Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-10-08T23:38:55Z

JasonM: /* Insights */ add section, more Obama ignorance, and reference

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

'''Barack Hussein Obama, II''' (born, allegedly in Honolulu,<ref>MSM Ignores Democrat Lawsuit Against Obama[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/08/22/msm-ignores-democrat-lawsuit-against-obama]</ref><ref>[http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg Large, high-resolution picture of his birth certificate]</ref> August 4, 1961) is the 2008 nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] for [[President of the United States of America|president]].<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref> Obama has served as a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] since 2004. On August 23 he chose [[Senator Joseph Biden]] as his running mate. In 2007, Obama was rated the most [[liberal]] Senator by the National Journal, who had rated [[Senator John Kerry]] the most liberal senator during his presidential run as well.<ref>http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/</ref> If elected, Obama may become the first [[Muslim]] [[President]] of the [[United States]].
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Obama, on the campaign trail, stands with folded hands while [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] honor the flag by placing their hands over their heart during the [[National Anthem]].]]

Obama almost always reads from prepared text on a [[teleprompter]] and rarely allows tough questions.<ref>After one debate against [[Hillary Clinton]] in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign announced that the questions were too difficult and that Obama would not agree to future debates with her.</ref><ref name="teleprompter">http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> Indeed, when unable to read from prepared text he often fails miserably at articulating his positions and is caught tripping over his own feet, as displayed in the Saddleback Forum. The first McCain-Obama debate was held in Mississippi on September 26 and, without a teleprompter, Obama stumbled further. The second McCain-Obama debate was held on October 7, and had a Town Hall format.

Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/07/obama_ignorance_watch_1.asp</ref>

==Obama and Islam==

Obama is likely to be Muslim because:

*Obama's background and education are [[Muslim]]
*Obama's middle name remains [[Muslim]], which most Christians would not retain<ref>See, e.g., [http://islam.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=islam&cdn=religion&tm=4&f=10&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.sudairy.com/arabic/masc.html] After Obama became politically ambitious, he declared himself to be a [[Christian]], yet he never replaced his [[Muslim]] name "Hussein" with a Christian one as most do when they undergo a religious conversion. For example, when Saul became a Christian, he changed his name to "Paul"; when the famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to [[Islam]], he took the Muslim name of [[Muhammad Ali]]. "It is common for those converting to a new religion to change their name on conversion"[http://www.ukdp.co.uk/pages/religiousconversion.php] or adopt a Christian name at [[baptism]].[http://www.answers.com/topic/christian-name]</ref>
*Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith"<ref>Obama declared, "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw]</ref>
*Obama uses the Muslim Pakistani pronunciation for "Pakistan" rather than the common American one<ref>Obama repeatedly pronounced "Pakistan" as "Pokiston" in the first presidential debate.</ref>
*Obama, in his autobiography "Dreams from My Father" (1995), descibes Muslim Malcolm X as his favorite black leader
*Obama's claims of conversion to Christianity arose after he became politically ambitious, lacking a date of conversion or baptism.<ref>In his book, Obama oddly claims to have been baptized without giving his age or date, and later gave a date that postdates his political ambition (1992).</ref>

The odds of Obama being truthful in his claim that he converted to Christianity are less than 100 to 1 against it, as fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.<ref>http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm</ref>

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

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

==Obama and Elitism==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref> In his famous 2002 speech<ref>http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php</ref> at an anti-war rally, Obama said that he was against "dumb wars" and expressed some reservations about the Iraq War because he disagrees with the ideological agendas of the Bush administration, but he did not explicitly oppose the war. In his 2004 Democrat Convention speech, Obama said that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq War.

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

===Statements===
Obama has been noted by several independent sources as misquoting historical events and statements by famous persons. A notable example came after Obama's win in the [[North Carolina]] democratic primary. Obama was quoted as saying, "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies as Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did." (Franklin Delano) Roosevelt spoke with none of the [[Axis]] or [[Japanese]] leaders and the the only communication that was sent to them was unconditional surrender. (President) [[Harry Truman]] took over for FDR and continued his unconditional surrender philosophy as well as ending [[World War II]] with an atomic bomb.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_needs_to_study_history_b.html<ref>

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

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

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

Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref>The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As senator, Obama has requested nearly $936 million in earmarks which averages to $500,000. per day over four years, <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008</ref> for which the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has given him a rating of 10% in 2007 (18% lifetime).<ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/DocServer/2007_Senate_Ratings_Final.pdf?docID=3242 2007 Senate Scorecard]</ref> A score of 100% represents voting against all pork, and 0% represents voting ''for'' all pork. Democrats averaged 5% in 2007, whereas Republicans averaged 60%. <ref>[http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/News2?abbr=CCAGW_&page=NewsArticle&id=11590 CCAGW Releases ''2007 Congressional Ratings'']</ref>

According to a Fox News report on October 5th, Obama has taken more than $126,000. in campaign contribution from [[Fannie Mae]] in a little over three years. This ranks him second, only Chris Dodd has received more campaign contribution dollars from Fannie Mae.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Obama visited U.S. troops in Iraq in 2006<ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3794382 Obama visits troops in Iraq]</ref> and in Afghanistan and Kuwait in 2008<ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=3794382 Obama visits troops and officials in Afghanistan and Kuwait]</ref>

Obama's tax plan calls for increasing taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans, while cutting taxes for the middle class. According to the non-partisan [[Tax Policy Center]], most Americans would pay less taxes than under Senator McCain's plan.<ref>[http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411749 An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans: Updated September 12, 2008]</ref> According to another non-partisan group, Americans for Tax Reform, tax-payers would clearly be burdened by an Obama presidency.<ref>[http://www.atr.org/content/html/2008/june/0616-obama_mccaintaxes.html McCain vs. Obama on Taxes] Americans For Tax Reform, June 2008</ref>

===Campaign financing===
Obama is the first presidential candidate to reject public financing. He broke his promise to accept it in the hope that his powerful fund-raising machine would generate far more money than the $84.1 million McCain is getting in public funding. Indeed, on August 14th, the Obama campaign announced it had received donations from 2 million individuals, setting new records. Obama raised $272 million for the primaries and expects to raise $300 million for the general election. However the Republican National Committee has been raising much more than the Democratic National Committee and each candidate had about $100 million in cash on September 1. Each expects to spend about $300 million by November. However, Obama is obliged to devote much of his time to fund raising among supporters rather than campaigning among undecided voters.<ref> see [http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/09/was-obama-right-to-opt-out-of-public-financing.aspx Andrew Romano, "Was Obama Right to Opt Out of Public Financing?," ''Newsweek'' (Sept. 9, 2008) online]</ref>
===Secrecy===

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him [[George W. Bush|President George Bush]] or even Mr. George Bush. Obama has also disrespectfully called him 'George Bush'. Oddly, when Bill Clinton spoke with Obama on September 11th, 2008 predicting he would win handily, Obama responded, "There you go, you can take it from the president of the United States."<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/campaign.wrap/index.html</ref> It appears Obama will use the term for a former President, but will not do the same for the actual President. Examples of Obama's treatment of our current President:
* "I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy," Obama said <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/], CNN Obama blasts Bush McCain, May 16, 2008</ref>
* "For all his talk about independence, the centerpiece of John McCain's economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies," <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/10/obama_takes_the_offensive_vs_mccain/] Boston Globe Obama takes offensive vs. McCain, June 10, 2008</ref>
* "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists." <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403386.stm], BBC Obama attacks Bush over Iran , May 15, 2008</ref>
* Obama called the U.S. economy a disaster thanks to "John McCain's president, George W. Bush" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_mccain/2008/08/18/122924.html No More Hugs: Obama Tears Into McCain] AP, August 18, 2008</ref> Side note, George W. Bush is also Barack Obama's President.

== Foreign policy experience ==
In his presidential campaign, Obama bragged<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-says-no-to-foreign_b_95357.html</ref> that "foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident" and then cited "having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa". He lived in Indonesia from age 6 to 10, and he later discovered that his father had some other kids in Africa.

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

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

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

==Religious affiliations==

Obama and his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. The church embraces black liberation theology and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons.
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. In May 2008, Obama left his church. His response blames the media and not the rhetoric on display <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, may 31, 2008</ref>{{QuoteBox|“It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace..."}} Wright had been making inflammatory comments and posting his sermons online for sale. These include the statements "G-d damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: G-d Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic."

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.'' (B. Obama)
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.'' (B. Obama)
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)
* ''Change We Can Believe In. Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise.'' (B. Obama)
* ''The Case Against Barack Obama. The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate. '' (David Freddso)
* ''The Obama Nation. Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.'' (Jerome R. Corsi)
* ''Obama Unmasked. Did Slick Hollywood Handlers Create the Perfect Candidate?'' (Floyd Brown and Lee Trexler)
* ''Obama: The Man Behind The Mask.'' (Andy Martin)
* ''The Audacity of Deceit. Barack Obama's War on American Values.'' (Brad O'Leary)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama website Fight The Smears has confirmed that Obama was once a Kenyan citizen until 1982. Attorney Philips Berg's lawsuit is being challenged by the Obama Campaign. Instead of producing the original birth certificate in court and put the matter to rest, they seek to have the lawsuit dismissed. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/29/fight-smears-website-admits-obama-was-kenyan-citizen-wheres-msm 'Fight the Smears' Website Admits Obama was Kenyan Citizen: Where's the MSM?] NewsBusters.org, September 29, 2008</ref>

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

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

==Sources==

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

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

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

Talk:Detroit

2008-10-08T22:41:44Z

JasonM: perhaps move the pagename?

==Move page name==
I think this page should be moved to [[Detroit, Michigan]]. Anyone that can do that? Godspeed!--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 18:41, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

Detroit

2008-10-08T22:39:28Z

JasonM: added references and removed template

'''Detroit''' is the largest city in the state of [[Michigan]], and the 11th most populous city in the United States. It has a population of 871,121 and is 138 square miles in size.<ref>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2622000.html</ref> Founded by French explorer Antoine Cadillac on July 24, 1701 as Fort Pontchartrain du Détroit, the city reached a peak population of about 1.85 million in 1950, but has now declined to less than half that.<ref>http://www.historydetroit.com/part_2.asp</ref><ref>http://www.historydetroit.com/stats.asp?4</ref>

==Politics==
Designated as [[United States|America's]] most liberal city, Detroit is predominantly Democrat.<ref>http://www.govpro.com/News/Article/31439/</ref>

==History==
The first permanent structure built in Detroit was a Catholic church.

In 1979, former Iraq dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] received a key to the city.

Detroit is known for being the center of the American auto industry, as well as the home of many long-suffering football fans.

==See Also==
[[Detroit Michigan Temple]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:United States Cities and Towns]]

Detroit

2008-10-08T22:36:12Z

JasonM: add statistics and reference

{{RefAppeal}}
'''Detroit''' is the largest city in the state of [[Michigan]], and the 11th most populous city in the United States. It has a population of 871,121 and is 138 square miles in size.<ref>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2622000.html</ref> Founded by French explorer Antoine Cadillac on July 24, 1701 as Fort Pontchartrain du Détroit, the city reached a peak population of about 1.85 million in 1950, but has now declined to less than half that.

==Politics==
Designated as [[United States|America's]] most liberal city, Detroit is predominantly Democrat.<ref>http://www.govpro.com/News/Article/31439/</ref>

==History==
The first permanent structure built in Detroit was a Catholic church.

In 1979, former Iraq dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] received a key to the city.

Detroit is known for being the center of the American auto industry, as well as the home of many long-suffering football fans.

==See Also==
[[Detroit Michigan Temple]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:United States Cities and Towns]]

Washington, D.C.

2008-10-08T22:22:35Z

JasonM: /* Politics */ period

[[Image:Washington Monument and WWII memorial.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The WWII memorial and Washington Monument]]
'''Washington, D.C.''', also known as the '''District of Columbia''', since 1800 has been the capital of the [[United States]].<ref>http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_item/Nine_Capitals_of_the_United_States.htm</ref> Pierre L'Enfant designed much of the city, including the city's interesting quadrant formation. The city is divided into four quadrants, which meet at a central point at the [[United States Capitol]]. The Northwest quadrant is by far the largest, and locations in this quadrant include the [[White House]], Ford's Theater (where [[Abraham Lincoln]] was assassinated in 1865), the National Zoo, and a number of the Smithsonian Museums. L'Enfant was fired over a dispute involving [[Thomas Jefferson]] before the city's design was completed.<ref>http://www.exploredc.org/index.php?id=3</ref>
In 1814, the British army attacked the city as a part of the [[War of 1812]] and burned a number of public buildings in the city, including the [[White House]]. First Lady [[Dolly Madison]] famously saved a portrait of [[George Washington]] from the White House before the building was burned.<ref>http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/washingtonsack.htm</ref>
The city is located along the [[Potomac River]]. The Anacostia River branches off this, and runs through parts of the Southeast and Northeast Quadrants. This river has had problems with pollution.

Washington, D.C. is served by the [[Metrorail]] subway system.

==Government==
Article I of the Constitution specifies that [[Congress]] has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia.<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8</ref> In 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, [[P.L.]] 93-198, which proposed a charter that delegated legislative authority to a locally-elected [[mayor]] and [[Council of the District of Columbia|council]]; the charter was approved by local referendum in 1974.<ref>http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?rs=gvt1.0&vr=2.0&sp=dcc-1000</ref><ref>http://www.narpac.org/ITXICE.HTM</ref>
[[Image:WashingtonDC1.gif|thumb|200px|A view of the Washington Monument and United States Capital In Washington D.C]]

===Politics===
Washington is politically mixed, with [[Democrats]] as the majority. Washington was designated [[United States|America's]] fourth-most liberal city.<ref>http://www.govpro.com/News/Article/31439/</ref> The current mayor of the District of Columbia is Adrian M. Fenty.

====Constitutional and legal disputes====
On March 9, 2007, the [[United States Court of Appeals]] for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on private [[handgun]] possession, as it pertains to carrying them inside one's own home, on the grounds that the [[Second Amendment]] guarantees the right of individual citizens to keep and bear firearms.<ref name="Parker">''See Parker v. District of Columbia'', 478 F. 3d 370 (2007) [quoted in ''District of Columbia v. Heller'', 554 U.S. ____ (2008).]</ref> In a dissent, however, one judge wrote that the District of Columbia is not a [[state]] and therefore the [[Second Amendment]] does not apply within the District of Columbia. Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban was one of the most restrictive [[gun control]] laws in the nation.<ref>http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-03-09T223851Z_01_N09246717_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-GUNS-RULING.xml&src=rss</ref> On June 26, 2008, the [[Supreme Court]] affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.<ref name="Heller">''District of Columbia v. Heller'' [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf]</ref>

License plates in Washington, D.C. read "taxation without representation," referring to the fact that citizens of the District pay federal income taxes but do not have voting representation in either the [[Senate]] or [[House of Representatives]]. <ref>http://dmv.dc.gov/serv/plates/tax.shtm</ref> These plates do not appear on the presidential limousines. [[George W. Bush|George Walker Bush]] had the plates removed from the limousines after his inauguration, reversing [[Bill_Clinton|William Jefferson Clinton's]] policy. <ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E0DB173CF93AA25752C0A9679C8B63</ref>

Since 1992, Washington, D.C. has offered [[domestic partnership]]s, which are similar to [[same sex marriage]].<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/domestic-partnership-in-the-united-states Answers.com]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:United States Cities and Towns]]

Washington, D.C.

