text-align:right;" | 15
| style="text-align:right;" | 63
| style="text-align:right;" | 21
| style="text-align:right;" | 20
| style="text-align:right;" | 72
| style="text-align:right;" | 7
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 21
| Conservative Republicans
| style="text-align:right;" | 5
| style="text-align:right;" | 82
| style="text-align:right;" | 13
| style="text-align:right;" | 6
| style="text-align:right;" | 88
| style="text-align:right;" | 5
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 4
| Liberal Independents
| style="text-align:right;" | 54
| style="text-align:right;" | 17
| style="text-align:right;" | 30
| style="text-align:right;" | 58
| style="text-align:right;" | 15
| style="text-align:right;" | 18
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 15
| Moderate Independents
| style="text-align:right;" | 43
| style="text-align:right;" | 28
| style="text-align:right;" | 30
| style="text-align:right;" | 50
| style="text-align:right;" | 30
| style="text-align:right;" | 17
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 7
| Conservative Independents
| style="text-align:right;" | 17
| style="text-align:right;" | 53
| style="text-align:right;" | 30
| style="text-align:right;" | 19
| style="text-align:right;" | 60
| style="text-align:right;" | 19
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 13
| Liberal Democrats
| style="text-align:right;" | 85
| style="text-align:right;" | 5
| style="text-align:right;" | 11
| style="text-align:right;" | 89
| style="text-align:right;" | 5
| style="text-align:right;" | 4
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 20
| Moderate Democrats
| style="text-align:right;" | 76
| style="text-align:right;" | 9
| style="text-align:right;" | 15
| style="text-align:right;" | 84
| style="text-align:right;" | 10
| style="text-align:right;" | 5
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 6
| Conservative Democrats
| style="text-align:right;" | 61
| style="text-align:right;" | 23
| style="text-align:right;" | 16
| style="text-align:right;" | 69
| style="text-align:right;" | 23
| style="text-align:right;" | 7
|-
|
| '''Gender and marital status'''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 33
| Married men
| style="text-align:right;" | 38
| style="text-align:right;" | 42
| style="text-align:right;" | 21
| style="text-align:right;" | 40
| style="text-align:right;" | 48
| style="text-align:right;" | 10
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 33
| Married women
| style="text-align:right;" | 41
| style="text-align:right;" | 40
| style="text-align:right;" | 19
| style="text-align:right;" | 48
| style="text-align:right;" | 43
| style="text-align:right;" | 7
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 15
| Unmarried men
| style="text-align:right;" | 48
| style="text-align:right;" | 29
| style="text-align:right;" | 22
| style="text-align:right;" | 49
| style="text-align:right;" | 35
| style="text-align:right;" | 12
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 20
| Unmarried women
| style="text-align:right;" | 53
| style="text-align:right;" | 31
| style="text-align:right;" | 15
| style="text-align:right;" | 62
| style="text-align:right;" | 28
| style="text-align:right;" | 7
|-
|
| '''Race'''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 83
| White
| style="text-align:right;" | 39
| style="text-align:right;" | 40
| style="text-align:right;" | 20
| style="text-align:right;" | 43
| style="text-align:right;" | 46
| style="text-align:right;" | 9
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 10
| Black
| style="text-align:right;" | 83
| style="text-align:right;" | 10
| style="text-align:right;" | 7
| style="text-align:right;" | 84
| style="text-align:right;" | 12
| style="text-align:right;" | 4
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 5
| Hispanic
| style="text-align:right;" | 61
| style="text-align:right;" | 25
| style="text-align:right;" | 14
| style="text-align:right;" | 72
| style="text-align:right;" | 21
| style="text-align:right;" | 6
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 1
| Asian
| style="text-align:right;" | 31
| style="text-align:right;" | 55
| style="text-align:right;" | 15
| style="text-align:right;" | 43
| style="text-align:right;" | 48
| style="text-align:right;" | 8
|-
|
| '''Religion'''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 46
| White Protestant
| style="text-align:right;" | 33
| style="text-align:right;" | 47
| style="text-align:right;" | 21
| style="text-align:right;" | 36
| style="text-align:right;" | 53
| style="text-align:right;" | 10
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 29
| Catholic
| style="text-align:right;" | 44
| style="text-align:right;" | 35
| style="text-align:right;" | 20
| style="text-align:right;" | 53
| style="text-align:right;" | 37
| style="text-align:right;" | 9
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 3
| Jewish
| style="text-align:right;" | 80
| style="text-align:right;" | 11
| style="text-align:right;" | 9
| style="text-align:right;" | 78
| style="text-align:right;" | 16
| style="text-align:right;" | 3
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 17
| Born Again, religious right
| style="text-align:right;" | 23
| style="text-align:right;" | 61
| style="text-align:right;" | 15
| style="text-align:right;" | 26
| style="text-align:right;" | 65
| style="text-align:right;" | 8
|-
|
| '''Age'''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 17
| 18–29 years old
| style="text-align:right;" | 43
| style="text-align:right;" | 34
| style="text-align:right;" | 22
| style="text-align:right;" | 53
| style="text-align:right;" | 34
| style="text-align:right;" | 10
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 33
| 30–44 years old
| style="text-align:right;" | 41
| style="text-align:right;" | 38
| style="text-align:right;" | 21
| style="text-align:right;" | 48
| style="text-align:right;" | 41
| style="text-align:right;" | 9
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 26
| 45–59 years old
| style="text-align:right;" | 41
| style="text-align:right;" | 40
| style="text-align:right;" | 19
| style="text-align:right;" | 48
| style="text-align:right;" | 41
| style="text-align:right;" | 9
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 24
| 60 and older
| style="text-align:right;" | 50
| style="text-align:right;" | 38
| style="text-align:right;" | 12
| style="text-align:right;" | 48
| style="text-align:right;" | 44
| style="text-align:right;" | 7
|-
|
| '''Education'''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 6
| Not a high school graduate
| style="text-align:right;" | 54
| style="text-align:right;" | 28
| style="text-align:right;" | 18
| style="text-align:right;" | 59
| style="text-align:right;" | 28
| style="text-align:right;" | 11
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 24
| High school graduate
| style="text-align:right;" | 43
| style="text-align:right;" | 36
| style="text-align:right;" | 21
| style="text-align:right;" | 51
| style="text-align:right;" | 35
| style="text-align:right;" | 13
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 27
| Some college education
| style="text-align:right;" | 41
| style="text-align:right;" | 37
| style="text-align:right;" | 21
| style="text-align:right;" | 48
| style="text-align:right;" | 40
| style="text-align:right;" | 10
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 26
| College graduate
| style="text-align:right;" | 39
| style="text-align:right;" | 41
| style="text-align:right;" | 20
| style="text-align:right;" | 44
| style="text-align:right;" | 46
| style="text-align:right;" | 8
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 17
| Post graduate education
| style="text-align:right;" | 50
| style="text-align:right;" | 36
| style="text-align:right;" | 14
| style="text-align:right;" | 52
| style="text-align:right;" | 40
| style="text-align:right;" | 5
|-
|
| '''Family income'''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 11
| Under $15,000
| style="text-align:right;" | 58
| style="text-align:right;" | 23
| style="text-align:right;" | 19
| style="text-align:right;" | 59
| style="text-align:right;" | 28
| style="text-align:right;" | 11
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 23
| $15,000–$29,999
| style="text-align:right;" | 45
| style="text-align:right;" | 35
| style="text-align:right;" | 20
| style="text-align:right;" | 53
| style="text-align:right;" | 36
| style="text-align:right;" | 9
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 27
| $30,000–$49,999
| style="text-align:right;" | 41
| style="text-align:right;" | 38
| style="text-align:right;" | 21
| style="text-align:right;" | 48
| style="text-align:right;" | 40
| style="text-align:right;" | 10
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 39
| Over $50,000
| style="text-align:right;" | 39
| style="text-align:right;" | 44
| style="text-align:right;" | 17
| style="text-align:right;" | 44
| style="text-align:right;" | 48
| style="text-align:right;" | 7
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 18
| Over $75,000
| style="text-align:right;" | 36
| style="text-align:right;" | 48
| style="text-align:right;" | 16
| style="text-align:right;" | 41
| style="text-align:right;" | 51
| style="text-align:right;" | 7
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 9
| Over $100,000
| style="text-align:right;" | —
| style="text-align:right;" | —
| style="text-align:right;" | —
| style="text-align:right;" | 38
| style="text-align:right;" | 54
| style="text-align:right;" | 6
|-
|
| '''Region'''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 23
| East
| style="text-align:right;" | 47
| style="text-align:right;" | 35
| style="text-align:right;" | 18
| style="text-align:right;" | 55
| style="text-align:right;" | 34
| style="text-align:right;" | 9
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 26
| Midwest
| style="text-align:right;" | 42
| style="text-align:right;" | 37
| style="text-align:right;" | 21
| style="text-align:right;" | 48
| style="text-align:right;" | 41
| style="text-align:right;" | 10
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 30
| South
| style="text-align:right;" | 41
| style="text-align:right;" | 43
| style="text-align:right;" | 16
| style="text-align:right;" | 46
| style="text-align:right;" | 46
| style="text-align:right;" | 7
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 20
| West
| style="text-align:right;" | 43
| style="text-align:right;" | 34
| style="text-align:right;" | 23
| style="text-align:right;" | 48
| style="text-align:right;" | 40
| style="text-align:right;" | 8
|-
|
| '''Community size'''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 10
| Population over 500,000
| style="text-align:right;" | 58
| style="text-align:right;" | 28
| style="text-align:right;" | 13
| style="text-align:right;" | 68
| style="text-align:right;" | 25
| style="text-align:right;" | 6
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 21
| Population 50,000 to 500,000
| style="text-align:right;" | 50
| style="text-align:right;" | 33
| style="text-align:right;" | 16
| style="text-align:right;" | 50
| style="text-align:right;" | 39
| style="text-align:right;" | 8
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 39
| Suburbs
| style="text-align:right;" | 41
| style="text-align:right;" | 39
| style="text-align:right;" | 21
| style="text-align:right;" | 47
| style="text-align:right;" | 42
| style="text-align:right;" | 8
|-
| style="text-align:right;" | 30
| Rural areas, towns
| style="text-align:right;" | 39
| style="text-align:right;" | 40
| style="text-align:right;" | 20
| style="text-align:right;" | 45
| style="text-align:right;" | 44
| style="text-align:right;" | 10
|}
'''Source:''' Voter News Service exit poll, reported in ''The New York Times'', November 10, 1996, p. 28.