2008-10-08T22:22:00Z

JasonM: /* Government */ add section, info, ref

[[Image:Washington Monument and WWII memorial.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The WWII memorial and Washington Monument]]
'''Washington, D.C.''', also known as the '''District of Columbia''', since 1800 has been the capital of the [[United States]].<ref>http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_item/Nine_Capitals_of_the_United_States.htm</ref> Pierre L'Enfant designed much of the city, including the city's interesting quadrant formation. The city is divided into four quadrants, which meet at a central point at the [[United States Capitol]]. The Northwest quadrant is by far the largest, and locations in this quadrant include the [[White House]], Ford's Theater (where [[Abraham Lincoln]] was assassinated in 1865), the National Zoo, and a number of the Smithsonian Museums. L'Enfant was fired over a dispute involving [[Thomas Jefferson]] before the city's design was completed.<ref>http://www.exploredc.org/index.php?id=3</ref>
In 1814, the British army attacked the city as a part of the [[War of 1812]] and burned a number of public buildings in the city, including the [[White House]]. First Lady [[Dolly Madison]] famously saved a portrait of [[George Washington]] from the White House before the building was burned.<ref>http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/washingtonsack.htm</ref>
The city is located along the [[Potomac River]]. The Anacostia River branches off this, and runs through parts of the Southeast and Northeast Quadrants. This river has had problems with pollution.

Washington, D.C. is served by the [[Metrorail]] subway system.

==Government==
Article I of the Constitution specifies that [[Congress]] has exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia.<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8</ref> In 1973, Congress passed the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, [[P.L.]] 93-198, which proposed a charter that delegated legislative authority to a locally-elected [[mayor]] and [[Council of the District of Columbia|council]]; the charter was approved by local referendum in 1974.<ref>http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?rs=gvt1.0&vr=2.0&sp=dcc-1000</ref><ref>http://www.narpac.org/ITXICE.HTM</ref>
[[Image:WashingtonDC1.gif|thumb|200px|A view of the Washington Monument and United States Capital In Washington D.C]]

===Politics===
Washington is politically mixed, with [[Democrats]] as the majority, Washington was designated [[United States|America's]] fourth-most liberal city.<ref>http://www.govpro.com/News/Article/31439/</ref> The current mayor of the District of Columbia is Adrian M. Fenty.

====Constitutional and legal disputes====
On March 9, 2007, the [[United States Court of Appeals]] for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on private [[handgun]] possession, as it pertains to carrying them inside one's own home, on the grounds that the [[Second Amendment]] guarantees the right of individual citizens to keep and bear firearms.<ref name="Parker">''See Parker v. District of Columbia'', 478 F. 3d 370 (2007) [quoted in ''District of Columbia v. Heller'', 554 U.S. ____ (2008).]</ref> In a dissent, however, one judge wrote that the District of Columbia is not a [[state]] and therefore the [[Second Amendment]] does not apply within the District of Columbia. Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban was one of the most restrictive [[gun control]] laws in the nation.<ref>http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-03-09T223851Z_01_N09246717_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-GUNS-RULING.xml&src=rss</ref> On June 26, 2008, the [[Supreme Court]] affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.<ref name="Heller">''District of Columbia v. Heller'' [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf]</ref>

License plates in Washington, D.C. read "taxation without representation," referring to the fact that citizens of the District pay federal income taxes but do not have voting representation in either the [[Senate]] or [[House of Representatives]]. <ref>http://dmv.dc.gov/serv/plates/tax.shtm</ref> These plates do not appear on the presidential limousines. [[George W. Bush|George Walker Bush]] had the plates removed from the limousines after his inauguration, reversing [[Bill_Clinton|William Jefferson Clinton's]] policy. <ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E0DB173CF93AA25752C0A9679C8B63</ref>

Since 1992, Washington, D.C. has offered [[domestic partnership]]s, which are similar to [[same sex marriage]].<ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/domestic-partnership-in-the-united-states Answers.com]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:United States Cities and Towns]]

Berkeley

2008-10-08T22:17:51Z

JasonM: add info, reference

The city of '''Berkeley''', [[California]], is home to a large branch of the [[University of California]] and is known for its very [[liberal]] politics, which at times has even included official positions on foreign policy. Berkeley was designated [[United States|America's]] third-most liberal city.<ref>http://www.govpro.com/News/Article/31439/</ref>

In January 2008, the Berkeley City Council declared that the [[Marines]] are "uninvited and unwelcome intruders" in Berkeley.

Other examples of [[liberal]] college towns include [[Madison]], [[Wisconsin]], [[Austin]], [[Texas]], and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts|Cambridge]], [[Massachusetts]].

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:California Cities and Towns]]

Detroit

2008-10-08T22:14:54Z

JasonM: add politics, reference

{{RefAppeal}}
'''Detroit''' is the largest city in the state of [[Michigan]], and the 11th most populous city in the United States. Founded by French explorer Antoine Cadillac on July 24, 1701 as Fort Pontchartrain du Détroit, the city reached a peak population of about 1.85 million in 1950, but has now declined to less than half that.

==Politics==
Designated as [[United States|America's]] most liberal city, Detroit is predominantly Democrat.<ref>http://www.govpro.com/News/Article/31439/</ref>

==History==
The first permanent structure built in Detroit was a Catholic church.

In 1979, former Iraq dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] received a key to the city.

Detroit is known for being the center of the American auto industry, as well as the home of many long-suffering football fans.

==See Also==
[[Detroit Michigan Temple]]

[[Category:United States Cities and Towns]]

Christianity

2008-10-06T02:44:00Z

JasonM: /* See also */ add Seventh-day Adventist to list

{{Christianity}}
'''Christianity''' is the world's largest religion, having over 2 billion adherents, and takes its name from [[Jesus Christ]] meaning "Jesus the Savior" and "Jesus the Anointed One". Adherents are called Christians, meaning "of Christ" or "belonging to Christ".<ref>[http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=2661&dict=CALD Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary]</ref> It seems that at first the [[religion]] was called "The Way" and the adherents were called Nazarenes (after the city of [[Nazareth]] where Jesus lived). The name Christian arose in [[Antioch]] in the first century A. D. and its use spread, probably closer to mid-century since it is recorded in the [[Acts of the Apostles|Book of Acts]] (Acts:11:26)

== Main Christian groups ==

The three largest self-governing bodies of Christians are:

* the [[Roman Catholic Church]] (approx. 1.1 billion baptized members) traces its roots back to [[Saint Peter]] who Catholic believed established the Church and the succession of the [[Pope]]s as the spiritual authority over the Christian body of believers.

* the [[Orthodox Church]]es (approx. 300 million baptized members) also trace their roots back to the beginnings of Christianity, but do not believe in the Primacy of the Pope. Different theological perspectives led to the [[Great Schism]] between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches in A.D. 1054.

* [[Protestantism]], the largest Communions are the [[Anglican Church|Anglicans]] (approx. 77 million baptized members) and the Lutheran World Federation (approx. 68 million baptized members). Protestantism has its origins in the European [[Reformation]]. It first broke away from the Roman Catholic Church under [[Martin Luther]] when differences over the nature of faith and works in the role of [[Christianity#salvation|salvation]] could not be adequately reconciled with Papal prescriptions as well as other practices that Luther saw in the Catholic Church at that time that he did not agree with. Other preachers and movements then followed Luther's example and also left the Catholic fold.

== Christian beliefs ==
Theologians, over two millennia, have debated a definitive summary of the Christian faith. While its interpretations vary drastically, probably the most commonly accepted statement of faith is the [[Nicene Creed| Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed]] below:

<blockquote>I believe in one God, [[God the Father|the Father Almighty]], Maker of [[heaven]] and [[earth]], and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the [[Holy Spirit]] and the [[Virgin Mary]], and became man. And He was crucified for us under [[Pontius Pilate]], and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the [[Bible|Scriptures]]; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the [[Resurrection]] of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.</blockquote>

Christians and Christian denominations agree on many points of doctrine and disagree on others. According to an online Harris poll from 2003 99% of all American Christians believe in God, 96% in the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]], 93% in Heaven, 93% in the virgin birth, 92% in the survival of the soul after death, 82% in Hell, 50% in ghosts, 27% in astrology and 21% in reincarnation. <ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref> Note that the latter two beliefs are in opposition to the religious dogma of most Christian denominations.

Nonetheless, the Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed offers a general overall picture of what Christian theology looks like, and serves as a useful outline.

Other creeds may prove helpful in research. See also: the [[Apostle's Creed]], [[Athanasian Creed]].

===God===
The God of the Christians is a triune being. Though there is only one Divine nature there are three Divine Persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three Persons are collectively called the [[Trinity]] or the Holy Trinity. Christians reject the idea that they are polytheists because of the oneness of the divine nature (or essence). Though to non-Christians and even many Christians, it might seem like an inconsequential dogma, the doctrine of the Trinity is central to all of Christian theology and life. This is especially true in the relationship between God and human beings. The major theme of the Bible is love. In the Hebrew [[Old Testament]] the idea is expressed in the Hebrew word ''hessed'', which is variously translated as loyal love, tender mercy, steadfast love, mercy, goodness, etc. in the [[New Testament]] the same idea is expressed in the Greek word ''agape'', which is variously translated as love, compassion, charity, etc. The picture that the Biblical writers draw with these words is of a lover (God) who is entirely self-sufficient, needing nothing, and a beloved (human beings) in desperate need of salvation but unable to obtain it for himself. But God the lover is willing to suffer, knows He is going to suffer, even endure death to save the beloved human beings. This love of God for human beings is an extension of the love the Three Persons in the Trinity have for each other. Each loves the others infinitely. Their love for each other and for their creation is such that the [[Apostle John]] equates God and love, in an almost mathematical way saying, "God is love."

Additionally, the God of the Christians is the creator of all things, is everywhere present, exists in all times, is transcendent, all-knowing (omniscient), just, all-powerful (omnipotent).

===Jesus===
Christians hold that during the reign of [[Caeser Augustus]] the Son (e.g. the second Person of the Trinity) took flesh from a virgin woman and was incarnate as a man. He was born in the town of [[Bethlehem]] and was given the name [[Jesus]]. At the age of thirty he was baptized by his cousin, the [[John the Baptist|Prophet John]], and began to preach in the area [[Palestine]]. About three years after his baptism, he raised his friend Lazarus from the dead, prompting the Jewish power establishment to plot Jesus death. Jesus was [[crucified]]. He came back from the dead and was seen by over 500 people. He ascended to heaven. The four [[Gospels]] contain the records of some of what Jesus did and said, but he did much more than those four books relate, as the Apostle John admitted in his Gospel.

===Jesus' Self Consciousness===

Jesus, conceived of the Holy Spirit, presented a disturbing surprise to his earthly father, Joseph, knowing he had not impregnated his fiancee, Mary. She would ponder the meaning of this miracle all the days Jesus would grow and finally she would behold her son expire on the cross. But Joseph, told by the Lord who his son really was, and how he had come about, and being warned by the Lord to flee the murderous Herod, took his family to Egypt - until the death of Herod made it safe ("Out of Egypt have I called My Son") to return to Israel. The family settled in Nazareth on the elevated rim of the Jezre'el Valley where he grew well and observably no different from the other youth. But when he was about 12 years old, he was taken to the Temple in Jerusalem, and displayed his consciousness that His real Father was God rather than Joseph ("Didn't you know that I must be here about the matters of My Father?".

They returned to Nazereth in Galilee and it wasn't until 28 years later that He began to publicly show His consciousness as to who he was. This was at his baptism at the Jordan River by John, when the voice came, to him, to John, and to the people privileged to be around, "This is my Son, the Beloved, Listen (Shma'a) to Him!" Here and now, against even the desire of John the Baptizer, Jesus, knowing that sin was not in him, chose to identify with sinful mankind in this baptism of John for repentance of sin, knowing that at the end of his time on earth, he would then be giving this sinless life of his on the cross, bearing the sins of the world upon himself.

Back, now, in Galilee, he would begin to do works of mercy, miracles of compassion, healings of deliverance, and overthrowing the devastaions of Satan upon the people of God's compassion - in short, bringing in the Kingdom of Heaven and of God and supplanting the Kingdom of Darkness. He began to gather around him his followers, simple fishing folk and others, spending most of his time in the area around the north shore of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee). among the Jews of this Jewish area. He was bringing in the Messianic Kingdom to those who would understand it best, the Jews. But all the time, there was burning within him the knowledge that the blessings of Abraham would be extended, according to the promise, to all the peoples of the earth, the Gentiles, and there would be a new Kingdom, a new nation, transcending both Jews and Gentiles, the Kingdom of the people of God the Heavenly Father. He began his forays then into gentile areas, Phoenecia, the Decapolis, and other locales, and finding faith there such as he had not found "even in Israel".

A crossroads occurred, then, in the choice of Jesus, and consequently in the options of his disciples. It occurred in the Tetrarchy of Philip, at the foothills of Mt. Hermon, at the town of Caesarea Philipi. He knowing who he was, would force the question upon others - "Who do people say Me to be?". From the lips of Shim'on, whom he would call Peter, as leader of the others, He would hear - "You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!" It was enough. Jesus would then begin imparting to them what the nature of His mission to be - not to expel the Romans from the Holy Land, but to go to Jerusalem, to be betrayed, to be spurned and rejected by the High Priests and the Elders of the People, to be hung on a Roman cross at the hands of the Gentiles, to die. Casesarea Philipi was in between, on one hand, Gentile pervaded Roman Tiberius to the southwest of the Sea, and on the other hand, anti-Roman nationalistic and zealotic Gamla to the north east of the Sea. (This latter would end their rebellion against Rome by suicide on Matzada in 73 A.D). Those two polarities were present in the minds of the disciples and Jesus began, on one hand, to divest from their minds the one, the warrior role of the Messiah against the Romans, and the other, to renew their thinking and their commitment to Him as the self sacrificing Lamb of God, the Prince of Peace and the true Messiah of Israel, on the other hand.

This took place on the long 3 or 4 day journey by foot from Galilee to Jerusalem, along the [[Jordan River]] valley, coming to Jericho, ascending to Jerusalem from the east. It was in Jerusalem that he prepared and settled the matter for the perpetuation of the Church at the Lord's last supper of the Passover, to be made palpable later by the descent of the Holy Spirit. It was in Jerusalem, in the Garden of the Oil Press, that what He had been lead to believe about his mission and the meaning and manner of his death was fully embraced and accepted with no reservation or turning back. "Your will be done, Father, if there is no other way", and "There is no other way, Your will be done Father!" It was a perfect decision and commitment, perfecting his life to be a perfect sacrifice. And it was to the west just outside Jerusalem that His teachings came to a concretization and realization on the cross. And just outside of Jerusalem that His Father would vindicate him by raising him from the dead.

"No man takes my life from me. I have power to take it and I have power to lay it down... I lay down my life for the sheep." <ref>Bible, Gospel of John, 10:18,15 http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvJohn.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=10&division=div1</ref>

"Though He was in the form of God, He did not think equality with God something to grasp onto. But He emptied Himself and took to Himself the form of a servant and was made man, And being found in the form of a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross. For this reason, God has exalted Him..."<ref>Bible, Philippians 2:6-9a, http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvPhil.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1 </ref>

===Morality===
The fundamental principle in Christian moral teaching is love and forgiveness, as expressed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. Jesus summarized his teachings in two commandments from the Old Testament:

"'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 22:37-39; [[Book of Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 6:5; Leviticus 19:18)

Constant debate has resulted as to how a person should express love for God in their moral behavior. This moral dialogue found expression in the New Testament, where the [[Apostle Paul]] addressed such controversies as [[circumcision]] ([[Book of Romans|Romans]] 2:25-29), eating meat that was sacrificed to [[pagan]] deities (1 Corinthians 8), speculating about myths and genealogies (1 Timothy 1:3-5), and observing ceremonial dates and seasons (Galatians 4:9-11).

Regardless of a person's ethical interpretations, adherents commonly point to New Testament passages John 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 as scriptural depictions of love. The former states that <blockquote>"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."</blockquote> The latter characterizes love, saying <blockquote>"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."</blockquote>

Jesus Christ affirmed, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)

===The Atonement of Jesus on the Cross===

All Christians believe with the New Testament that the death of Jesus, along with His resurrection, is an indispensable proclamation of a crucial event for the reconciliation of lost sinners with God. There are three elements they see to understanding His death on the cross.

# Jesus having the knowledge that His path would lead to his own death, desired and willed that that take place, and persevered in that path though there was opportunity for Him to avoid it. Though there is ample recognition in the New Testament that others desired Him to die, and that the circumstances in which His path took him would bring Him to His end on earth, the mover of all these things was Himself and the will of the Father. "I have power to take my life and I have power to lay down my life. I lay down my life for the sheep."
# Jesus saw that in His death there would be a way for people to be brought back to the God from whom they were alienated and lost because of their sins. This would involve a substitution of Himself to effect that way. "For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many." How this would take place was not new to the Jews of His day from their understanding of contemporary everyday practice of substitute payment - as in redemption of the first-born (Pidyon Ha Ben), or in the understanding of what aggadic stories such as the Binding of [[Isaac]] implied (see [[Midrash]]), but it was not the prevalent view that the Messiah was to be that payment. Though while alive on earth, he had hinted at it in sayings such as "unless a seed falls and dies, it remains alone, but when it dies, it brings forth..", it was only after He had risen from the dead that He explained Scripture (the Old Testament) clearly about the necessity of His death to have taken place. The disciples would henceforth preach, and Peter among them, that the death of Jesus the Messiah and His resurrection was forplanned and for-ordained by God the Father, and foretold in the Scripture (Isaiah 53). And so, "The Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God".
# It was the belief in Scripture, that in His death a way back to God was made possible for those that were near to God—the Jews. And a way back to God for those that were far away—the Gentiles. That is why the New Testament saw in the requirements of God for Israel a fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah. He was the perfect Israel, taken out of Egypt, to redeem Israel. And that is why the New Testament saw in Jesus, a deepness to the incarnation of the Son of God, deeper than just a Jew of His time of a certain tribe. He was the "Second Adam" to redeem the sons of Adam. This encompassing perspective had further implications.

Christians of all generations have looked to the perfect Atonement, and the hope for reconciliation, accomplished by Jesus on the cross, to provide the means of understanding the solution to the vexing problems of the mind and of life itself - How can I make reconciliation with my enemies, with even the members of my own family, of race with race and people with people?; Does His death for the sins of the world include those who only partially understand, for the baby aborted, the feeble minded, and severely retarded?; For those who have never heard of Jesus, never been "enlightened", distant and remote in place and time?; Does His death for the sins of the world also include a remedy for the ills that have come as a result of those sins—certain sicknesses, ills of the mind, body and the soul? Do they "hold" for today?; Does His death make good, turn to the better, show the way, effect the way, of the illnesses that have befallen the world, not only by sin, but simply by the circumstances of life, of degeneration, of compounded dysfunction? How does the fruit of His death bring in somehow the Kingdom "among us"?

The death of the Son of God on the cross has provided the solution for sin, and it still holds its sway over the imagination and aspirations for the people of our generation.

===Salvation===
The Bible teaches that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). This is often interpreted to mean that everyone has displeased God and is now separated from him in a kind of alienation and enmity that results from the fundamental conflict between selfish human interests and God's interests (Romans 8:5-8; James 4:4).

However, Jesus offered a solution to this Biblical dilemma in that by repentance of sins and faith in him (Jesus), their sins would be forgiven. He said that "...the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." ([[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] 2:10) Jesus also said, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mark 2:17, and "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men" (Mark 2:28)

Jesus Christ taught that "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" ([[Gospel of John|John]] 3:3). Protestant Evangelical Christianity often use the terms "saved" and "born again" interchangeably. Other Christians, notably the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church use the phrase ''born again'' as a synonym for [[baptism|baptized]]. "Jesus answered, Amen, amen, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Christians are expected to continue living by Christ's teachings (John 8:31), as is appropriate for "children of Light" (Ephesians 5:8-10). Some believe that this is necessary in order to stay saved. However, this is a common misconception of the text. It is rather referring to proving that one is a child of God by their "fruit" (things that they do and how they behave). Christians in the Reformed tradition (following the teaching of the 16th century French lawyer [[John Calvin]], as well as the faith outlined in the Belgic and Heidleberg Confessions) say that salvation is irrevocable and that it cannot be lost, if it were genuinely part of one's life to begin with. Reformed Christians (often called [[Calvinists]]) often point to Romans 8:38-39 as validation of their belief: "For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:38-39; [[NASB]]). According to Calvinists, the reason it cannot be lost by natural things is because salvation was obtained through a supernatural being, namely Jesus Christ. This does not negate Jesus' human side, only that he was both one-hundred percent God and one-hundred percent man, according to the [[Council of Chalcedon]] (A. D. 451). The Bible also makes it clear that mankind cannot earn their salvation, and that it is a free gift.

== Resurrection of Jesus Christ ==
The [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]] is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.<ref>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt</ref>

In recent history Gary Habermas is considered the foremost [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the resurrection of Jesus.<ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection], ''Dialog: A Journal of Theology'', Vol. 45; No. 3 (Fall, 2006), pp. 288-297.</ref><ref>"Wildcat" and Holding, J.P., [http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html Book review of "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus"], 22nd June, 2004 (Tektonics)</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection1-CTR.pdf Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic] ''Criswell Theological Review'' 4.1 (1989) 159-74.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm Explaining Away Jesus' Resurrection:
The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories], Christian Research Journal / vol. 23, no. 4, 2001.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable] (Apologetics.com)</ref>
Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]],<ref>Craig, William Lane, [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html Articles: Historical Jesus]</ref> [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]],<ref>McDowell, Josh, [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html Evidence for the Resurrection], 1992.</ref> [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]],<ref>Jamauchi, Edwin M., [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?]</ref> [[N.T. Wright]]<ref>Wright, N.T., [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity], ''Sewanee Theological Review'' 41.2, 1998.</ref> and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>Horner, Michael, [http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?]</ref>

===The Meaning of the Resurrection for Christians===

The Fact of the Resurrection of Christ is a key element of the preaching of the message about Jesus and an essential of Christian belief. But there are also certain effects that this belief has on the lives of believers.

1. It is because Jesus rose from the dead, that believers now can resort to a living Savior to help and deliver them from sin and from situations overwhelming for them by their own powers.

2. The New Testament sees in the resurrection of Christ a certain vindication of what apparently to the world and to all beings was a failure and an overcoming of Him by His crucifixion. He was "declared to be the Son of God" by His resurrection. This brings believers in Him to a strong confidence in the determined power of God to both vindicate in their own lives and to bring His reign upon earth.

3. The coming of Jesus back to life means to the believer that, indeed, their sins are totally forgiven. This is because believers know that His death was as a payment for sins - a "wage of death" for our sins that He received in our stead. If He remained dead, believers would know that the wage had not been fully paid. His resurrection, carries with it our knowledge that our sin with its attendant death has been totally and finally paid for.

4. It is a now living Savior that Christians know can go before them, can closely lead them through life - as He did when He was on earth. This makes following Him practical and real.

5. The New Testament reveals that it is the Risen Christ who received from the Father the Holy Spirit and He, through Himself ascended to the Father, has given the Holy Spirit to us. This gives the believer in Christ both the knowledge and the power to live a godly life, and live a life that can be an intimately and personally directed one.

6. The resurrected Christ was no mere reassembling of the molecules and particles of the Body that had been crucified. It was, indeed, a physical body, but one that was fully under the Spirit's control, guidance, and empowerment. It was a "spiritual body". Christians know that likewise, they will one day be granted the nature of a spiritual body, and full of health. They therefore are full of hope and consolations, and consider that even now in this life, there is an overcoming through Him, a restoration, and that tears, even now, are wiped away.

== Evangelism ==
In what is called the [[Great Commission]], Jesus sent his disciples out into the world to preach the Gospel (literally "good news") and make disciples.
:'''Great Commission'''
:''But the eleven disciples proceeded to [[Galilee]], to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in [[heaven]] and on [[earth]]." Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the [[#God the Father|Father]] and the [[#God the Son|Son]] and the [[#God the Holy Spirit|Holy Spirit]], teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."'' --[[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 28:16-20 [[New American Standard Bible|NASB]]

It should be noted, however, that Jesus said it was the Holy Spirit, not man, who was sent to convict the world concerning sin and righteousness (John 16:8). This relieves Christians of needing to worry when they evangelize. God is the one who gets the credit with the growth and maturity of the Church: "So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth" (1 Corinthians 3:7).

==See also==

'''Denominations or branches of Christianity'''
*[[Roman Catholic Church]]
*[[Orthodox Church]]
*[[Protestantism|Protestant]]
**[[Amish]]
**[[Baptist]]
**[[Church of England]] or ''Anglican Church''
**[[Episcopal Church in the United States of America]] (or ''Episcopal Church'' or ''Episcopalians'') (Non-UK branch of the Anglican Church)
**[[Evangelical Christianity]]
**[[Fundamentalism]]
**[[Liberal Christianity]]
**[[Lutheran]]
**[[Mennonite]]
**[[Methodist]]
**[[Pentecostal]]
**[[Plymouth Brethren]]
**[[Presbyterian]]
**[[Seventh-day Adventist]]

'''Disputed'''
*[[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]
*[[Christian Science]]

'''Other articles'''
*[[Cathedral]]
*[[Catholicism]]
*[[Christian apologetics]] (Defense of Christianity)
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Church]]
*[[Conservative Christianity]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Passover Seder]]
*[[Persecution of Christians]]
*[[Red-letter Christian]]
*[[Sign of the Cross]]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/christians/ What Liberals Say - Category: Christians], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Worldviews]]

Columbia Union College

2008-10-06T02:19:33Z

JasonM: add information and reference

'''Columbia Union College''' (CUC) is a conservative [[Christian]] college located in Takoma Park, MD. The CUC is affiliated with the [[Seventh-day Adventist]] church and has a four-year, liberal arts platform as well as an MBA master's program.<ref>http://www.cuc.edu/academic/departments/businessgrad/index.html</ref>

==History==
Established in 1904, the CUC was originally known as '''Washington Training Institute'''. The name of the college changed to '''Washington Foreign Mission Seminary''' in 1907 and changed focus to a more limited objective of training for missionaries. This mission changed once again in 1914 to more traditional liberal arts college and took the name of '''Washington Missionary College'''. It was not until 1961 that the college took its present name of '''Columbia Union College'''.<ref>http://www.cuc.edu/academic/aboutus/history.html</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

Talk:Phyllis Schlafly

2008-10-06T01:53:56Z

JasonM: /* "Bunch of losers" */ please unlock

== Could a sysop please add DEFAULTSORT to this article? Please see [[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style#Persons]] for information regarding this request. ==

Please add <nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT: Schlafly, Phyllis}}</nowiki> near the categories, usually near the end of the article. Thanks. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 17:18, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Done.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:24, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==A Choice, Not An Echo==
[[A Choice, Not An Echo]] has an article, which can be linked from this one. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 19:41, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Please unlock this for editing ==

It would be nice if this page was unlocked for editing, as to say the least, it is rather short.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 12:34, 17 February 2008 (EST)

: OK, but our [[rules]] will be enforced.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:49, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== "Bunch of losers" ==

It'd be nice if we could also add Mrs. Schlafly's description of the protesters as "a bunch of losers" [http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/620003.html] [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:54, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

: I'm not sure that quote captures the insight and style as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

:: I believe it captures a certain amount of insight into the style of Mrs. Schlafly, so to speak. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:02, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

==Please unlock==
I found a reference for the first lady designation located [http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4780636/Conservatives-first-lady-sparked-pro.html here] and would like to add it. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:53, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

List of liberalism in America

2008-10-06T01:45:28Z

JasonM: maybe itll fix it

This is a list of specific definitions of various liberal variances within the [[United States]].