==Second term==
With the [[Cold War]] over, the economy proved highly prosperous, and after the [[Republicans]] won control of Congress the budget was not only balanced but a surplus was produced for the first time in memory. The reasons include reduction in defense spending after the Cold War (from 5% of GDP to 3%), a revenue burst from the [[dot-com bubble]] (the short-lived overexpansion of high tech), restraints on spending imposed by [[Newt Gingrich]] and the GOP Congress, and the fruition of Reagan era tax cuts for business research and development in the consumer electronics (computer and cell phone) industry.
=== Impeachment ===

On August 17, 1998, after relentless media attention, leaks, and news of White House intern [[Monica Lewinsky]]'s upcoming testimony regarding her extramarital affair with the President, Clinton made history by becoming the first U.S. president to testify in front of a grand jury in an investigation of his own possibly criminal conduct. In an address to the nation, he admitted to having misled the public and a Federal Court over keys elements of testimony. [[Kenneth Starr]], a special prosecutor appointed to investigate the case, was instructed to pursue the matter.
[[File:ClintonTIME9801.jpg|thumb|290px]]
In the second term Clinton was accused of perjury when he lied under oath during the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. In the end Clinton was impeached in the House and was tried in the Senate for two counts: "perjury" and "obstruction of justice".<ref>The House turned down two other counts: "abuse of power" as well as another count of "perjury" in connection with the Paula Jones case.</ref> Although a majority of 55 Senators voted to convict, a minority of 45 Senators gained his acquittal, a two thirds majority being necessary to remove him from office. Speaker Gingrich, who had promised Republicans that impeachment would be a success, had failed badly and was forced to resign and left Congress. The Republican next in line resigned, admitting he too had committed adultery.

[[David Gergen]], former White House Communications Director for both Presidents Reagan and Clinton, summarized the hurt of the President's misconduct:
{{Cquote|The deep and searing violation took place when he not only lied to the country, but co-opted his friends and lied to them....when you have gone over the line, you won't bring others into it...You don't foul the nest."<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/quinn110298.htm In Washington, That Letdown Feeling], By Sally Quinn, ''The Washington Post'', November 2, 1998, Page E01</ref>}}

Clinton lost his law license in Arkansas because he had committed perjury before a Federal judge.

It was during this scandal that Clinton famously stated: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/21/newsid_2525000/2525339.stm</ref>
[[File:Dow10000.JPG|thumb|290px|Performance of the Dow Jones Industrial Average since Clinton asked to privatize Social Security; Clinton made his proposal at or near the top of the investment cycle when stocks were overvalued, prior to the crash.]]

=== Proposal to privatize Social Security ===

In 1999 President Clinton proposed investing the Social Security Trust Fund in what some might consider "risky" assets in the [[stock market]] and [[bond]]s. The stock market then was in the late stages of a bull market cycle with stock prices and indexes overvalued. Clinton told a joint meeting fo the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate,
{{Cquote|'''I propose that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the [[private sector]], just as any private or State Government pension would do.'''<ref>[http://www.c-span.org/Transcripts/SOTU-1999.aspx President Bill Clinotn's 1999 State of the Union Address,] January 19, 1999. Retrieved from C-Span.org 19 August 2010.</ref>}}

=== Foreign Policy ===

Critics of Clinton argued that he lacked a knowledge of [[world]] affairs. In his 1992 speech at the Democrat National Convention, he devoted one minute to foreign policy issues in an oration that lasted an hour. <ref>The Presidents by David Maraniss, Pg. 626</ref> Clinton entered office after the U.S. won the [[Cold War]], and the U.S. was the only superpower. There were no major foreign crisis during his presidency. His foreign policy was based on five principles: 1) strong alliances with Europe and Asia, 2) positive relations with former adversaries, 3) a global perspective on local conflicts, 4) the adaptation of national security priorities to incorporate technological advances, and 5) effective economic integration.<ref>Samuel R. Berger, "A Foreign Policy for the Global Age," ''Foreign Affairs'' 2000 79(6): 22-39. 0015-7120 </ref>

Butfoy (2006) argues that in the 1990s the "revolution in military affairs" (RMA), which produced "smart" weapons like cruise missiles, came of age. This apparently transformed how America viewed the relationship between force and international relations. It looked as though technology was framing foreign policy. In particular, smart weapons enabled Clinton to combine risk minimization with an expanded security agenda. However, we should be wary of ascribing technological determinism to the conflicts of the 1990s dominated by Washington's flexing of its strategic superiority, such as its bombing of Belgrade. As shown by comparison with US strategy after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Washington's stance in the 1990s was shaped by linkages between technology and specific political circumstances. As these circumstances changed, so did the RMA's place in US efforts to shape world order.

====Human Rights====
Supporters of human rights faulted Clinton’s ideological transition from [[Wilsonianism| Wilsonian idealism]] to [[Realist|realism]], especially regarding China and Bosnia. They gave high marks for his efforts at pushing peace negotiations in Haiti and the Middle East, the use of economic sanctions against North Korea, India, and Pakistan, and his efforts to get a chemical weapons convention. However, they give low marks in terms of human rights for inaction on the genocide in Rwanda and the Russian repression of secessionist Chechnya.

====NATO and Eastern Europe====
Much attention was devoted to Eastern Europe.

Clinton actively promoted the expansion of NATO to the east, over the objections of Russia. Russia wanted to maintain some degree of control over its former satellites, and they wanted true independence. The NATO expansion was a political decision. An expanded NATO gave full play to political functions aimed at merging East European nations into NATO and bringing about their transformation into Western-style political and economic systems. NATO members will continue to work toward containing Russia if it fails to integrate itself into the West and returns to its traditional expansionist practices. The Russian transformation and NATO's adjustment influenced each other.
=====Bosnia=====
With the breakup of [[Yugoslavia]] civil wars erupted leading to genocide. With NATO support--but without UN approval--Clinton sent in the US Air Force to launch air strikes on Serbs in Bosnia and later deployed twenty thousand troops. The goal was to protect Muslim Bosnians from genocidal attacks from the Serbs. The policy eventually worked in Bosnia but later had to be extended to nearby Kosovo. Clinton briefly consulted Congress, but promised the troops would soon leave. They remained for years.
=====Kosovo=====
There was no internationally significant [[human rights]] crisis in Kosovo immediately prior to the NATO bombardment that justified its intervention on behalf of the ethnic-[[Albania]]n population. The problems of warfare that existed in Kosovo were largely a result of Clinton's support for the [[Kosovo Liberation Army]] (KLA), a narco-[[terrorist]] organization<ref>http://nobsblog.blogspot.com/2002/05/whos-kla.html</ref> linked to [[al Qaeda]], with the intent of causing a crisis that justified intervention. The intervention was not humanitarian. NATO failed to produce evidence of massacres approaching anywhere near its claims. The intervention was illegal, destructive, and based on fraudulent claims.<ref>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1666</ref>

====Ireland====
But for the efforts of President Clinton and his administration, and his special envoy Senator George Mitchell, the [[Good Friday Agreement]] (1998) reached between the British government, Irish republicans, and Ulster unionists would be impossible and the troubles would still be going on.

====North Korea====

From 1985 to 1992, N. Korea "bought time" for its nuclear weapons program by entering into a series of international diplomatic agreements under which it promised to "deweaponize" its reactors and halt further production of plutonium. By Clinton's second, however, N. Korea had violated the terms of most of the non-proliferation agreements and withdrew from the rest.

Clinton forged an agreement with Kim Il-sung that the North would temporarily halt its signed on Oct. 21, 1994 known as the "Agreed Framework."<ref>http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aankorea.htm</ref>

In addition to the oil supplied under the 1994 Agreed Framework, North Korea continued to the United States and other countries for free, unconditional food aid while eschewing any real reform of its [[Stalin]]ist agricultural system. <ref>http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/91-141.htm</ref>

By 2000, the United States contribution of food and other forms of humanitarian aid to North Korea had amounted to over $61 million.

====Middle East====
There was little progress in the Middle East, where US support for Israel angered the Arabs. While Clinton made some accomplishments, including the 1993 Oslo Accords, the death of Israel’s prime minister [[Yitzhak Rabin]] in 1995 slowed the peace process. The election of Ehud Barak as prime minister in May 1999 appeared to give the president his last chance to achieve a foreign policy success. A meeting at Camp David between Palestinian leader [[Yasser Arafat]] and Barak in December 2000 produced a plan to create a Palestinian state in about 95% of the West Bank and Gaza. The plan was not accepted by the public on either side. President Clinton's hesitant political style was partially responsible for the lack of a lasting peace settlement.

====Japan====
Relations with Japan, the main American ally in Asia, started off poorly. Yet by 2000, both sides realized how important friendship was, and this led to a redefinition and strengthening of the US-Japanese alliance. Although some changes have occurred in the asymmetry of power in the post-Cold War alliance with the relationship becoming less unequal, US interests still dominate, for the weakness of the Japanese economy limited its self confidence.

====China====
Clinton started off with heavy criticism of the lack of human rights in China. The main issue was Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status for China, favored by China and American business and farm interests but strongly opposed by religious and human rights groups. Clinton's policy, which began with a 1993 executive order to make MFN status conditional on Chinese reforms, changed as the importance of a trade relationship with China forced the issue to be separated from the government's human rights policies.

He adjusted his China policy in 1996 and advocated dialogue and engagement; this led to improved relations. But Washington continued to criticize China on the issues of Hong Kong, human rights, trade, arms sales, Taiwan, and questionable political donations to US election campaigns. President Jiang Zemin's visit to the United States regained the momentum and led to a level of cooperation between the two countries not seen in years. The major factors affecting the relationship include: the enduring impact of the 1989 Tiananmen episode when the Communist Party crushed a democratic movement with the army; the negative coverage of China by American media, American psychological insecurity caused by the rise of China, and US domestic politics which has a love-hate relationship with China (loving to buy cheap Chinese products while watching competing American factories shut down.)

====India====
Relations with India were expected to improve following the end of the Cold War. They did not do so as both sides mishandled relations. The contradictory policies of the Clinton administration that simultaneously pressured India to liberalize its economy while criticizing New Delhi on human rights and nuclear issues undermined the very officials who strove to improve ties. In the face of criticism from Washington and opposition at home, Indian diplomats lost their enthusiasm for rapprochement. The controversy that surrounded the passage of the Brown Amendment, which restored aid to Pakistan in 1995 despite Islamabad's violation of the 1985 Pressler Amendment, is a case study of the delicate nature of the Indo-American relationship. In resurrecting Cold War rhetoric, Indian parliamentarians and American congressmen demonstrated their unwillingness to establish a new relationship. However the [[George W. Bush]] administration reversed policy and developed close, friendly ties to India.
====Canada====
Relations with Canada went smoothly. Thanks to the precedent set by the [[Brian Mulroney]] government and the administration of [[George H.W. Bush]] in the resolution of issues such as the acid rain problem and the Pacific salmon dispute. A friendly relationship between the Canadian prime minister [[Jean Chrétien]] and Clinton helped, as did the strong economic growth enjoyed by both countries. In addition, there were multilateral and bilateral institutions in place, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, to resolve some major disagreements. However, the relationship faces a number of challenges in the future. While concerns about ballistic missile attacks and threats of international terrorism are priorities for Americans, Canadians do not share those concerns but view the importation of American culture into their country with trepidation, and there are no institutional structures in place to resolve disagreements on these particular issues.
====Mexico and NAFTA====
Clinton, with GOP help, passed a free trade agreement over the objection of most Democrats and labor unions. The implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) generated political disagreements and stress in Mexico, involving issues of economics, labor unions, environmentalism, and international power. Mexico's financial crisis of 1993-95, which led to peso devaluation and new dislocations in that country, and disputes between Clinton and the Congress also exacerbated NAFTA's implementation. Nonetheless, the positive consequences of NAFTA included increases in Mexican imports to the United States and shifts in the trade balance in Mexico's favor.

====Iraq====
Clinton tried to contain Iraq, and used military attacks to make the point. Clinton launched a small cruise missile attack against Iraq in 1993 as a response to a suspected terrorist assassination attempt made on former President George H. W. Bush in Kuwait. In 1998, Clinton threatened military action when Iraq denied full access to UN weapons inspectors.

====Africa====
In Africa, Clinton expressed the exasperation of he American public after decades of single-party rule involving massive misuse and pillage of the continent's resources by local dictators. Clinton called for an end to protected European economic and commercial zones and for open competition on terms that would gradually eliminate African dependency. The Americans, in an effort to promote both democracy and prosperity, urged the African political class to create regimes in their states responsible to the people, to accept participation by opposition parties, and to install rigorous accounting and management procedures. Congress and public opinion supported the new initiatives, which involved much less public assistance to Africa and a great deal more private investment and mutually profitable trade. Essentially, American policy challenged African leaders to undertake reforms that would make them artisans of their own futures.

==== Al-Qaeda terrorism ====
The Arab terrorist group [[al-Qaeda]] conducted a World Trade Center bombing in 1993, simultaneous bombings of the US embassies in [[Kenya]] and [[Tanzania]] in 1998, and the attack on the [[USS Cole]] in 2000. Clinton bombed al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan in response, but meanwhile 19 terrorists were plotting an even more ghastly attack on America which took place on September 11, 2001, eight months after Clinton left office.