*[[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
*[[Classical liberal]]
*[[Drinking Liberally]]
*[[Godless liberal]]
*[[Hollywood values]]
*[[Last wordism]]
*[[Liberal activists]]
*[[Liberal arts]]
*[[Liberal Arts college]]
*[[Liberal Bias]]
*[[Liberal celebrity obsession]]
*[[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Liberal deceit]]
*[[Liberal Democrats]]
*[[Liberal denial]]
*[[Liberal Elite]]
*[[Essay:Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
*[[Liberal Fascism]]
*[[Liberal friendship]]
*[[Liberal Gloss]]
*[[Liberal grading]]
*[[Liberal hate speech]]
*[[Liberal Hypocrisy]]
*[[Liberal hysteria]]
*[[Liberal ideology]]
*[[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
*[[Liberalism and art]]
*[[Liberal labels]]
*[[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
*[[Liberal logic]]
*[[Liberal Mind]]
*[[Liberal Myths]]
*[[Liberal obfuscation]]
*[[Liberal Party]]
*[[Liberal quotient]]
*[[Liberal supremacist]]
*[[Liberal Style]]
*[[Liberal tools]]
*[[Liberal tricks]]
*[[Liberal values]]
*[[Massachusetts liberal]]
*[[Professor values]]

Talk:Liberal

2008-10-06T01:41:04Z

JasonM: /* Clean up article */ woops

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
 

Conservatives conserve and liberals liberate. Yes, this is trite, but it is a lens through which to view various issues when you wonder "is this liberal or is this conservative?"

At the essential level of conservatism is a faith in God. This is necessarily so because all truth springs from a knowledge and understanding of God, either through special or general revelation sources. These truths are immutable laws which govern our reality, ie, everything from from the smallest particles to the galaxies at the edge of the universe. They also govern our thought life, ie, everything from morals and ethics to our sense of humor (or lack thereof). Break a law, pay the consequence. Jump off of a cliff and you land with quite a thump, whether you wish to or not. Act immorally and there is a similar effect. Laws are laws, reality is reality.

Now, conservatives wish to uphold what we have derived from an understanding of reality, things like the United States constitution for conservative politicians, the Bible for conservative theologians, free markets for conservative economists and on and on - as long as the philosophy, theory or document is based upon truth, it's all good! God made it this way, and it is good. But for the corruption of sin.

This is where liberals come in. They will liberate us from the oppression of truth! They are not constrained by essential truth, by right and wrong, by good and evil. They are constrained only by their imaginations. Ideas spring forth like wildflowers in a meadow. Using what I call "kernels of truth" these ideas are capable of maintaining substance, even gravity, under close inspection because when you deconstruct the idea, you find that kernel of truth, firmly upholding even the wackiest logic (thus illustrating, in a backhanded way, the power of truth!). The fatal error in the liberal approach is this; they cannot be bound by truth. Their vain search for power, self-fulfillment or whatever their base motive is, it is not constrained by reality, by truth. These ideas evolve into causes, cults, false religions, political platforms, etc. There is no systematic approach to truth, ideas are spun from the ether, around whatever kernel of truth will support the web of deception.

This is not to historically define conservatives or liberals as the good guys or the bad guys. Conservatives may work evil by conserving, at all costs and with brutal oppression, a flawed political system (usually spawned by liberal thinkers!). Thus the tyrants of history maintained power. Yes, it happens even amongst Christian societies - man is sinful, and will not be reflected well upon by history. Liberals have been responsible for liberating people from the dominant, oppressive regimes of the past. (This is why some say our founding fathers were liberals. They were, but when it came time to put together a viable political system of their own, they were very conservative, using political thought that grew from conservative theology). Liberals liberate, remember? Thus conservatives have found the wrong philosophy, ideology, theology to conserve and ended up working evil and liberals have found strength in truth and worked for the good. So it goes.

In our society today liberals are busy liberating us from the oppression of the Bible and the written Constitution (preferring, instead, a "living Constitution"). The liberation from Biblical principals is directed from the pit of hell itself. Political liberalism is an extension of that evil. Liberals have been so deceived because we Christians have dropped out of the soul-winning business and focussed on programming, innovative church management and self-improvement. Love IS the answer, the liberals of the 60's had it absolutely correct, their kernel of truth was more than a kernel. We can love away liberalism. Sounds simple minded, doesn't it? But we have all the power necessary to defeat what is at the root of todays liberalism. Their power is exercised only because we do not adequately militate against it. Our society depends on us, true conservatives, for survival. We are the salt. We are the light. We bring the message of redemption, God's love - and God's truth.
:: I really don't know whether I agree with that, Mark - there are plenty of Christian liberals and conservatives who don't profess any religious beliefs. In my own country the leader of the largest centre-right party says is an atheist, while the leader of the leftist Progressives is a staunch Catholic. I agree that conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, but I don't think liberals are in any way evil or diabolically inspired - 200 years ago, the emancipation of slaves was seen as a liberal view. I don't think you'd find anyone today who'd say that was an act of evil. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
Of course there are confused people. Christians who are political liberals will always be found to have small or very large and obvious, cracks in their theology. Currently, it is not possible to integrate Christianity into the Democratic political platform. If one is called into politics, or into working for a political cause or simply trying to vote with integrity, a Christian cannot support todays liberalism. A Democrat who claims to be Christian will inevitably be found to lack theological integrity and will be revealed as a liberal through and through.
Let me make it clear; liberals liberate and if the moral disintigration of the United States corrupts the government toward oppression, then todays conservatives will become liberators (politcal liberals), revolutionaries in the name of truth!

If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)

I agree. Someone must put pictures of famous liberal democrats and photoshop horns onto them. That would drive the point home.

:Much improved, thankyou. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:13, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::Do tell us, J2, what is the plural of 'malapropism'? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Uhhhh, nearly all my edits are gone. Those edits were made to strengthen the article. dubweiser.

== Liberal Failures ==

[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

*Economy/Taxation
*Health Care
*Law/Criminal Justice
*Environment
*Education
*Immigration
*Culture
*National Security

Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref>
 
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

* Forced School Busing
* Welfare
* Luxury Tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
* Free Love
* Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref>

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

We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Denial of gender differences by liberals==
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==

I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm

The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Westboro Baptist Church ==

I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for removing this, Ed! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::The other, damning evidence is Phelp's supporting Al Gore's run for President, contributing money to him and providing office space to his campaign. So, aside from Phelp's running as a Democrat, and there are plenty of Democrats who are not liberal, all there is to show him as a liberal is his picture with Al Gore, and those pesky election commission documents and press reports, showing the contributions and office space donations. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I disagree that supporting a Democrat automatically makes you a liberal. No "one" issue makes you a liberal, so let's look at the whole person, not just one aspect, in deciding his political ideologies. What other liberal tendencies does he have? Do we know (or is it known) his current political affiliations? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I respect that disagreement. But I didn't say just being a Democrat makes one liberal, read the post, I clearly say there are lots of Democrats who aren't liberal. But supporting Gore does make you one! :P But I think the reference is fair, inasmuch as the looney far left continues to assert that the evil Phelps is a conservative. Therefore showing all of his affiliations is the only right thing to do, so the users of this encyclopedia will see all of his many facets, and can decide for themselves what (it) Phelps is. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:22, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::It seems that Phelps supported Gore when Gore refused to support gay rights, then turned on Gore when he joined Clinton in promoting gay rights, going so far as to picket the funeral of Gore's father screaming "Your Dad's in Hell!" That doesn't strike me as liberal, just opportunist. Fred Phelps has only one issue that he cares about, which almost makes him apolitical. [[User:RandomishName11|RandomishName11]] 00:50, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

:I agree that we should let the users decide for themselves what he is. They can't, however, decide for themselves if we tell them what to think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but this is sort of absurd. I certainly don't want WBC to be called ''conservative'', but I don't think they're liberal either. That's just kind of silly. I don't care who he supported for president. Any organization as vehemently opposed to the sin of homosexuality as they are cannot be described as "liberal", since liberals won't even admit that homosexuality is a sin in the first place! That's kind of like calling NARAL conservative simply because they are as proud of America and her military as much as conservatives are (which I'm absolutely not saying they are, but I needed something to use as an example). It's just silly. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 02:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Whoops, I meant to say NARAL, not NARTH. Lol, NARTH ''is'' rather conservative. It's fixed now.

== Huh? ==
Wait a minute. So, if the media has a [[liberal bias]], wouldn't reinstating the fairness doctine limit '''liberal''' airtime instead of Conservative airtime? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

: Liberals control ''most'' media, and especially newspapers and television. They don't control talk radio, but want to grab that also and support the phony fairness doctrine for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::... Wouldn't the fairness doctrine cover all broadcast media? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::A day passes. Silence. It is contradictory to claim that liberals control all media, but equal time only harms conservatives. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal ==

The term "liberal" is associated most with the United States politicians and, besides, its meaning is not all that different in other countries. A qualification is not necessary or helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:I suggest that you read the section headed "Liberalism in Europe today". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 21:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)
:P.S. It may assist you to take a look at where the Australian Liberal Party are on the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007 --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I assume that I have convinced you. If I hear no further from you I will proceed to reinsert my edit. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:54, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::The only one I see that only applies to US liberals is the one about the living Constitution. The rest are correct, though. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer next to this one, and then leave the opening line as "A liberal is...". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::Whoops I found a couple more (the ones about the First Amendment and the Fairness Doctrine), however the majority of the qualities are not limited to the US. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Even the issues you cite have analogs in other countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::You're probably right. Could we change the wording a bit to reflect that? That way you won't have to keep reverting people. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I don't the see the need for any changes, and reversion will still be necessary because the [[liberals]] will never be happy with this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::That's probably very true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Glad we're all getting on so well. Those silly liberals will never learn.

Anyhoo, doesn't look like either of you read the section in the article headed "Liberalism in Europe today" as I suggested in my post above. Nor, I assume, did you follow the political compass link.

I am not sure why it is so important to maintain internal inconsistency in this article. Nor do I understand why it is so important to maintain that the American usage of the word liberal is the only usage of the word in the world today (which it clearly is not as the article itself states).

Any even half sensible explanation would be appreciated. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:43, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:If you want to be taken seriously please keep a civil tone. I'm sorry I didn't see those links; I was primarily responding to the edit war, which was over the statement "a liberal poseses the following qualities". I messed up, I'm only human. Feel better now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: My apologies to you. I am rather more annoyed with Andy who blocked me for a 90/10 violation (coincidentally while we were disagreeing here and on the talk:Liberal denial page). I did not realise that you were looking at something else. We are all only human as you say. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actaully, upon review, I think you may have been looking in just about the right place. The edit war was over the inclusion of the phrase "In the United States a Liberal..." at the start of the article. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:31, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::: So, should I change it back again? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)

::::I'm guessing that wouldn't be a wise idea. I would take a look at [[conservative]], though. Perhaps if you moved the general definition to the front, then it would make more sense to have the specific list refer to only Americans. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== about liberals ==

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by Soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected,and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United
States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day .........but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas".
[[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 06:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:"You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding." Speaking as a filthy pinko liberal, this is actually pretty funny. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::Cool. You got one of these for Conservatives, too? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Dem damn dirty libruls!!!

== Positive Liberal Contributions To Society ==

Are there any? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:52, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Of course there are

*Niccolò Machiavelli (Florence, 1469-1527), best known for his Il Principe was the founder of realist political philosophy, advocated republican government, citizen armies, division of power, protection of personal property, and restraint of government expenditure as being necessary to the liberties of a republic

*Desiderius Erasmus (Netherlands, 1466-1536) was an advocate of the doctrine now known as humanism, critic of entrenched interests, irrationality and superstition. Erasmusian societies formed across Europe, to some extent in response to the turbulence of the Reformation.

*Hugo Grotius or Hugo de Groot (Netherlands, 1583-1645), laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law, in his book Mare Liberum (Free Seas) formulated the new principle that the sea was international territory and all nations were free to use it for seafaring trade

*Thomas Hobbes (England, 1588-1679) theorized that government is the result of individual actions and human traits, and that it was motivated primarily by "interest", a term which would become crucial in the development of a liberal theory of government and political economy, since it is the foundation of the idea that individuals can be self-governing and self-regulating.

*Baruch Spinoza (Netherlands, 1632-1677) is in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and Tractatus Politicus a proto-liberal defending the value of separation of church and state as well as forms of democracy.

*The notions of John Locke (United Kingdom, 1632-1704) of a "government with the consent of the governed" and man's natural rights—life, liberty, and estate (property) as well on tolerance,

*John Trenchard (United Kingdom, 1662-1723) was co-author, with Thomas Gordon of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Thomas Gordon (United Kingdom, 169?-1750) was co-author, with John Trenchard of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Benjamin Franklin (United States, 1706-1790) was an inventor, scientist, writer, entrepreneur, diplomat and statesman. He called for the end of mercantilism while advocating free trade, industrialization, the abolition of slavery, free public libraries, democratic government and national unity.

*Jean-Jacques Rousseau (France, 1712-1778) promulgated the idea that men were naturally free, but had to be educated to live in society. This required a natural liberty and a "national will" which could be directed to improvement of the society. He is famous for the quote "men are born free, but are everywhere in chains"

Should I go on. OK good. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

** Wow... comprehensive, concise and encyclopedic. I propose we incorporate the above comment into the page itself. A new subsection, perhaps - "Liberal contributions to Western thought"? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

*I ripped it from Wikipedia, however i thought it was expressed very intelligently and there is much more

::: Too bad none of the above are liberals in the modern meaning of the word. Think [[Benjamin Franklin]] supported
[[abortion]]???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::::How about Martin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, or Abraham Lincoln? (Yes, Honest Abe was a Liberal by the standards of his time, since slavery was the status quo. A Liberal so despised by half of the population that they were willing to '''commit treason''' rather than put up with him.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

As for the above statement maybe Benjamin did not support abortion but remember things 50+ years ago were very conservative remember liberal means progress. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

:As Robert Anton Wilson has said, you can go from Liberal to Conservative in 25 years without changing a single opinion. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:: How is Machiavelli in anyway a liberal? I believe his writings stand outside any political scale, and were written to do so. Also, liberal does not mean progress. On this site the 'modern meaning of liberal' is just about anything the admin want it to be, from Facism, to pornographic extroverts. --[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:50 28 August 2008 (BST)

== Citation Request ==

It looks like my citation request may have deleted more than a few lines. How did this happen? Can it be corrected? --Jimmy 14:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:I think you might have edited an older version of the page. The line you wanted to add a fact to was not even there in the version prior to your edit. I have reverted it to the version right before yours. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:23, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins/Barack Obama ==

I'm glad someone added the wikilinks to the last gem added - all it now takes is for someone to click the links, then consult the Talk pages for those articles to see how stupendously, amusingly wrong that entry actually is. Though to save people the trouble, here it is - Oxford University not only say that Richard Dawkins is, in fact a professor, but actually awarded him a position with the title of the 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science'[http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/supps/2_4408.htm#4Ref]. Barack Obama was a 'Senior Lecturer' at the University of Chicago, and they released a press notice saying,'Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors'[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]. So, going by the examples listed, 'liberals', in fact, call people 'professors' when...erm...they are. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:26, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well to be fair, Oxford entered the fray after the tempest started, and post-facto seems to have, err, re-arranged its thinking, lol. Typical [[liberal deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:17, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry about leaping in there with the deletion, TK. It just seemed (a) below the belt, since there are plenty of dubious PhD's espousing conservative views, and (b) out of place in a list detailing ideological stances. I still don't see the need for it, I'm afraid. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:53, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::No, Oxford granted Dawkins his professorship in 1996. The link I provided above demonstrates this. The 'tempest' (I would actually call it more a 'storm in a teacup') started in 2007, when a certain person here tried to throw doubt on Dawkins' academic credentials in what can only be described, quite frankly, as a blatent ad hominem attack. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:32, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

::I saw that in the article and actually registered to help you guys correct it. I wouldn't want an error like that giving the site a poor reputation. Unfortunately, the page is locked. Here's the [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/index.shtml link on Oxford's site] showing Professor Dawkin's title, and U.Chicago's [http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama professor profile] of Obama seems to link directly to the UC press release. --[[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] 10:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Could we discuss on the talk page instead of having an edit war? Thanks. In case it's ambiguous, I'm talking about the inclusion of "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)."

Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I'm in favour of deleting it, since it's not actually a political stance. What's more, it's an ''ad hominem'' generalisation (I didn't even know such things were possible until I came to Conservapedia... ;-D ) [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

: The reason for my removal of said bullet point is firstly that it is not a political belief (which the introductory sentence says is the object of the list), it is an act which some editors think is typical or generally the case with liberals.
: Secondly, I would entirely disagree with the notion that liberals engage in such an act; I would also entirely disagree that conservatives do, or for that matter any definable section of society.
: Unless someone can find a reference which shows that a significant percentage of liberals routinely call similarly-minded individuals 'professor' - which they won't - I will believe that the editor that included it either fabricated such information or believes it to be true despite not having studied the debating habits of a large proportion of liberals. All information here should have a reference, particularly if it is likely to be contested, regardless of the effect that it has on the arguments of such editors, whatever their ideology be. If it is impossible to provide a reference, then such information should not be included.
: I would therefore agree with Underscoreb's comments. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 18:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::The discussion page (and archives) of Dawkins provides ample proof of what latitude liberals are willing to cut those of like-mind. As well as Andy's thoughts on the matter, and his own conclusion that the included item is accurate. Its inclusion here was suggested by Andy as well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Surely we can do better than that, TK - what you seem to be saying is, "Well, I talked to some liberals once, and they said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". The second part of your argument seems to be, "Well, I talked to Andy once, and he said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". Leaving aside the argument of whether those figures have or haven't earned their credentials, this statement is tarring all liberals with the same brush, based on a conversation you witnessed. It's not the most rigorous methodology. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:34, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I agree with Uderscoreb's reply to TK's comments. TK - your reasoning is very illogical: it relies on the premise that: "if some X have character Y, then it must be a common trait of X to display Y" The influence of the people that agree with your arguments has no effect on the validity of such an argument; as has been used on the [[Global warming controversy]] article: "In any event, it is important to remember that public opinion does not change the physical reality. Even if 100% of people of both parties believe in anthropogenic climate change, if the reality is that mankind is not responsible, then public opinion to the contrary does not change that fact". Conservapedia rightly recognises this argument, why does it not stand here? Surely you must agree that generalisation of the kind used to justify inclusion of said liberal trait entirely falls flat on condition of its logical worth; you must do, otherwise dragging 'Andy' into the argument would not be necessary. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 07:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

LOL! Sounds utterly, almost European in logic, and certainly liberal. Here in America, we have a saying: "You made your bed. Now lie in it." Please don't expect the rest of the world to agree with your efforts to hide from plain view your most obvious traits. Perhaps Ed Poor will consider a reading plan for you so that the veil can be lifted from your eyes. "Andy" is a noted expert on liberal apology, and as such, always germain to the discussions here. It is clear you recognize that fact because of your stated aversion it! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:51, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:''European'' logic? Just logic, I reckon. Good old conservative logic. American logic. Ancient Greek logic. Logical logic. BTW, I also agree with Underscoreb. The discussion page on Dawkins proves nothing - even if we accept the premise that Dawkins himself is an evil liberal. You cannot prove a generality by quoting a number of instances. (And you certainly can't prove anything by appealing to authority.) [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't be a d***. You know full well that rational thought is not restricted to the laws of [[deduction]]; see also [[induction]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::TK, nobody needs a veil to hide 'obvious truths' if they are simply illogical. And please do not use ''ad hominem'' arguments (like labelling anything I say 'European') to detract from arguments that you disagree with, and divert attention away from the point of the debate. If I said that "Conservepedia editors use ''ad hominem'' arguments to prove their views", you would rightly disagree, as I would, because clearly it is not true, despite evidence that some do (right here). Equally, saying that liberals believe in "Calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is illogical - some might, as might some centrists, some conservatives, some Africans, some women, any polity one can think of - but it is extremely obvious that it is not something that liberals or any polity is defined by more than any other. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Ed Poor - yes I do, but you should know that there are well-justified problems with the validity of induction, particularly where the observed classes are not objects but thoughts, ideologies and polities. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I believe the phrase you are looking for, EU, is [[Logical_fallacy#Overgeneralization|overgeneralization]]. Also, just as a point of order: all arguments being made here are inductive. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Thanks for the term - that is definitely one of the relevant acts. Yes this discussion is inductive, well pointed out =) Over-generalisation is all too common; generalisation is a justified way of inferring information about the whole from that of a part, but it is very easy to wrongly use it in situations where it is impossible to predict the nature of the whole from a part, as is the case in point, and the error used in such analyses as the famously disproved 'all swans are white' case. Over-generalisation can lead to such senseless acts as discrimination, and, as proved by this article, fallacies in the description of disagreeable ideologies. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 10:44, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

May I make a suggestion? Keep the disputed sentence, but move it over to [[liberal style]]. It fits in very nicely over there.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:23, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
:I agree, it's definitely more an example of liberal style than it is a political position, as all the rest of the items on the list are. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
::Pragmatically, I support such a move also; despite mine and others' misgivings about its legitimacy, at least it is more appropriate there. --[[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 14:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''Pragmatically'' what this encyclopedia needs is less obfuscation, and chipping away by internationalists, of the conservative, American, POV of Conservapedia, to make it read neutral. Moving something ''Europeans'' and liberals don't agree with, to another article, is censorship. If liberal users disagree with the conservative point of view of CP, they should give up trying to change it, and find a liberal/internationalist encyclopedia to edit, IMO. If they did, two-thirds of these needless arguments would be eliminated, IMO. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:04, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I think RossC's suggestion is a good one. Not because "calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is not a liberal trait (though no one has yet demonstrated that it is), but because (as a couple of others have said) it isn't a political or quasi-political belief like the other items in the list, and it looks out of place here. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

*Well, I added it at Andy's suggestion, made on his talk page, as the edit note clearly states, so the question as to if it belongs ''here'' is pretty moot, I think. I disagree that Schlafly hasn't demonstrated that fact, 100 times over, on the Dawkins or Obama talk pages. I do agree that it appears only liberals disagree on that. It is an argument certainly older than CP, between conservatives and liberals, and all the more a bone of contention between Europeans and United States conservatives. It boils down to a clear disagreement between ''Internationalists'' (and they are primarily liberal) and those of us who support CP, which was founded as a U.S. Christian/Conservative - friendly encyclopedia, to continue to be true to that. While I wouldn't want to ignore the world as ''Internationalists'' see it, or wish it to be, that outlook is already embraced by Wikipedia, several thousand times larger than CP, so the POV is more than adequately served. So, while wanting to acknowledge what the liberal "world view" is, it cannot, nor should it be, incorporated into CP's articles, other than to point out what those who believe in it think, and why American conservatives think they are wrong.

*Some, mostly from other countries, while they might be Christians, ''certainly are not United States conservatives'', and even they seek to impose their unique, anti (or contrary to)-U.S. point of view on CP, trying, bit by bit, to remove anything they consider "U.S.-centric". They are among those, like the liberals, who seek to fundamentally change the founding precepts of Conservapedia, and turn it towards the so-called "world view". While I don't seek to diminish what they believe (they cannot help it, being used to a "Wikipedian World" and not Americans) their role here, editors or admins alike, it seems to me, is either to get on board with CP's point of view, or at least stop the constant arguing that distracts from more content being made, and discouraging conservative editors from doing so. Since the actual practice of "conservatism" outside the United States, is fundamentally different, that puts CP automatically at odds with Europeans and others who might say they are "conservative" but in actual political practice their philosophy is closer to United States liberals.
--[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing censorship with moving something to a different place; you well know that this suggestion is not censorship. Secondly, you seem to be, rather paranoiacally, confusing the legitimate opinion of a sentence's logicality/legitimacy with some form of opinion, which (again with the personal attacks) stems from the idea that just because some here are liberal, not American, internationalist, means that their objections are part of some anti-American, anti-CP, anti-conservative or anti-whatever viewpoint quest to annoy, obfuscate or slow down progress. The reason that I, and a couple of others, object to that sentence is nothing to do with opinion, just logic, and the suggestion to move it to another article is just about appropriateness. A list about conservative positions would not include anything that isn't a position (like professor-calling), same as a list on liberal positions would not. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 06:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::'''''Personal attacks?''''' On whom? Liberals in general? Some particular liberal? I demand an apology! CP is indeed an American ''conservative'' encyclopedia. You somehow seem intent on arguing forever, obstructing, until your personal POV (self-declared as logic) is accepted as the model of rationality. And you somehow mistake sticking to one's principles for paranoia, lol. I see you (not me) have resorted to personal insults, Europeanunion. Called me paranoid, didn't you? That is indeed a bit different than making a generalized (but true) statement about liberals and internationalists. Since you are a liberal, all that you think, all of your logic, is colored through that prism. The article was locked, by an Admin, for a reason, and that reason was removal of material conservatives deem appropriate, and suggested by the Owner. If you don't like it, go to his page and take him to task for daring to be so illogical as to suggest adding it. But remember this isn't a mobocracy. Conservative thought will always prevail here. I hope you enjoy your weekend! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 09:09, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
::::It is clear that we will never see eye-to-eye over this issue, or the nature of each other's arguments. I express my preference for deleting the sentence, but recognise the impossibility of that in this situation. I express my preference that the sentence be moved to a more appropriate article, and hope that this occurs. But I don't think that there's anything more to add to substantiate my views, or to be achieved by further arguing here, so I will leave the discussion, unless someone asks for my opinion on a development. I will instead continue adding information in my field of experience with less controversial articles which are not personal favourites of sysops. Thanks for your hope TK, I hope everyone has a nice day =) [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 11:23, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::It's unfortunate that we could not come to an agreement on this matter :( [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:58, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, given the first few posts here, with the item being unilaterally removed without any discussion, ''and Europeanunion calling me a paranoid, and accusing me making personal attacks'', and not apologizing for either statement when asked to; did anyone here really think that was the way to accommodation or agreement? I sense a double standard here, with some people being pretty free at calling posts "trolling" when they don't agree with the POV, and yet allowing others to make personal attacks/name calling, and never saying a word. That is neither Christian, fair or conservative, is it? And this from the same people extolling their "logic" and fairness. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:41, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:I was going to concentrate on other things on CP, but I believe your previous post deserves a reply. I did not call you paranoid, but that you "rather paranoiacally" confused an objection based on legitimacy with an opinion based on where I live et cetera - the word paranoia being defined as "suspicion of others that is not based on fact". The personal attacks were the ''ad hominem'' arguments that you used - the definition of that phrase is "replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument". I do not apologise for stating that, but I am sorry if you feel it is an injustice (I do not). [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 06:46, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::So, even a statement about the thinking of liberals is branded "ad hominem" arguments now, simply because you refuse to accept what liberals think and do? I will note that an argument isn't a personal attack as you labeled it. And I am sorry, but this is not Wikipedia, so your assertion of some rule that CP doesn't have, nor endorse, is specious. This encyclopedia has hundreds, thousands of entries, cataloging liberal deceit and liberal thinking, and their attempts, like your statement above, to brand any contrary thinking to liberal tenets as an "attack". As for "paranoia", well, your own post above clearly demonstrates CP's suspicion of liberals is well-founded. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

== Affront ==

As someone who doesn't proscribe to any particular political ideology, but would be labeled as a liberal, I'm honestly quite offended by this article. This isn't an encyclopedic entry, it's a systematic assault on liberalism. I understand that it's the opposing viewpoint from the reigning one here, but you have to have some level of integrity. How would you feel if I made a Liberapedia and filled the "Conservative" page with unproven remarks about how your political ideology is based exclusively on greed? You can't claim to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" when you have articles like this. It's just disgusting. You could go ahead and write a section on why liberal viewpoints conflict with yours, but having the entire damned page filled with hate and bigotry is horrible. [[User:Shortcat|Shortcat]]

: You didn't cite any specific examples in the entry to support your rant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right[4] -> This is simply untrue. Instead of stating a fact (liberals tend to support free speech), you're saying that liberals believe porn is their constitutional right. That's bull.
:: Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama). -> What?
:: Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7] -> So liberals are fascists now? That's just plain offensive.

:::It's amusing, given that Liberalism and Facisim are actually two absolute opposites on a political scale. In fact, Conserservatism is far closer to Facism than Liberalism is, so really this is just another of hilarious assertion.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)

== Typo ==
Implementation is spelled incorrectly in the lead. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:02, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== WBC is a "Liberal Organization"? ==

I usually refrain from capslocking, but WHAT? The [[Westboro Baptist Church]] is a ''liberal organization''? If the article wasn't protected, I would suspect vandalism.

A hate group that condemns homosexuality, Roman Catholics, Muslims and Jews, as well as Swedes, Canadians, Irish, British, Mexicans and Americans is a ''liberal organization''? This smells like [[political identification bias]] to me - a conservative editor doesn't like WBC, so it ''must'' be liberal! --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:00, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

But WBC and Phelps hate the US military, and have made it their primary
mission to demonstrate and publicize this. Also, he was inarguably a liberal civil
rights attorney before he turned to his present fixation. Perhaps where he's taken
liberalism even justifies a new appellation... '''hyperliberal''', anyone?
--[[User:Jamesmason|Jamesmason]] 20:09, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

WBC as a liberal organization not just a ridiculous idea, but an outright falsehood. Any political stance by the Phelps family should be construed as being outside the general political spectrum. The idea of WBC as an even further "hyper" extension of liberalism is just as wrong. Seeing as how some fundamental tenants of being a liberal, according to this article, are supporting same-sex marriage and political correctness, the maintenance of internal consistency, if nothing else, requires an unlocking of this page and removing the WBC from this list of liberal organizations. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 15:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2008-10-06T01:39:54Z

JasonM: /* See Also */ how do i edit the article page?