===Terrorist pardons===

On August 11, 1999, President Clinton offered clemency to members of the [[Armed Forces of National Liberation]] (FALN) [[terrorist]] group. <ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20070703053819/http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/92199CoddlingTerrorists.pdf U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee] testimony available at http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/wl91599.htm, ''The Tampa Tribune'', S.J.Res. 33 (passed 95-2).</ref> On January 24, 1975 the FALN bombed Fraunces Tavern in Manhattan killing four people. Over a six-year period, the group claimed responsibility for more than 100 bombings that took six lives and injured some 130 people.<ref>[http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/sep4.htm Clinton Pardons Terror], ''New York Post'', August 13, 1999. retrieve from http://www.latinamericanstudies.org September 14, 2007.</ref> Deputy Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] was credited with with an "unconscionable" effort to circumvent the standard pardon process, not consulting with the [[Department of justice]]'s pardon attorney and keeping deliberations hidden from the district U.S. attorney and investigative agencies. [[Weather Underground]] [[terrorists]] [[Linda Evans]] and Susan Rosenberg were also pardoned.<ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmM1OGM4OGRiNTI5NTIzOTFkMDAwMTJiNGFlYWFiZGI= ''Confirming Fears''], Editorial, National Review Online, November 19, 2008.</ref>

===Legacy===
Of the $1.6 million Clinton earned in salary<ref>http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/wjclinton.html</ref> as President for 8 years, Clinton agreed to pay $850,000,<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones111498.htm</ref> or more than 53% in a legal settlement with [[Paula Jones]] to satisfy claims for damages to her reputation.

Every President since [[William Howard Taft]] in 1910 has served as Honorary President of the [[Boy Scouts of America]] during his term in office. In 2000 it was reported the Boy Scouts national office revoked the title afforded to Bill Clinton after thousands of complaints. Numerous Eagle Scouts returned their certificates of achievement bearing Clinton's signature and requested a replacement without it.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=13204 Eagle Scouts drop Clinton signature], ''WorldNetCaily.com, August 24, 2000.</ref>

== Post-Presidency ==
Clinton has spent much of time since leaving office working for charitable causes such as support and fund-raising for the victims of AIDS and the Asian tsunami. In the case of the Indian Ocean tsunami, he teamed with former president [[George H.W. Bush]] to raise money for relief efforts.

Bill Clinton's wife, [[Hillary_Rodham_Clinton|Hillary Clinton]], was elected Senator to New York in 2000. She was reelected in 2006. She made a failed bid for the [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|Democratic presidential nomination in 2008]].

Clinton has been criticized by both liberals and conservatives for his actions in his wife's presidential campaign. ''Time'' called him "his wife's attack dog". <ref>http://media.www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/paper856/news/2008/01/28/OpEd/Editorial.On.The.Campaign.Trail.Bill.Clinton.Should.Keep.His.Mouth.Shut-3171498.shtml</ref> Although he had signed up most black leaders to support Hillary, the great majority of Black voters went for Obama. Clinton was accused of racism by implying that many voters chose [[Obama]] for reasons of race, rather than policy, saying that he succeeding in some regions for the same reason [[Jesse Jackson]] did.

After Obama refused to give Hillary the Vice Presidential nomination, both Clintons loyally campaigned for Obama. Obama easily defeated Senator [[John McCain]], and named Hillary Secretary of State. Bill Clinton has maintained a low profile in 2009.

==Bibliography==

===Basic reading===
* Berman, William C. ''From the Center to the Edge: The Politics and Policies of the Clinton Presidency'' (2001) 160pp, useful summary and interpretation
* Campbell, Colin, and Bert A. Rockman, eds. ''The Clinton Legacy'' 348 pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58143940 online edition]
* Clinton, Bill. ''My Life''. (2004). ISBN 0-375-41457-6. [http://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Bill-Clinton/dp/140003003X/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464316&sr=8-8 excerpt and text search]
* Felsenthal, Carol. ''Clinton in Exile: A President Out of the White House‎'' (2008) 386 pages
* Gillon, Steve. '' The pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the rivalry that defined a generation‎'' (2008) 342 pages, by a leading historian; [http://books.google.com/books?id=d-U2IzI2r5YC&pg=PA78&dq=intitle:clinton&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]
* Hamilton, Nigel. ''Bill Clinton: Mastering the Presidency'' (2007) covers 1993-96, 766pp [http://books.google.com/books?id=Ky8fzAmUIvAC&pg=PA203&dq=intitle:clinton&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]
* Harris, John F. ''The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House'' (2005) ISBN 0-375-50847-3, the best coverage of the presidency [http://www.amazon.com/Survivor-Bill-Clinton-White-House/dp/0375760849/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464409&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hyland, William G. ''Clinton's World: Remaking American Foreign Policy'' (1999) ISBN 0-275-96396-9 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14147621 online edition]
* Klein, Joe. ''The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton'' (2003) by leading journalist [http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,490843,00.html online excerpt and search]; [http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Misunderstood-Presidency-Bill-Clinton/dp/0767914120/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464449&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Levy, Peter. ''Encyclopedia of the Clinton Presidency'' (2002), 400pp; 230 well-balanced articles
* Maraniss, David, ''First in His Class: A Biography of Bill Clinton'' (1996) ISBN 0-684-81890-6. Biography to 1991. [http://www.amazon.com/First-His-Class-Biography-Clinton/dp/0684818906/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464484&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Posner, Richard A. ''An Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton'' (1999) ISBN 0-674-00080-3 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77420690 online edition]
* Schantz, Harvey L. ''Politics in an Era of Divided Government: Elections and Governance in the Second Clinton Administration'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102246366 online edition]
* Schier, Steven E. ''The Postmodern Presidency: Bill Clinton's Legacy in U.S. Politics'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Postmodern-Presidency-Clintons-Politics-Political/dp/082294135X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464518&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

===Biographical and Presidential===
* Barber, Benjamin. '' The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House‎'' (2008) 336 pages [http://books.google.com/books?id=zwywJroh6PoC&pg=PA11&dq=intitle:clinton&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]
* Berman, William C. ''From the Center to the Edge: The Politics and Policies of the Clinton Presidency'' (2001) 160pp, useful summary and interpretation
* Campbell, Colin, and Bert A. Rockman, eds. ''The Clinton Legacy'' 348 pp [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58143940 online edition]
* Congressional Quarterly. ''Congress and the Nation 1993-1997: A Review of Government and Politics: 103rd and 104th Congresses'' (1998); ''Congress and the Nation 1997-2001: A Review of Government and Politics: 105th and 106th Congresses'' (2002). Highly detailed nonpartisan coverage (1200 pp each) of all political issues, including presidency
* Gillon, Steve. '' The pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the rivalry that defined a generation‎'' (2008) 342 pages, by a leading historian; [http://books.google.com/books?id=d-U2IzI2r5YC&pg=PA78&dq=intitle:clinton&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]
* Hamilton, Nigel. ''Bill Clinton: Mastering the Presidency'' (2007) covers 1993-96, 766pp [http://books.google.com/books?id=Ky8fzAmUIvAC&pg=PA203&dq=intitle:clinton&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]* Harris, John F. ''The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House'' (2005) ISBN 0-375-50847-3, the best coverage of the presidency [http://www.amazon.com/Survivor-Bill-Clinton-White-House/dp/0375760849/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464409&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Klein, Joe. ''The Natural: The Misunderstood Presidency of Bill Clinton'' (2003) by leading journalist [http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,490843,00.html online excerpt and search]; [http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Misunderstood-Presidency-Bill-Clinton/dp/0767914120/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464449&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Levy, Peter. ''Encyclopedia of the Clinton Presidency'' (2002), 400pp; 230 well-balanced articles
* Schantz, Harvey L. ''Politics in an Era of Divided Government: Elections and Governance in the Second Clinton Administration'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102246366 online edition]
* Schier, Steven E. ''The Postmodern Presidency: Bill Clinton's Legacy in U.S. Politics'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Postmodern-Presidency-Clintons-Politics-Political/dp/082294135X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464518&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

===Clinton to 1992===
* Abbott, Philip. "A 'Long and Winding Road': Bill Clinton and the 1960s," Rhetoric & Public Affairs 9.1 (2006) 1-20 in Project Muse
* Borrelli, Stephen A. "Finding the Third Way: Bill Clinton, the DLC, and the Democratic Platform of 1992," ''Journal of Policy History'' Vol. 13#4 (2001), pp. 429-462 in Project Muse
* Goldman, Peter L. et al, ''Quest for the Presidency, 1992'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=11169230 online edition]
* Maraniss, David, ''First in His Class: A Biography of Bill Clinton'' (1996) ISBN 0-684-81890-6. Biography to 1991. [http://www.amazon.com/First-His-Class-Biography-Clinton/dp/0684818906/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464484&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

===Foreign Policy===
* Butfoy, Andrew. "The Rise and Fall of Missile Diplomacy? President Clinton and the 'Revolution in Military Affairs' in Retrospect." ''Australian Journal of Politics and History'' 2006 52(1): 98-114. Issn: 0004-9522 Fulltext: in Ebsco [http://www.questia.com/read/5014679475 online complete editon]
* Cohen, Warren I. ''America's Failing Empire: U.S. Foreign Relations since the Cold War.'' 2005. 204 pp.
* Davis; John. "The Evolution of American Grand Strategy and the War on Terrorism: Clinton and Bush Perspectives" ''White House Studies'', Vol. 3, 2003
* Hendrickson, Ryan C. ''The Clinton Wars: The Constitution, Congress, and War Powers'' (2002)
* Hyland, William G. ''Clinton's World: Remaking American Foreign Policy'' (1999) ISBN 0-275-96396-9 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14147621 online edition]
* Jewett, Aubrey W. and Marc D. Turetzky. "Stability and Change in President Clinton's Foreign Policy Beliefs, 1993-96" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'', Vol. 28, 1998 [http://www.questia.com/read/5001392338 online edition]
* Livingston, C. Don, Kenneth A. Wink; "The Passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in the U.S. House of Representatives: Presidential Leadership or Presidential Luck?" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'', Vol. 27, 1997 [http://www.questia.com/read/5000429192 online edition]
* Maclean, George A. ''Clinton's Foreign Policy in Russia: From Deterrence and Isolation to Democratization and Engagement'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Clintons-Foreign-Policy-Russia-Democratization/dp/0754649016/ref=sr_1_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464518&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]

===Domestic Policy===
* Edwards; George C. "Bill Clinton and His Crisis of Governance" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 28, 1998 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001393468 in Questia]
* Fisher; Patrick. "Clinton's Greatest Legislative Achievement? the Success of the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Bill" ''White House Studies'', Vol. 1, 2001 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5002437663 in Questia]
* Greenspan, Alan. ''The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World'' (2007), memoir by head of Federal Reserve [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Turbulence-Adventures-New-World/dp/0143114166/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260097183&sr=1-1xcerpt and text search]
* Harris, John F. ''The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House''. (2005) covers the major policy issues [http://www.amazon.com/Survivor-Bill-Clinton-White-House/dp/0375760849/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260097075&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Lanoue, David J. and Craig F. Emmert; "Voting in the Glare of the Spotlight: Representatives' Votes on the Impeachment of President Clinton" ''Polity'', Vol. 32, 1999
* Needham, Catherine. "Brand Leaders: Clinton, Blair and the Limitations of the Permanent Campaign." ''Political Studies'' 2005 53(2): 343-361. Issn: 0032-3217 Fulltext: in Ebsco
* Nie; Martin A. "'It's the Environment, Stupid!': Clinton and the Environment" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'', Vol. 27, 1997 [http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001516576 online edition]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Restless-Giant-United-Watergate-History/dp/019512216X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195117012&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Poveda; Tony G. "Clinton, Crime, and the Justice Department" ''Social Justice'', Vol. 21, 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5000301618 online edition]
* Renshon; Stanley A. ''The Clinton Presidency: Campaigning, Governing, and the Psychology of Leadership'' Westview Press, 1995
* Schantz, Harvey L. ''Politics in an Era of Divided Government: Elections and Governance in the Second Clinton Administration'' (2001) ISBN 0-8153-3583-0
* Stiglitz, Joseph E. ''The Roaring Nineties: A New History of the World's Most Prosperous Decade'' (2004) economic history; [http://www.amazon.com/Roaring-Nineties-History-Worlds-Prosperous/dp/0393326187/ref=sr_1_6/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464518&sr=8-6 excerpt and text search]
* Wattenberg; Martin P. "The Democrats' Decline in the House during the Clinton Presidency: An Analysis of Partisan Swings" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'', Vol. 29, 1999 [http://www.questia.com/read/5001303783 online edition]

===Polls, campaign, images, character, scandals===
* Blaney, Joseph R. and William L. Benoit. ''The Clinton Scandals and the Politics of Image Restoration,'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Scandals-Politics-Restoration-Political-Communication/dp/0275971066/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194471793&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search] [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101159621 online edition]
* Borrelli, Stephen A. "Finding the Third Way: Bill Clinton, the DLC, and the Democratic Platform of 1992," ''Journal of Policy History'' Vol. 13, #4 (2001), pp. 429-462 in [[Project Muse]]
* Cohen; Jeffrey E. "The Polls: Change and Stability in Public Assessments of Personal Traits, Bill Clinton, 1993-99" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'', Vol. 31, 2001
* Cronin, Thomas E. and Michael A. Genovese; "President Clinton and Character Questions" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' Vol. 28, 1998
* Denton Jr. Robert E. ''The 1992 Presidential Campaign: A Communication Perspective,'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104563698 online edition]
* Denton Jr. Robert E. ''The 1996 Presidential Campaign: A Communication Perspective,'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=26288597 online edition]
* Denton Jr. Robert E. and Rachel L. Holloway, eds. ''The Clinton Presidency: Images, Issues, and Communication Strategies, 1996 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24374540 online edition]
* Denton Jr. Robert E. and Rachel L. Holloway, eds. ''Images, Scandal, and Communication Strategies of the Clinton Presidency'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Scandal-Communication-Strategies-Presidency-Presidential/dp/0275971767/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464518&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Glad; Betty. "Evaluating Presidential Character" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'', Vol. 28, 1998 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001393536 online edition]
* Maurer; Paul J. "Media Feeding Frenzies: Press Behavior during Two Clinton Scandals" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 29, 1999 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5001239881 online edition]
* O'Connor; Brendon. "Policies, Principles, and Polls: Bill Clinton's Third Way Welfare Politics 1992-1996" ''The Australian Journal of Politics and History'', Vol. 48, 2002
* Posner, Richard A. ''An Affair of State: The Investigation, Impeachment, and Trial of President Clinton'' (1999) ISBN 0-674-00080-3 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77420690 online edition]
* Renshon, Stanley A. "The Polls: The Public's Response to the Clinton Scandals, Part 1: Inconsistent Theories, Contradictory Evidence" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'', Vol. 32, 2002 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000773179 online edition]
* Renshon; Stanley A. '' The Clinton Presidency: Campaigning, Governing, and the Psychology of Leadership'' (1995) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9961027 online edition]
* Starr, Kenneth. ''The Starr Report: The Findings of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr on President Clinton and the Lewinsky Affair'' (1998) ISBN 1-891620-24-X
* Whittington, Keith E. "The Rhetorical Presidency, Presidential Authority and President Clinton," ''Perspectives on Political Science,'' Vol. 26, 1997
* Waldman, Michael. ''POTUS Speaks: Finding the Words That Defined the Clinton Presidency'' (2000) ISBN 0-7432-0020-9
* Wattier; Mark J. "The Clinton Factor: The Effects of Clinton's Personal Image in 2000 Presidential Primaries and in the General Election" ''White House Studies'', Vol. 4, 2004
* Weisberg, Herbert F., and Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier. ''Reelection 1996: How Americans Voted,'' 1999 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=62235822 online edition]