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]
 

Conservatives conserve and liberals liberate. Yes, this is trite, but it is a lens through which to view various issues when you wonder "is this liberal or is this conservative?"

At the essential level of conservatism is a faith in God. This is necessarily so because all truth springs from a knowledge and understanding of God, either through special or general revelation sources. These truths are immutable laws which govern our reality, ie, everything from from the smallest particles to the galaxies at the edge of the universe. They also govern our thought life, ie, everything from morals and ethics to our sense of humor (or lack thereof). Break a law, pay the consequence. Jump off of a cliff and you land with quite a thump, whether you wish to or not. Act immorally and there is a similar effect. Laws are laws, reality is reality.

Now, conservatives wish to uphold what we have derived from an understanding of reality, things like the United States constitution for conservative politicians, the Bible for conservative theologians, free markets for conservative economists and on and on - as long as the philosophy, theory or document is based upon truth, it's all good! God made it this way, and it is good. But for the corruption of sin.

This is where liberals come in. They will liberate us from the oppression of truth! They are not constrained by essential truth, by right and wrong, by good and evil. They are constrained only by their imaginations. Ideas spring forth like wildflowers in a meadow. Using what I call "kernels of truth" these ideas are capable of maintaining substance, even gravity, under close inspection because when you deconstruct the idea, you find that kernel of truth, firmly upholding even the wackiest logic (thus illustrating, in a backhanded way, the power of truth!). The fatal error in the liberal approach is this; they cannot be bound by truth. Their vain search for power, self-fulfillment or whatever their base motive is, it is not constrained by reality, by truth. These ideas evolve into causes, cults, false religions, political platforms, etc. There is no systematic approach to truth, ideas are spun from the ether, around whatever kernel of truth will support the web of deception.

This is not to historically define conservatives or liberals as the good guys or the bad guys. Conservatives may work evil by conserving, at all costs and with brutal oppression, a flawed political system (usually spawned by liberal thinkers!). Thus the tyrants of history maintained power. Yes, it happens even amongst Christian societies - man is sinful, and will not be reflected well upon by history. Liberals have been responsible for liberating people from the dominant, oppressive regimes of the past. (This is why some say our founding fathers were liberals. They were, but when it came time to put together a viable political system of their own, they were very conservative, using political thought that grew from conservative theology). Liberals liberate, remember? Thus conservatives have found the wrong philosophy, ideology, theology to conserve and ended up working evil and liberals have found strength in truth and worked for the good. So it goes.

In our society today liberals are busy liberating us from the oppression of the Bible and the written Constitution (preferring, instead, a "living Constitution"). The liberation from Biblical principals is directed from the pit of hell itself. Political liberalism is an extension of that evil. Liberals have been so deceived because we Christians have dropped out of the soul-winning business and focussed on programming, innovative church management and self-improvement. Love IS the answer, the liberals of the 60's had it absolutely correct, their kernel of truth was more than a kernel. We can love away liberalism. Sounds simple minded, doesn't it? But we have all the power necessary to defeat what is at the root of todays liberalism. Their power is exercised only because we do not adequately militate against it. Our society depends on us, true conservatives, for survival. We are the salt. We are the light. We bring the message of redemption, God's love - and God's truth.
:: I really don't know whether I agree with that, Mark - there are plenty of Christian liberals and conservatives who don't profess any religious beliefs. In my own country the leader of the largest centre-right party says is an atheist, while the leader of the leftist Progressives is a staunch Catholic. I agree that conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, but I don't think liberals are in any way evil or diabolically inspired - 200 years ago, the emancipation of slaves was seen as a liberal view. I don't think you'd find anyone today who'd say that was an act of evil. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:28, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
Of course there are confused people. Christians who are political liberals will always be found to have small or very large and obvious, cracks in their theology. Currently, it is not possible to integrate Christianity into the Democratic political platform. If one is called into politics, or into working for a political cause or simply trying to vote with integrity, a Christian cannot support todays liberalism. A Democrat who claims to be Christian will inevitably be found to lack theological integrity and will be revealed as a liberal through and through.
Let me make it clear; liberals liberate and if the moral disintigration of the United States corrupts the government toward oppression, then todays conservatives will become liberators (politcal liberals), revolutionaries in the name of truth!

If you're going to lock an entry, at least clean it up first. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)

I agree. Someone must put pictures of famous liberal democrats and photoshop horns onto them. That would drive the point home.

:Much improved, thankyou. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:13, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:Sorry to say it, but I have to agree. I was going to add some content here but of course I can't. This article is really quite bad, not to mention very incomplete. It would be better to deal with vandalism manually than to prevent the article (which really is quite important, is it not?) from being developed. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 11:25, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Westboro Baptist Church?

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
:Why? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:35, 5 November 2007 (EST)

::It's because [[Fred Phelps]] is a [[liberal|liberal activist]] (see the discussion on the [[Talk:Fred Phelps|talk page]] for an explanation).

::By the way, it appears the link is broken anyway. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:34, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Different definitions of Liberal ==

Just wanted to add a line pointing out that in some countries such as Australia, the term Liberal is actually used to refer to the conservative view. See the Liberal Party of Australia as an example. This could be worth pointing out as it will prevent them being tarnished by the comments here aimed towards the left wing type Liberals.

That list of (supposed) liberal positions at the beginning is at best a half-truth. Many liberals (including me) DO NOT SUPPORT a number of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 10:43, 21 October 2007 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, but the plural of "antidote" is "antidotes," not "data." The list stays. [[User:J2xl|J2xl]] 22:00, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::Do tell us, J2, what is the plural of 'malapropism'? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)

And just what is so wrong about taxpayer-supported government schools? If it weren't for them, many people, including my parents, wouldn't have been able to get an education. By the way, does the stance of Aschlafly et al against this mean that they would be willing to voluntarily support the education of children not their own whose parents couldn't afford to?[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:38, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== Pathetic Article ==

The formatting is abysmal, the content laughable. I thought Conservapedia was a serious movement to write articles from a right-wing intelligent viewpoint... but i see it's dominated with weak, stolen political jokes. JOKES in an apparently "informative" article. If this is just an oversight, i retract everything.
:I agree with the comment above and have reinstated it despite someone (I think Karajou's?) deletion of it. However it should have been signed. I think it's Silvanus', but I'm a bit of a newbie at this. Does anyone know a way of adding a signature to someone else's comment? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::IMHO, liberalism is like silly putty, you can make of it whatever you want to. Like Hillary going for the Christian vote or Kerry for the NRA. Next they'll be going after the cigarette smoker vote. All else is extraneous. But that is probably too simple a definition. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 19 November 2007 (EST)
:::Well, I certainly agree that the editors are applying that attitude to this article. It's generalised, bigoted and unencyclopedic. Yours is not a humble opinion, it's a pompous and largely unfounded diatribe. This isn't trolling, I'm just disappointed and frustrated that the admins are stonewalling any revision of this article, when it's such an important topic. 'Know thine enemy', at the very least. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::We could unlock it and put today's DNC talking points in. Of course then we'd have to revise it tomorrow to say something completely opposite to accomodate tomorrows talking points. Call this a [[stable version]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Uhhhh, nearly all my edits are gone. Those edits were made to strengthen the article. dubweiser.

== Liberal Failures ==

[[Rush Limbaugh]] had a section in the December 2007 [[Limbaugh Letter]] called "Liberal Failures". At rushlimbaugh.com, Rush says he got the idea for his article from an article by Jeffrey Lord: [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters - American Spectator].

Rush lists several examples of liberal failures under each of these categories:

*Economy/Taxation
*Health Care
*Law/Criminal Justice
*Environment
*Education
*Immigration
*Culture
*National Security

Rush says "''Liberalism doesn't work''. It fails, every time it's tried." <ref>Nailing the Left - Liberal Failures, [[Rush Limbaugh]], ''The [[Limbaugh Letter]]'', December 2007, pp. 13-15</ref>
 
Jeffrey Lord lists examples of these liberal disasters:

* Forced School Busing
* Welfare
* Luxury Tax
* Alternative Minimum Tax
* Bringing Peace to Vietnam and Cambodia
* Free Love
* Drugs

"TOO SUM UP: Whether it was education policy, welfare policy, economic policy, foreign policy or social policy, time after time after time what became the guiding lights of modern American liberalism proved to be utter disasters. <ref>[http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12269 A History of Liberal Disasters] Jeffrey Lord, ''The American Spectator'', 11/6/2007</ref>

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

We could create a new page called [[Liberal Failures]] or incorporate it into one of our existing liberal articles. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Denial of gender differences by liberals==
"denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)"

Should we also note that liberals think women should be able to vote too, even though the conservatives throughout history have fought against women's suffrage? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (EST)

== Subsection on liberal rankings of members of congress? ==

I think this article would benefit from a brief subsection on the rankings of the national journal: http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm

The is a very informative page with rankings and voting records of all congress members.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 18:59, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I made the change, feel free to lock the page again. Thanks --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:26, 30 December 2007 (EST)

== Westboro Baptist Church ==

I would like to see Westboro Baptist Church removed from the list of liberal associations. The only thing evidence I can see for them being liberal is Fred Phelps's run for office as a Democrat. In my opinion, this is the same sort of guilt by association, that we accuse Wikipedia of on the Biases of Wikipedia page. To put it another way, having Westboro Baptist Church in the Liberal section, would be like a liberal site having KKK as a conservative organization simply because David Duke was active in the KKK and ran for office as a Republican.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 20:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: Thanks for removing this, Ed! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:28, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::The other, damning evidence is Phelp's supporting Al Gore's run for President, contributing money to him and providing office space to his campaign. So, aside from Phelp's running as a Democrat, and there are plenty of Democrats who are not liberal, all there is to show him as a liberal is his picture with Al Gore, and those pesky election commission documents and press reports, showing the contributions and office space donations. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I disagree that supporting a Democrat automatically makes you a liberal. No "one" issue makes you a liberal, so let's look at the whole person, not just one aspect, in deciding his political ideologies. What other liberal tendencies does he have? Do we know (or is it known) his current political affiliations? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I respect that disagreement. But I didn't say just being a Democrat makes one liberal, read the post, I clearly say there are lots of Democrats who aren't liberal. But supporting Gore does make you one! :P But I think the reference is fair, inasmuch as the looney far left continues to assert that the evil Phelps is a conservative. Therefore showing all of his affiliations is the only right thing to do, so the users of this encyclopedia will see all of his many facets, and can decide for themselves what (it) Phelps is. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:22, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::It seems that Phelps supported Gore when Gore refused to support gay rights, then turned on Gore when he joined Clinton in promoting gay rights, going so far as to picket the funeral of Gore's father screaming "Your Dad's in Hell!" That doesn't strike me as liberal, just opportunist. Fred Phelps has only one issue that he cares about, which almost makes him apolitical. [[User:RandomishName11|RandomishName11]] 00:50, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

:I agree that we should let the users decide for themselves what he is. They can't, however, decide for themselves if we tell them what to think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, but this is sort of absurd. I certainly don't want WBC to be called ''conservative'', but I don't think they're liberal either. That's just kind of silly. I don't care who he supported for president. Any organization as vehemently opposed to the sin of homosexuality as they are cannot be described as "liberal", since liberals won't even admit that homosexuality is a sin in the first place! That's kind of like calling NARAL conservative simply because they are as proud of America and her military as much as conservatives are (which I'm absolutely not saying they are, but I needed something to use as an example). It's just silly. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 02:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Whoops, I meant to say NARAL, not NARTH. Lol, NARTH ''is'' rather conservative. It's fixed now.

== Huh? ==
Wait a minute. So, if the media has a [[liberal bias]], wouldn't reinstating the fairness doctine limit '''liberal''' airtime instead of Conservative airtime? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)

: Liberals control ''most'' media, and especially newspapers and television. They don't control talk radio, but want to grab that also and support the phony fairness doctrine for that reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)

::... Wouldn't the fairness doctrine cover all broadcast media? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:09, 27 January 2008 (EST)

:::A day passes. Silence. It is contradictory to claim that liberals control all media, but equal time only harms conservatives. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:48, 27 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal ==

The term "liberal" is associated most with the United States politicians and, besides, its meaning is not all that different in other countries. A qualification is not necessary or helpful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 January 2008 (EST)

:I suggest that you read the section headed "Liberalism in Europe today". --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 21:03, 28 January 2008 (EST)
:P.S. It may assist you to take a look at where the Australian Liberal Party are on the political compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2007 --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:24, 28 January 2008 (EST)

::I assume that I have convinced you. If I hear no further from you I will proceed to reinsert my edit. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 16:54, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:::The only one I see that only applies to US liberals is the one about the living Constitution. The rest are correct, though. Perhaps we should put a disclaimer next to this one, and then leave the opening line as "A liberal is...". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)
::::Whoops I found a couple more (the ones about the First Amendment and the Fairness Doctrine), however the majority of the qualities are not limited to the US. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:15, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Even the issues you cite have analogs in other countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::You're probably right. Could we change the wording a bit to reflect that? That way you won't have to keep reverting people. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:25, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I don't the see the need for any changes, and reversion will still be necessary because the [[liberals]] will never be happy with this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::That's probably very true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:14, 4 February 2008 (EST)

Glad we're all getting on so well. Those silly liberals will never learn.

Anyhoo, doesn't look like either of you read the section in the article headed "Liberalism in Europe today" as I suggested in my post above. Nor, I assume, did you follow the political compass link.

I am not sure why it is so important to maintain internal inconsistency in this article. Nor do I understand why it is so important to maintain that the American usage of the word liberal is the only usage of the word in the world today (which it clearly is not as the article itself states).

Any even half sensible explanation would be appreciated. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:43, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:If you want to be taken seriously please keep a civil tone. I'm sorry I didn't see those links; I was primarily responding to the edit war, which was over the statement "a liberal poseses the following qualities". I messed up, I'm only human. Feel better now? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:20, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: My apologies to you. I am rather more annoyed with Andy who blocked me for a 90/10 violation (coincidentally while we were disagreeing here and on the talk:Liberal denial page). I did not realise that you were looking at something else. We are all only human as you say. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:27, 4 February 2008 (EST)

:: Actaully, upon review, I think you may have been looking in just about the right place. The edit war was over the inclusion of the phrase "In the United States a Liberal..." at the start of the article. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 23:31, 4 February 2008 (EST)

::: So, should I change it back again? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:27, 5 February 2008 (EST)

::::I'm guessing that wouldn't be a wise idea. I would take a look at [[conservative]], though. Perhaps if you moved the general definition to the front, then it would make more sense to have the specific list refer to only Americans. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 6 February 2008 (EST)

== about liberals ==

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by documented cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by Soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of Federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected,and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United
States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day .........but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas".
[[User:Thiudareiks|Thiudareiks]] 06:20, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:"You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding." Speaking as a filthy pinko liberal, this is actually pretty funny. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::Cool. You got one of these for Conservatives, too? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Dem damn dirty libruls!!!