===Health reform===
* Blendon, R. J., M. Brodie, and J. Benson. "What Happened to Americans' Support of the Clinton Plan?" ''Health Affairs'' 1995. 14(2):7-23. [http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/14/2/7?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=brodie&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=10&resourcetype=HWCIT online edition], analysis of poll data
* Fox, Daniel M. "A Lost Cause: Bill Clinton's Campaign for National Health Insurance, and: The Road to Nowhere: The Genesis of President Clinton's Plan for Health Security," ''Bulletin of the History of Medicine'' vol. 73, # 2, Summer 1999, pp. 367-369 in [[Project Muse]]
* Laham, Nicholas, ''A Lost Cause: Bill Clinton's Campaign for National Health Insurance'' (1996) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/a-lost-cause-bill-clintons-campaign-for-national-health-insurance-by-nicholas-laham.jsp online edition]
* Rushefsky, Mark E. and Kant Patel. ''Politics, Power & Policy Making: The Case of Health Care Reform in the 1990s'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Power-Policy-Making-Health/dp/1563249561/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260096806&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Skocpol, Theda. ''Boomerang: Clinton's Health Security Effort and the Turn Against Government in U.S. Politics,'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/Boomerang-Health-Reform-Against-Government/dp/039331572X/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194472221&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]

==Primary sources==
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistical tables
*Clinton, William jfeerson. ''Conversations: William Jefferson Clinton: from Hope to Harlem‎'' ed. by Janis F. Kearney (2006) 402 pages; [http://books.google.com/books?id=EVdrKWADFnsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:clinton&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=2006&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]
* Starr, Kenneth. ''The Starr Report: The Findings of Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr on President Clinton and the Lewinsky Affair'' (1998) ISBN 1-891620-24-X [http://books.google.com/books?id=NxWTTbiij0wC&dq=inauthor:Starr+inauthor:Kenneth&num=30&as_brr=0 excerpt and text search]
===Memoirs===
* Clinton, Bill. ''My Life''. (2004). ISBN 0-375-41457-6. [http://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Bill-Clinton/dp/140003003X/ref=sr_1_8/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194464316&sr=8-8 excerpt and text search]
* Blumenthal, Sidney. ''The Clinton Wars''. (2003). ISBN 0-374-12502-3 [http://www.amazon.com/Clinton-Wars-Sidney-Blumenthal/dp/0374125023/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194472136&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Greenspan, Alan. ''The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World'' (2007), memoir by head of Federal Reserve
* Stephanopoulos, George. ''All Too Human: A Political Education'' (1998) ISBN 0-316-92919-0 [http://www.amazon.com/All-too-Human-George-Stephanopoulos/dp/0316930164/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194472067&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

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

{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Bill}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Arkansas Governors]]
[[Category:Democratic Governors]]
[[Category:Corruption]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2012-03-18T21:45:30Z

Jackmondoo23:

Conservative principles are based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

'''Could it be because not everyone shares your viewpoint? Could it be that most scientists and many others are liberals because they agree with the policies? Your intolerance, lack of education about liberalism and general seething hatred astound me. I used to find Conservapedia amusing, but this is just downright hateful.'''

== Statistical Analysis ==

(Estimates, i.e made up rubbish)

:* 20%: did not hear about conservative principles until ''after'' they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
:* 10%: genuinely lack of desire to find the truth, and instead desire attention, praise by liberal teachers, getting along by going along, and not standing up to liberal bullies
:* 10%: refuse to forgive themselves and let go of their past mistakes and image
:* 10%: believe myths created around government programs like the "New Deal" that liberal policies create jobs instead of destroying them and depriving people of liberty through government control.
:* 10%: fooled by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
:* 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
:* 10%: feel that they deserve to make more money than they do, as in public school teachers and university professors, and refuse to rise above self-interest
:* 10%: harbor a grudge against a conservative, typically a parent but sometimes an ex-spouse, and refuse to forgive or rise above the animosity
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas
:* 5%: are susceptible to marketing and suggestion to an overlarge degree.

== What Triggers Reconsideration of [[Liberal]] Beliefs? ==

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

:* 25%: raising or teaching children, and realizing how destructive liberal values are to many of them
:* 15%: a religious conversion followed by taking the [[Bible]] to heart
:* 10%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values, as in losing a loved one to crime caused by pornography, drug addiction, gambling, etc.
:* 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of [[Ronald Reagan]] based in his friendship with his [[conservative]] father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921293,00.html]</ref>
:* 10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as youth was wrong
:* 5%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
:* 5%: a genuine divine experience that can not be explained.
:* 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
:* 5%: taking a truthful course in [[economics]], or learning it in the workforce<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of Nobel Laureate [[Ronald Coase]].</ref>

== Cultural indoctrination ==

*Brainwashing and deceit:
:* They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
:* Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
:* Television programs posing as comedies, such as [[South Park]], [[Family Guy]], and [[The Simpsons]], which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
:* Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
:* Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
:* A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
:* Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like [[Blaise Pascal]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[James Maxwell]]. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—[[liberal]] historians and [[liberal]] scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)
:*Elementary through high school textbooks having appalling and reprehensible omissions on the basic facts of American life (religion, marriage, politics, and business)<ref> ''Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's textbooks'', [[Paul C. Vitz]], Servant Books, 1986, ISBN 0-89283-305-X, (this book contains the results of a federally funded research project analyzing children's textbooks) </ref>
:*For decades Universities have discriminated against hiring conservatives, especially social conservatives and religious believers.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=zGOuAAAACAAJ A Student's Guide to Religious Studies], D. G. Hart, ISI Books, 2005, ISBN 1932236589, 9781932236583, 108 pages; see page 38 and note on page 107. </ref> This has resulted in most college graduates being exposed to liberals prejudiced against conservatives and conservative thought. These graduates become the teachers and other professionals who are unwitting soldiers in liberalism's battle against a Christian Reformed, Roman-Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox, obedient-to-God reality.

*No exposure:
:* Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
:* Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no school-sponsored prayer)
:* Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
:* Most universities and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern [[Pastoral care]] as the Roman Catholic church)

*Peer Pressure:
:* They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
:* They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

*Systemic bias:
:* Some people are [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|inherently irrational]], and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
:* Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
:* Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
:* Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
:* Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

== Liberal characteristics ==
*Poor abstract thinking:
:* They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
:* They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
:* Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
:* Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
:* Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

*Closed-minded:
:* They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
:* They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
:* Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

*Naivety:
:* Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
:* An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
:* A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
:* Impressionable individuals buying into [[Bush derangement syndrome]], and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
:* Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

*Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
:* Some choose to do what is irrational.
:* Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
:* Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
:* Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
:* Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

Andrew Schlafly

2012-03-18T21:37:55Z

Jackmondoo23:

'''Over 98% of scientists and a higher figure for biologists accept evolution. These are well-trained people who have a high level of scientific knowledge and know what they're talking about. Unlike your faith-based, unscientific nonsense creation "theory", evolution has abundant evidence and there is NOT ONE peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal. Hmm... I wonder why? Could it be that the scientific community knows more than a bunch of idiots who keep denying Darwin when there is abundant evidence everywhere? --[[User:Jackmondoo23|Jackmondoo23]] 17:32, 18 March 2012 (EDT)
'''
[[Image:ASchlafly.JPG|thumb|175px|right|Andrew Schlafly]]
'''Andrew Schlafly''' is a [[conservative]] lawyer and former [[engineer]]. Mr. Schlafly is also the founder of Conservapedia.

Andrew Schlafly is the fifth child of attorney John Fred Schlafly, Jr. and noted political activist [[Phyllis Schlafly]]. His great-grandfather, August Schlafly, was founder of the Union Trust and Savings Bank of East St. Louis, Ill., the First National Bank of Edwardsville, Ill., and other banks in Western states. <ref> [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE3DB1638F936A15752C1A962948260 Catherine Kosarek] Wedding news. November 25, 1984.
</ref>

He graduated from [[Princeton University|Princeton]] University with a bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and from Harvard Law School as an attorney. A magna cum laude graduate from [[Harvard]] Law School, he was an editor of the [[Harvard Law Review]]. <ref> [http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/03/medical_attorne.php Medical Attorney Andrew Schlafly] Posted on March 23, 2005. </ref>

He teaches one of the largest homeschool classes in the country, including one class in fall 2006 with 58 students in [[World_History_Lectures|World History]]. In spring 2007 he taught [[Economics_Lectures|Economics]].