== Positive Liberal Contributions To Society ==

Are there any? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:52, 16 February 2008 (EST)

Of course there are

*Niccolò Machiavelli (Florence, 1469-1527), best known for his Il Principe was the founder of realist political philosophy, advocated republican government, citizen armies, division of power, protection of personal property, and restraint of government expenditure as being necessary to the liberties of a republic

*Desiderius Erasmus (Netherlands, 1466-1536) was an advocate of the doctrine now known as humanism, critic of entrenched interests, irrationality and superstition. Erasmusian societies formed across Europe, to some extent in response to the turbulence of the Reformation.

*Hugo Grotius or Hugo de Groot (Netherlands, 1583-1645), laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law, in his book Mare Liberum (Free Seas) formulated the new principle that the sea was international territory and all nations were free to use it for seafaring trade

*Thomas Hobbes (England, 1588-1679) theorized that government is the result of individual actions and human traits, and that it was motivated primarily by "interest", a term which would become crucial in the development of a liberal theory of government and political economy, since it is the foundation of the idea that individuals can be self-governing and self-regulating.

*Baruch Spinoza (Netherlands, 1632-1677) is in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus and Tractatus Politicus a proto-liberal defending the value of separation of church and state as well as forms of democracy.

*The notions of John Locke (United Kingdom, 1632-1704) of a "government with the consent of the governed" and man's natural rights—life, liberty, and estate (property) as well on tolerance,

*John Trenchard (United Kingdom, 1662-1723) was co-author, with Thomas Gordon of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Thomas Gordon (United Kingdom, 169?-1750) was co-author, with John Trenchard of Cato's Letters. These newspaper essays condemned tyranny and advanced principles of freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and were a main vehicle for spreading the concepts that had been developed by John Locke.

*Benjamin Franklin (United States, 1706-1790) was an inventor, scientist, writer, entrepreneur, diplomat and statesman. He called for the end of mercantilism while advocating free trade, industrialization, the abolition of slavery, free public libraries, democratic government and national unity.

*Jean-Jacques Rousseau (France, 1712-1778) promulgated the idea that men were naturally free, but had to be educated to live in society. This required a natural liberty and a "national will" which could be directed to improvement of the society. He is famous for the quote "men are born free, but are everywhere in chains"

Should I go on. OK good. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

** Wow... comprehensive, concise and encyclopedic. I propose we incorporate the above comment into the page itself. A new subsection, perhaps - "Liberal contributions to Western thought"? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

*I ripped it from Wikipedia, however i thought it was expressed very intelligently and there is much more

::: Too bad none of the above are liberals in the modern meaning of the word. Think [[Benjamin Franklin]] supported
[[abortion]]???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::::How about Martin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, or Abraham Lincoln? (Yes, Honest Abe was a Liberal by the standards of his time, since slavery was the status quo. A Liberal so despised by half of the population that they were willing to '''commit treason''' rather than put up with him.) --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

As for the above statement maybe Benjamin did not support abortion but remember things 50+ years ago were very conservative remember liberal means progress. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT) [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]]

:As Robert Anton Wilson has said, you can go from Liberal to Conservative in 25 years without changing a single opinion. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 13:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:: How is Machiavelli in anyway a liberal? I believe his writings stand outside any political scale, and were written to do so. Also, liberal does not mean progress. On this site the 'modern meaning of liberal' is just about anything the admin want it to be, from Facism, to pornographic extroverts. --[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:50 28 August 2008 (BST)

== Citation Request ==

It looks like my citation request may have deleted more than a few lines. How did this happen? Can it be corrected? --Jimmy 14:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:I think you might have edited an older version of the page. The line you wanted to add a fact to was not even there in the version prior to your edit. I have reverted it to the version right before yours. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:23, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Dawkins/Barack Obama ==

I'm glad someone added the wikilinks to the last gem added - all it now takes is for someone to click the links, then consult the Talk pages for those articles to see how stupendously, amusingly wrong that entry actually is. Though to save people the trouble, here it is - Oxford University not only say that Richard Dawkins is, in fact a professor, but actually awarded him a position with the title of the 'Professor of the Public Understanding of Science'[http://www.ox.ac.uk/gazette/1995-6/supps/2_4408.htm#4Ref]. Barack Obama was a 'Senior Lecturer' at the University of Chicago, and they released a press notice saying,'Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors'[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]. So, going by the examples listed, 'liberals', in fact, call people 'professors' when...erm...they are. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 10:26, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well to be fair, Oxford entered the fray after the tempest started, and post-facto seems to have, err, re-arranged its thinking, lol. Typical [[liberal deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:17, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Sorry about leaping in there with the deletion, TK. It just seemed (a) below the belt, since there are plenty of dubious PhD's espousing conservative views, and (b) out of place in a list detailing ideological stances. I still don't see the need for it, I'm afraid. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:53, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::No, Oxford granted Dawkins his professorship in 1996. The link I provided above demonstrates this. The 'tempest' (I would actually call it more a 'storm in a teacup') started in 2007, when a certain person here tried to throw doubt on Dawkins' academic credentials in what can only be described, quite frankly, as a blatent ad hominem attack. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:32, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

::I saw that in the article and actually registered to help you guys correct it. I wouldn't want an error like that giving the site a poor reputation. Unfortunately, the page is locked. Here's the [http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/index.shtml link on Oxford's site] showing Professor Dawkin's title, and U.Chicago's [http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama professor profile] of Obama seems to link directly to the UC press release. --[[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] 10:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Could we discuss on the talk page instead of having an edit war? Thanks. In case it's ambiguous, I'm talking about the inclusion of "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)."

Thanks. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:22, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I'm in favour of deleting it, since it's not actually a political stance. What's more, it's an ''ad hominem'' generalisation (I didn't even know such things were possible until I came to Conservapedia... ;-D ) [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

: The reason for my removal of said bullet point is firstly that it is not a political belief (which the introductory sentence says is the object of the list), it is an act which some editors think is typical or generally the case with liberals.
: Secondly, I would entirely disagree with the notion that liberals engage in such an act; I would also entirely disagree that conservatives do, or for that matter any definable section of society.
: Unless someone can find a reference which shows that a significant percentage of liberals routinely call similarly-minded individuals 'professor' - which they won't - I will believe that the editor that included it either fabricated such information or believes it to be true despite not having studied the debating habits of a large proportion of liberals. All information here should have a reference, particularly if it is likely to be contested, regardless of the effect that it has on the arguments of such editors, whatever their ideology be. If it is impossible to provide a reference, then such information should not be included.
: I would therefore agree with Underscoreb's comments. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 18:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::The discussion page (and archives) of Dawkins provides ample proof of what latitude liberals are willing to cut those of like-mind. As well as Andy's thoughts on the matter, and his own conclusion that the included item is accurate. Its inclusion here was suggested by Andy as well. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
::: Surely we can do better than that, TK - what you seem to be saying is, "Well, I talked to some liberals once, and they said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". The second part of your argument seems to be, "Well, I talked to Andy once, and he said that, so that's probably what all of them are like". Leaving aside the argument of whether those figures have or haven't earned their credentials, this statement is tarring all liberals with the same brush, based on a conversation you witnessed. It's not the most rigorous methodology. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:34, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I agree with Uderscoreb's reply to TK's comments. TK - your reasoning is very illogical: it relies on the premise that: "if some X have character Y, then it must be a common trait of X to display Y" The influence of the people that agree with your arguments has no effect on the validity of such an argument; as has been used on the [[Global warming controversy]] article: "In any event, it is important to remember that public opinion does not change the physical reality. Even if 100% of people of both parties believe in anthropogenic climate change, if the reality is that mankind is not responsible, then public opinion to the contrary does not change that fact". Conservapedia rightly recognises this argument, why does it not stand here? Surely you must agree that generalisation of the kind used to justify inclusion of said liberal trait entirely falls flat on condition of its logical worth; you must do, otherwise dragging 'Andy' into the argument would not be necessary. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 07:34, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

LOL! Sounds utterly, almost European in logic, and certainly liberal. Here in America, we have a saying: "You made your bed. Now lie in it." Please don't expect the rest of the world to agree with your efforts to hide from plain view your most obvious traits. Perhaps Ed Poor will consider a reading plan for you so that the veil can be lifted from your eyes. "Andy" is a noted expert on liberal apology, and as such, always germain to the discussions here. It is clear you recognize that fact because of your stated aversion it! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:51, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:''European'' logic? Just logic, I reckon. Good old conservative logic. American logic. Ancient Greek logic. Logical logic. BTW, I also agree with Underscoreb. The discussion page on Dawkins proves nothing - even if we accept the premise that Dawkins himself is an evil liberal. You cannot prove a generality by quoting a number of instances. (And you certainly can't prove anything by appealing to authority.) [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:07, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't be a d***. You know full well that rational thought is not restricted to the laws of [[deduction]]; see also [[induction]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:10, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::TK, nobody needs a veil to hide 'obvious truths' if they are simply illogical. And please do not use ''ad hominem'' arguments (like labelling anything I say 'European') to detract from arguments that you disagree with, and divert attention away from the point of the debate. If I said that "Conservepedia editors use ''ad hominem'' arguments to prove their views", you would rightly disagree, as I would, because clearly it is not true, despite evidence that some do (right here). Equally, saying that liberals believe in "Calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is illogical - some might, as might some centrists, some conservatives, some Africans, some women, any polity one can think of - but it is extremely obvious that it is not something that liberals or any polity is defined by more than any other. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Ed Poor - yes I do, but you should know that there are well-justified problems with the validity of induction, particularly where the observed classes are not objects but thoughts, ideologies and polities. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 09:29, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I believe the phrase you are looking for, EU, is [[Logical_fallacy#Overgeneralization|overgeneralization]]. Also, just as a point of order: all arguments being made here are inductive. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:20, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Thanks for the term - that is definitely one of the relevant acts. Yes this discussion is inductive, well pointed out =) Over-generalisation is all too common; generalisation is a justified way of inferring information about the whole from that of a part, but it is very easy to wrongly use it in situations where it is impossible to predict the nature of the whole from a part, as is the case in point, and the error used in such analyses as the famously disproved 'all swans are white' case. Over-generalisation can lead to such senseless acts as discrimination, and, as proved by this article, fallacies in the description of disagreeable ideologies. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 10:44, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

May I make a suggestion? Keep the disputed sentence, but move it over to [[liberal style]]. It fits in very nicely over there.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 17:23, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
:I agree, it's definitely more an example of liberal style than it is a political position, as all the rest of the items on the list are. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:51, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
::Pragmatically, I support such a move also; despite mine and others' misgivings about its legitimacy, at least it is more appropriate there. --[[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 14:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''Pragmatically'' what this encyclopedia needs is less obfuscation, and chipping away by internationalists, of the conservative, American, POV of Conservapedia, to make it read neutral. Moving something ''Europeans'' and liberals don't agree with, to another article, is censorship. If liberal users disagree with the conservative point of view of CP, they should give up trying to change it, and find a liberal/internationalist encyclopedia to edit, IMO. If they did, two-thirds of these needless arguments would be eliminated, IMO. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:04, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

::::I think RossC's suggestion is a good one. Not because "calling anyone they agree with a 'professor'..." is not a liberal trait (though no one has yet demonstrated that it is), but because (as a couple of others have said) it isn't a political or quasi-political belief like the other items in the list, and it looks out of place here. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

*Well, I added it at Andy's suggestion, made on his talk page, as the edit note clearly states, so the question as to if it belongs ''here'' is pretty moot, I think. I disagree that Schlafly hasn't demonstrated that fact, 100 times over, on the Dawkins or Obama talk pages. I do agree that it appears only liberals disagree on that. It is an argument certainly older than CP, between conservatives and liberals, and all the more a bone of contention between Europeans and United States conservatives. It boils down to a clear disagreement between ''Internationalists'' (and they are primarily liberal) and those of us who support CP, which was founded as a U.S. Christian/Conservative - friendly encyclopedia, to continue to be true to that. While I wouldn't want to ignore the world as ''Internationalists'' see it, or wish it to be, that outlook is already embraced by Wikipedia, several thousand times larger than CP, so the POV is more than adequately served. So, while wanting to acknowledge what the liberal "world view" is, it cannot, nor should it be, incorporated into CP's articles, other than to point out what those who believe in it think, and why American conservatives think they are wrong.

*Some, mostly from other countries, while they might be Christians, ''certainly are not United States conservatives'', and even they seek to impose their unique, anti (or contrary to)-U.S. point of view on CP, trying, bit by bit, to remove anything they consider "U.S.-centric". They are among those, like the liberals, who seek to fundamentally change the founding precepts of Conservapedia, and turn it towards the so-called "world view". While I don't seek to diminish what they believe (they cannot help it, being used to a "Wikipedian World" and not Americans) their role here, editors or admins alike, it seems to me, is either to get on board with CP's point of view, or at least stop the constant arguing that distracts from more content being made, and discouraging conservative editors from doing so. Since the actual practice of "conservatism" outside the United States, is fundamentally different, that puts CP automatically at odds with Europeans and others who might say they are "conservative" but in actual political practice their philosophy is closer to United States liberals.
--[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing censorship with moving something to a different place; you well know that this suggestion is not censorship. Secondly, you seem to be, rather paranoiacally, confusing the legitimate opinion of a sentence's logicality/legitimacy with some form of opinion, which (again with the personal attacks) stems from the idea that just because some here are liberal, not American, internationalist, means that their objections are part of some anti-American, anti-CP, anti-conservative or anti-whatever viewpoint quest to annoy, obfuscate or slow down progress. The reason that I, and a couple of others, object to that sentence is nothing to do with opinion, just logic, and the suggestion to move it to another article is just about appropriateness. A list about conservative positions would not include anything that isn't a position (like professor-calling), same as a list on liberal positions would not. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 06:30, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

:::'''''Personal attacks?''''' On whom? Liberals in general? Some particular liberal? I demand an apology! CP is indeed an American ''conservative'' encyclopedia. You somehow seem intent on arguing forever, obstructing, until your personal POV (self-declared as logic) is accepted as the model of rationality. And you somehow mistake sticking to one's principles for paranoia, lol. I see you (not me) have resorted to personal insults, Europeanunion. Called me paranoid, didn't you? That is indeed a bit different than making a generalized (but true) statement about liberals and internationalists. Since you are a liberal, all that you think, all of your logic, is colored through that prism. The article was locked, by an Admin, for a reason, and that reason was removal of material conservatives deem appropriate, and suggested by the Owner. If you don't like it, go to his page and take him to task for daring to be so illogical as to suggest adding it. But remember this isn't a mobocracy. Conservative thought will always prevail here. I hope you enjoy your weekend! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 09:09, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
::::It is clear that we will never see eye-to-eye over this issue, or the nature of each other's arguments. I express my preference for deleting the sentence, but recognise the impossibility of that in this situation. I express my preference that the sentence be moved to a more appropriate article, and hope that this occurs. But I don't think that there's anything more to add to substantiate my views, or to be achieved by further arguing here, so I will leave the discussion, unless someone asks for my opinion on a development. I will instead continue adding information in my field of experience with less controversial articles which are not personal favourites of sysops. Thanks for your hope TK, I hope everyone has a nice day =) [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 11:23, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

::::It's unfortunate that we could not come to an agreement on this matter :( [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:58, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, given the first few posts here, with the item being unilaterally removed without any discussion, ''and Europeanunion calling me a paranoid, and accusing me making personal attacks'', and not apologizing for either statement when asked to; did anyone here really think that was the way to accommodation or agreement? I sense a double standard here, with some people being pretty free at calling posts "trolling" when they don't agree with the POV, and yet allowing others to make personal attacks/name calling, and never saying a word. That is neither Christian, fair or conservative, is it? And this from the same people extolling their "logic" and fairness. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:41, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
:I was going to concentrate on other things on CP, but I believe your previous post deserves a reply. I did not call you paranoid, but that you "rather paranoiacally" confused an objection based on legitimacy with an opinion based on where I live et cetera - the word paranoia being defined as "suspicion of others that is not based on fact". The personal attacks were the ''ad hominem'' arguments that you used - the definition of that phrase is "replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument". I do not apologise for stating that, but I am sorry if you feel it is an injustice (I do not). [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 06:46, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

::So, even a statement about the thinking of liberals is branded "ad hominem" arguments now, simply because you refuse to accept what liberals think and do? I will note that an argument isn't a personal attack as you labeled it. And I am sorry, but this is not Wikipedia, so your assertion of some rule that CP doesn't have, nor endorse, is specious. This encyclopedia has hundreds, thousands of entries, cataloging liberal deceit and liberal thinking, and their attempts, like your statement above, to brand any contrary thinking to liberal tenets as an "attack". As for "paranoia", well, your own post above clearly demonstrates CP's suspicion of liberals is well-founded. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

== Affront ==

As someone who doesn't proscribe to any particular political ideology, but would be labeled as a liberal, I'm honestly quite offended by this article. This isn't an encyclopedic entry, it's a systematic assault on liberalism. I understand that it's the opposing viewpoint from the reigning one here, but you have to have some level of integrity. How would you feel if I made a Liberapedia and filled the "Conservative" page with unproven remarks about how your political ideology is based exclusively on greed? You can't claim to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" when you have articles like this. It's just disgusting. You could go ahead and write a section on why liberal viewpoints conflict with yours, but having the entire damned page filled with hate and bigotry is horrible. [[User:Shortcat|Shortcat]]

: You didn't cite any specific examples in the entry to support your rant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:51, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right[4] -> This is simply untrue. Instead of stating a fact (liberals tend to support free speech), you're saying that liberals believe porn is their constitutional right. That's bull.
:: Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama). -> What?
:: Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7] -> So liberals are fascists now? That's just plain offensive.

:::It's amusing, given that Liberalism and Facisim are actually two absolute opposites on a political scale. In fact, Conserservatism is far closer to Facism than Liberalism is, so really this is just another of hilarious assertion.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 15:46, 28 August 2008 (BST)

== Typo ==
Implementation is spelled incorrectly in the lead. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 23:02, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== WBC is a "Liberal Organization"? ==

I usually refrain from capslocking, but WHAT? The [[Westboro Baptist Church]] is a ''liberal organization''? If the article wasn't protected, I would suspect vandalism.

A hate group that condemns homosexuality, Roman Catholics, Muslims and Jews, as well as Swedes, Canadians, Irish, British, Mexicans and Americans is a ''liberal organization''? This smells like [[political identification bias]] to me - a conservative editor doesn't like WBC, so it ''must'' be liberal! --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:00, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

But WBC and Phelps hate the US military, and have made it their primary
mission to demonstrate and publicize this. Also, he was inarguably a liberal civil
rights attorney before he turned to his present fixation. Perhaps where he's taken
liberalism even justifies a new appellation... '''hyperliberal''', anyone?
--[[User:Jamesmason|Jamesmason]] 20:09, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

WBC as a liberal organization not just a ridiculous idea, but an outright falsehood. Any political stance by the Phelps family should be construed as being outside the general political spectrum. The idea of WBC as an even further "hyper" extension of liberalism is just as wrong. Seeing as how some fundamental tenants of being a liberal, according to this article, are supporting same-sex marriage and political correctness, the maintenance of internal consistency, if nothing else, requires an unlocking of this page and removing the WBC from this list of liberal organizations. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 15:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of Liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

List of liberalism in America

2008-10-06T01:36:16Z

JasonM: fix links

This is a list of specific definitions of various liberal variances within the [[United States]].

*[[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
*[[Classical liberal]]
*[[Drinking Liberally]]
*[[Godless liberal]]
*[[Hollywood values]]
*[[Last wordism]]
*[[Liberal activists]]
*[[Liberal arts]]
*[[Liberal Arts college]]
*[[Liberal Bias]]
*[[Liberal celebrity obsession]]
*[[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Liberal deceit]]
*[[Liberal Democrats]]
*[[Liberal denial]]
*[[Liberal Elite]]
*[[Essay:Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
*[[Liberal Fascism]]
*[[Liberal friendship]]
*[[Liberal Gloss]]
*[[Liberal grading]]
*[[Liberal hate speech]]
*[[Liberal Hypocrisy]]
*[[Liberal hysteria]]
*[[Liberal ideology]]
*[[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
*[[Liberalism and art]]
*[[Liberal labels]]
*[[Slander:Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
*[[Liberal logic]]
*[[Liberal Mind]]
*[[Liberal Myths]]
*[[Liberal obfuscation]]
*[[Liberal Party]]
*[[Liberal quotient]]
*[[Liberal supremacist]]
*[[Liberal Style]]
*[[Liberal tools]]
*[[Liberal tricks]]
*[[Liberal values]]
*[[Massachusetts liberal]]
*[[Professor values]]

List of liberalism in America

2008-10-06T01:34:17Z

JasonM: fix link

This is a list of specific definitions of various liberal variances within the [[United States]].

*[[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
*[[Classical liberal]]
*[[Drinking Liberally]]
*[[Godless liberal]]
*[[Hollywood values]]
*[[Last wordism]]
*[[Liberal activists]]
*[[Liberal arts]]
*[[Liberal Arts college]]
*[[Liberal Bias]]
*[[Liberal celebrity obsession]]
*[[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Liberal deceit]]
*[[Liberal Democrats]]
*[[Liberal denial]]
*[[Liberal Elite]]
*[[Essay:Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
*[[Liberal Fascism]]
*[[Liberal friendship]]
*[[Liberal Gloss]]
*[[Liberal grading]]
*[[Liberal hate speech]]
*[[Liberal Hypocrisy]]
*[[Liberal hysteria]]
*[[Liberal ideology]]
*[[Liberal Intellectualism]]
*[[Liberalism and art]]
*[[Liberal labels]]
*[[Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
*[[Liberal logic]]
*[[Liberal Mind]]
*[[Liberal Myths]]
*[[Liberal obfuscation]]
*[[Liberal Party]]
*[[Liberal quotient]]
*[[Liberal supremacist]]
*[[Liberal Style]]
*[[Liberal tools]]
*[[Liberal tricks]]
*[[Liberal values]]
*[[Massachusetts liberal]]
*[[Professor values]]

List of liberalism in America

2008-10-06T01:33:26Z

JasonM: fix link

This is a list of specific definitions of various liberal variances within the [[United States]].

*[[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
*[[Classical liberal]]
*[[Drinking Liberally]]
*[[Godless liberal]]
*[[Hollywood values]]
*[[Last wordism]]
*[[Liberal activists]]
*[[Liberal arts]]
*[[Liberal Arts college]]
*[[Liberal Bias]]
*[[Liberal celebrity obsession]]
*[[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Liberal deceit]]
*[[Liberal Democrats]]
*[[Liberal denial]]
*[[Liberal Elite]]
*[[Liberal Falsehoods]]
*[[Liberal Fascism]]
*[[Liberal friendship]]
*[[Liberal Gloss]]
*[[Liberal grading]]
*[[Liberal hate speech]]
*[[Liberal Hypocrisy]]
*[[Liberal hysteria]]
*[[Liberal ideology]]
*[[Liberal Intellectualism]]
*[[Liberalism and art]]
*[[Liberal labels]]
*[[Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
*[[Liberal logic]]
*[[Liberal Mind]]
*[[Liberal Myths]]
*[[Liberal obfuscation]]
*[[Liberal Party]]
*[[Liberal quotient]]
*[[Liberal supremacist]]
*[[Liberal Style]]
*[[Liberal tools]]
*[[Liberal tricks]]
*[[Liberal values]]
*[[Massachusetts liberal]]
*[[Professor values]]

List of liberalism in America

2008-10-06T01:32:00Z

JasonM: correct link

This is a list of specific definitions of various liberal variances within the [[United States]].

*[[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
*[[Classical liberal]]
*[[Drinking Liberally]]
*[[Godless liberal]]
*[[Hollywood values]]
*[[Last wordism]]
*[[Liberal activists]]
*[[Liberal arts]]
*[[Liberal Arts college]]
*[[Liberal Bias]]
*[[Liberal celebrity obsession]]
*[[Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Liberal deceit]]
*[[Liberal Democrats]]
*[[Liberal denial]]
*[[Liberal Elite]]
*[[Liberal Falsehoods]]
*[[Liberal Fascism]]
*[[Liberal friendship]]
*[[Liberal Gloss]]
*[[Liberal grading]]
*[[Liberal hate speech]]
*[[Liberal Hypocrisy]]
*[[Liberal hysteria]]
*[[Liberal ideology]]
*[[Liberal Intellectualism]]
*[[Liberalism and art]]
*[[Liberal labels]]
*[[Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
*[[Liberal logic]]
*[[Liberal Mind]]
*[[Liberal Myths]]
*[[Liberal obfuscation]]
*[[Liberal Party]]
*[[Liberal quotient]]
*[[Liberal supremacist]]
*[[Liberal Style]]
*[[Liberal tools]]
*[[Liberal tricks]]
*[[Liberal values]]
*[[Massachusetts liberal]]
*[[Professor values]]

List of liberalism in America

2008-10-06T01:30:23Z

JasonM: put in links

This is a list of specific definitions of various liberal variances within the [[United States]].

*[[Articles about liberals]]
*[[Classical liberal]]
*[[Drinking Liberally]]
*[[Godless liberal]]
*[[Hollywood values]]
*[[Last wordism]]
*[[Liberal activists]]
*[[Liberal arts]]
*[[Liberal Arts college]]
*[[Liberal Bias]]
*[[Liberal celebrity obsession]]
*[[Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
*[[Liberal Christianity]]
*[[Liberal deceit]]
*[[Liberal Democrats]]
*[[Liberal denial]]
*[[Liberal Elite]]
*[[Liberal Falsehoods]]
*[[Liberal Fascism]]
*[[Liberal friendship]]
*[[Liberal Gloss]]
*[[Liberal grading]]
*[[Liberal hate speech]]
*[[Liberal Hypocrisy]]
*[[Liberal hysteria]]
*[[Liberal ideology]]
*[[Liberal Intellectualism]]
*[[Liberalism and art]]
*[[Liberal labels]]
*[[Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
*[[Liberal logic]]
*[[Liberal Mind]]
*[[Liberal Myths]]
*[[Liberal obfuscation]]
*[[Liberal Party]]
*[[Liberal quotient]]
*[[Liberal supremacist]]
*[[Liberal Style]]
*[[Liberal tools]]
*[[Liberal tricks]]
*[[Liberal values]]
*[[Massachusetts liberal]]
*[[Professor values]]

List of liberalism in America

2008-10-06T01:23:58Z

JasonM: make list page

This is a list of specific definitions of various liberal variances within the [[United States]].

Columbia Union College

2008-10-06T01:17:40Z

JasonM: /* History */ spelling

'''Columbia Union College''' (CUC) is a conservative [[Christian]] college located in Takoma Park, MD.

==History==
Established in 1904, the CUC was originally known as '''Washington Training Institute'''. The name of the college changed to '''Washington Foreign Mission Seminary''' in 1907 and changed focus to a more limited objective of training for missionaries. This mission changed once again in 1914 to more traditional liberal arts college and took the name of '''Washington Missionary College'''. It was not until 1961 that the college took its present name of '''Columbia Union College'''.<ref>http://www.cuc.edu/academic/aboutus/history.html</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

Columbia Union College

2008-10-06T01:16:54Z

JasonM: add the

'''Columbia Union College''' (CUC) is a conservative [[Christian]] college located in Takoma Park, MD.

==History==
Established in 1904, the CUC was originally known as '''Washington Training Institute'''. The name of the college changed to '''Washington Foreign Mission Seminary''' in 1907 and changed focus to a more limited objective of training for missionaries. This mission changed once again in 1914 to more traditional liberal arts college and tool the name of '''Washington Missionary College'''. It was not until 1961 that the college took its present name of '''Columbia Union College'''.<ref>http://www.cuc.edu/academic/aboutus/history.html</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

Columbia Union College

2008-10-06T01:15:57Z

JasonM: reference

'''Columbia Union College''' (CUC) is a conservative [[Christian]] college located in Takoma Park, MD.

==History==
Established in 1904, CUC was originally known as '''Washington Training Institute'''. The name of the college changed to '''Washington Foreign Mission Seminary''' in 1907 and changed focus to a more limited objective of training for missionaries. This mission changed once again in 1914 to more traditional liberal arts college and tool the name of '''Washington Missionary College'''. It was not until 1961 that the college took its present name of '''Columbia Union College'''.<ref>http://www.cuc.edu/academic/aboutus/history.html</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

Columbia Union College

2008-10-06T01:15:10Z

JasonM: make page

User:JasonM

2008-10-06T01:04:26Z

JasonM: create home page

'''Leviticus 1:5'''
''And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood around upon the altar that [is by] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.''

My name is Jason. I am a student at [[Columbia Union College]]. I am fed up with liberal media antics and will be leaving the country after I finish school to go on seminary work.