Conservapedia developed as a result of his World History course. Andrew Schlafly and several of his top students continue to lead the project, and most of his students have contributed entries to it.

Andrew Schlafly has taught homeschoolers online since the late 1990s, and in person since fall 2002. Several of Andrew Schlafly's prior course materials are available on [http://www.eagleforumu.org Eagle Forum University].

== External links ==
[[Image:Img524 Andy.jpg|thumb|Andy Schlafly at Columbia University]]
*[http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/clep/about.html About CLEP] The College-Level Examination Program.
*[http://hbutler0.tripod.com/semmelweissocietytv/id52.html Andrew Schlafly], Esq.

{{Clear}}

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Lawyers]]
[[Category: Academics]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Schlafly, Andrew}}

Talk:Evolution

2012-03-18T21:32:42Z

Jackmondoo23:

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

== Your failure to accept evolution ==

Over 98% of scientists and a higher figure for biologists accept evolution. These are well-trained people who have a high level of scientific knowledge and know what they're talking about. Unlike your faith-based, unscientific nonsense creation "theory", evolution has abundant evidence and there is NOT ONE peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal. Hmm... I wonder why? Could it be that the scientific community knows more than a bunch of idiots who keep denying Darwin when there is abundant evidence everywhere? --[[User:Jackmondoo23|Jackmondoo23]] 17:32, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

== Doctors poll results ==

I don't think this poll is appropriate to include. How many doctors have to study evolutionary biology? They don't, it's not relevant to their medical knowledge to have an advanced understanding of evolution.

For what it's worth you might as well say x% of engineers/policemen/politicians accept evolution. These people are all laymen in evolution, they will have the same level of understanding as people on the street. Why not include a poll taken from people who really have to understand evolution for their work, such as geneticists/archaeologists/biologists/etc? That would be far more applicable, don't you agree?

I suggest the poll is either removed as it asks people who are unsuitable to answer the question, or we use a new poll that includes suitable people. I would be more than happy to provide more suitable polls for you to use in your article if you wish :-). --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 10:33, 29 February 2012 (EST)
:Hi again. As no-one has raised an objection I'm assuming that it's ok to go ahead and make this change? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 10:33, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Houston, we have anti-evolutionism campaign lift off ==

News item: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/our-question-evolution-campaign.html Houston, we have anti-evolution campaign lift off]
[[File:Rocket.jpg|200px|right]]
{{clear}}

:Why is Conservative allowed to link to his own personal website? This isn't the place for his spam, and its not like the site has any new or interesting information about it. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 15:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== Factual error ==

Evolution itself has been confirmed as fact. The mechanism of evolution is what's still theory. Someone might want to fix this.[[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 14:56, 18 December 2011 (EST)
:I disagree, evolution has never been confirmed as fact. I suggest having a look at [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:39, 18 December 2011 (EST)
::No, I'm quite serious, evolution itself (the concept that species change gradually over millions of years) has been proven as fact. The only thing that's a theory now is the mechanism of evolution. Just Google "Evolution in the Galapagos" and you can see for yourself. Also, most of the articles I've visited on Conservapedia are rife with inaccuracies, so I'm afraid an outside source is required if you want me to take your counter-claim seriously. [[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 12:57, 19 December 2011 (EST)
:::I agree with FactCheck that referencing a Conservapeida page would be almost as bad as referencing a Wikipedia page, and that obviously I don't think anyone denies micro-evolution; it has been proven. However, I don't think saying, "Someone might want to fix this" is very constructive at all. Why don't you fix it? I don't believe that fact that FactCheck really wants to make sure "Conservapedia stays Trustworthy," in fact, I would speculate that Factcheck isn't a conservative at all. Most likely an atheist. Of course, this entire topic needs massive revision. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
::::He can't fix it because one of the sysops has protected this page and refuses to unprotect it. Mainly to prevent the massive revision it badly needs. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 10:36, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Oh--Sorry. Hmmmmm. He must be worried of vandalism or something. Maybe we can post here exactly what changes we would make were we able to, and then people with the authority can decide what to keep and what to throw out. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
:::::::The agnostic [[Carl Sagan]], who said he obtained his greatest scientific insights smoking marijuana, claimed evolution is a fact. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:36, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Yuck. What a hack. I hate pot-smokers almost as much as I hate agnostics (and I really hate agnostics--what a cop-out). Carl Sagan was certainly wrong--evolution could never be proven, but I think FactCheck47 was referring to what is called microevolution. That is the phenomenon observed with the Galapagos Finches. It will be important for us to distinguish upon this point because a lot of what liberals try to do is prove microevolution (which is fairly easy) and then conclude that all life must come from evolution (ridiculous). But if we get into an argument over whether or not microevolution exists we will lose. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 12:26, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Evolution as a theory or hypothesis ==
[[File:ScientificMethodflowchart.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Evolution is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.]]
As you can see from Karajou's image, the word "theory" indicates that evolution has been backed up by experimental evidence. However, this is not the case. I propose removing references to evolution as a theory and replacing with references to it as a "hypothesis", which is what it fits under. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:Hi, I don't believe in evolution, but it's not fair to say it hasn't been tested. It certainly hasn't been proven, and we should focus on that. And I would say it is falsifiable, for example if fossils didn't exist, they would be hard pressed (of course evolutionists would probably try to argue it anyways no matter what the actual evidence says). Anyways, the most famous such test would be the 'Chromosome fusion hypothesis,' which is an axillary hypothesis to they theory of evolution, which predicts chromosome fusion in one of the human chromosomes; it was confirmed in 2004. The paper is easy to find, albeit technical. Here's the youtube link by one of the authors of the paper:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 11:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::NickP, excellent point. That is addressed here: http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Unqualified_to_be_a_scientific_theory Second, theory has a number of definitions. Third, a lot of people are finding the article by doing search engine searches vis a vis "theory of evolution" and since there is more than one definition of theory, I think it is better to leave it the way it is. However, in a few minutes, I will create article space for you to address this issue and then I can link to the article within the [[evolution]] page. Give me a few minutes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Here are some articles that could be created: [[Evolution as hypothesis]],[[Evolution is a religion]], [[Evolution disproved]], [[Disproving evolution]], [[Evolution and Karl Popper]], [[Evolution is a lie]] and [[Evolution is a deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::::Those are good ideas for articles that can be linked to from here. I'll try to help where I can, but I can't say biology is my strength, so I'm not sure how useful I'll be. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:33, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No big deal. I have a lot of irons on the fire now anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:40, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Perhaps I did not study this article closely enough, but in it I saw nothing pertaining to the Hardy Weinberg Principle. Because the Hardy Weinberg Principle is essential to understanding why such a good number of evolutionists believe what they do, I would urge for it to be included in this article. --X. Dulks
:Well, I'm not sure because the article isn't about how evolution works or why people might believe it. If you want, you could create a [[Mechanisms of Evolution]] page or something like that. I guess you could even create a [[Why some people might believe in Evolution]] page, as long as you were super careful to follow the Conservapedia guidelines. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 18:30, 28 January 2012 (EST)
::A well done [[Mechanisms of microevolution]] article would be an excellent article and be much more encyclopedic/less speculative.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:46, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:::Yes good point. The article should be [[Mechanisms of microevolution]]. The "microevolution" v "Evolution" is indeed important. Actually, there is already a [[Natural selection]] article, and I believe an inclusion of the Hardy Weinberg Principle there would be good as well if not entirely sufficient in itself. I don't know if X. Dulks wants to take that on. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 13:44, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism ==
[[File:Eagle and fish.jpg|thumbnail|right|400px|A supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] writes: "Feeble goal setting is fitting for passive and apathetic evolutionists, but not for Bible believing Christians. In 2012, our group desires to soar like eagles and make evolutionary dogma our prey."[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/linda-schaible/6063077714/ Flickr], Title: Lock&Dam14-Bald Eagle & Fish, Flicker username: LAShibes, see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism]

Talk:Evolution

2012-03-18T21:32:04Z

Jackmondoo23:

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

== Your failure to accept evolution ==

Over 98% of scientists and a higher figure for biologists accept evolution. These are well-trained people who have a high level of scientific knowledge and know what they're talking about. Unlike your faith-based, unscientific nonsense creation "theory", evolution has abundant evidence and there is NOT ONE peer-reviewed creationist scientific journal. Hmm... I wonder why? Could it be that the scientific community knows more than a bunch of idiots who keep denying Darwin when there is abundant evidence everywhere?

== Doctors poll results ==

I don't think this poll is appropriate to include. How many doctors have to study evolutionary biology? They don't, it's not relevant to their medical knowledge to have an advanced understanding of evolution.

For what it's worth you might as well say x% of engineers/policemen/politicians accept evolution. These people are all laymen in evolution, they will have the same level of understanding as people on the street. Why not include a poll taken from people who really have to understand evolution for their work, such as geneticists/archaeologists/biologists/etc? That would be far more applicable, don't you agree?

I suggest the poll is either removed as it asks people who are unsuitable to answer the question, or we use a new poll that includes suitable people. I would be more than happy to provide more suitable polls for you to use in your article if you wish :-). --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 10:33, 29 February 2012 (EST)
:Hi again. As no-one has raised an objection I'm assuming that it's ok to go ahead and make this change? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 10:33, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Houston, we have anti-evolutionism campaign lift off ==

News item: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/our-question-evolution-campaign.html Houston, we have anti-evolution campaign lift off]
[[File:Rocket.jpg|200px|right]]
{{clear}}

:Why is Conservative allowed to link to his own personal website? This isn't the place for his spam, and its not like the site has any new or interesting information about it. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 15:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== Factual error ==

Evolution itself has been confirmed as fact. The mechanism of evolution is what's still theory. Someone might want to fix this.[[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 14:56, 18 December 2011 (EST)
:I disagree, evolution has never been confirmed as fact. I suggest having a look at [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:39, 18 December 2011 (EST)
::No, I'm quite serious, evolution itself (the concept that species change gradually over millions of years) has been proven as fact. The only thing that's a theory now is the mechanism of evolution. Just Google "Evolution in the Galapagos" and you can see for yourself. Also, most of the articles I've visited on Conservapedia are rife with inaccuracies, so I'm afraid an outside source is required if you want me to take your counter-claim seriously. [[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 12:57, 19 December 2011 (EST)
:::I agree with FactCheck that referencing a Conservapeida page would be almost as bad as referencing a Wikipedia page, and that obviously I don't think anyone denies micro-evolution; it has been proven. However, I don't think saying, "Someone might want to fix this" is very constructive at all. Why don't you fix it? I don't believe that fact that FactCheck really wants to make sure "Conservapedia stays Trustworthy," in fact, I would speculate that Factcheck isn't a conservative at all. Most likely an atheist. Of course, this entire topic needs massive revision. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
::::He can't fix it because one of the sysops has protected this page and refuses to unprotect it. Mainly to prevent the massive revision it badly needs. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 10:36, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Oh--Sorry. Hmmmmm. He must be worried of vandalism or something. Maybe we can post here exactly what changes we would make were we able to, and then people with the authority can decide what to keep and what to throw out. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
:::::::The agnostic [[Carl Sagan]], who said he obtained his greatest scientific insights smoking marijuana, claimed evolution is a fact. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:36, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Yuck. What a hack. I hate pot-smokers almost as much as I hate agnostics (and I really hate agnostics--what a cop-out). Carl Sagan was certainly wrong--evolution could never be proven, but I think FactCheck47 was referring to what is called microevolution. That is the phenomenon observed with the Galapagos Finches. It will be important for us to distinguish upon this point because a lot of what liberals try to do is prove microevolution (which is fairly easy) and then conclude that all life must come from evolution (ridiculous). But if we get into an argument over whether or not microevolution exists we will lose. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 12:26, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Evolution as a theory or hypothesis ==
[[File:ScientificMethodflowchart.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Evolution is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.]]
As you can see from Karajou's image, the word "theory" indicates that evolution has been backed up by experimental evidence. However, this is not the case. I propose removing references to evolution as a theory and replacing with references to it as a "hypothesis", which is what it fits under. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:Hi, I don't believe in evolution, but it's not fair to say it hasn't been tested. It certainly hasn't been proven, and we should focus on that. And I would say it is falsifiable, for example if fossils didn't exist, they would be hard pressed (of course evolutionists would probably try to argue it anyways no matter what the actual evidence says). Anyways, the most famous such test would be the 'Chromosome fusion hypothesis,' which is an axillary hypothesis to they theory of evolution, which predicts chromosome fusion in one of the human chromosomes; it was confirmed in 2004. The paper is easy to find, albeit technical. Here's the youtube link by one of the authors of the paper:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 11:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::NickP, excellent point. That is addressed here: http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Unqualified_to_be_a_scientific_theory Second, theory has a number of definitions. Third, a lot of people are finding the article by doing search engine searches vis a vis "theory of evolution" and since there is more than one definition of theory, I think it is better to leave it the way it is. However, in a few minutes, I will create article space for you to address this issue and then I can link to the article within the [[evolution]] page. Give me a few minutes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Here are some articles that could be created: [[Evolution as hypothesis]],[[Evolution is a religion]], [[Evolution disproved]], [[Disproving evolution]], [[Evolution and Karl Popper]], [[Evolution is a lie]] and [[Evolution is a deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::::Those are good ideas for articles that can be linked to from here. I'll try to help where I can, but I can't say biology is my strength, so I'm not sure how useful I'll be. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:33, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No big deal. I have a lot of irons on the fire now anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:40, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Perhaps I did not study this article closely enough, but in it I saw nothing pertaining to the Hardy Weinberg Principle. Because the Hardy Weinberg Principle is essential to understanding why such a good number of evolutionists believe what they do, I would urge for it to be included in this article. --X. Dulks
:Well, I'm not sure because the article isn't about how evolution works or why people might believe it. If you want, you could create a [[Mechanisms of Evolution]] page or something like that. I guess you could even create a [[Why some people might believe in Evolution]] page, as long as you were super careful to follow the Conservapedia guidelines. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 18:30, 28 January 2012 (EST)
::A well done [[Mechanisms of microevolution]] article would be an excellent article and be much more encyclopedic/less speculative.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:46, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:::Yes good point. The article should be [[Mechanisms of microevolution]]. The "microevolution" v "Evolution" is indeed important. Actually, there is already a [[Natural selection]] article, and I believe an inclusion of the Hardy Weinberg Principle there would be good as well if not entirely sufficient in itself. I don't know if X. Dulks wants to take that on. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 13:44, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism ==
[[File:Eagle and fish.jpg|thumbnail|right|400px|A supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] writes: "Feeble goal setting is fitting for passive and apathetic evolutionists, but not for Bible believing Christians. In 2012, our group desires to soar like eagles and make evolutionary dogma our prey."[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/linda-schaible/6063077714/ Flickr], Title: Lock&Dam14-Bald Eagle & Fish, Flicker username: LAShibes, see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism]

Ordovician

2012-03-18T21:27:28Z

Jackmondoo23:

The '''Ordovician period''' is the second period in the [[Paleozoic]] era. It started approximately 500 million years ago after the end of the [[Cambrian]] era. Most of the phyla which are living today existed at the beginning of the Ordovician period by those who accept that the earth is billions of years old. [[Theory of evolution|Evolutionary]] scientists assert by the end of the Ordovician period, the first land plants, bryophytes, evolved and began to colonize the land. The Ordovician also saw the [[evolution]] of [[fish]]. The Ordovician preceded the [[Cambrian]] era and was succeeded by the [[Silurian]] era.

'''98.75% of Scientists are evolutionists, with a higher figure in the field of biology. Can't you stupid Creationists just realise you're wrong? Intelligent scientists who actually have evidence know what they're talking about. Why don't you just stop believing in your unscientific, faith-based nonsense?'''

[[Category:Geologic Systems]]