Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Neutralism

2007-10-31T22:50:39Z

Konservativekanadian: rv

Neutralism is remaining neutral when faith or morality require taking a position or stand. It is the ducking of moral or religious responsibility.

The philosopher [[Benedict de Spinoza]] advocated this approach in the 1600s as a result of his view that mind, matter, time and everything that seems to be real is merely a manifestation of only one substance, One Reality.
[[category:philosophy]]
[[category:religion]]

Ron Paul

2007-10-31T22:40:17Z

Konservativekanadian: Paul is more of a libertarian, conservatives are in favour of the Iraq war and Patriot Act

[[Image:Ronpaul.jpg|right|250x250px|thumb]]

'''Ronald Ernest “Ron” Paul''' (born 20 August, 1935) is a 10th-term Congressman, a former Air Force Flight Surgeon, a medical doctor ([[M.D.]]) and a 2008 [[presidential candidate]] from the U.S. state of [[Texas]]. As a [[Republican Party|Republican]], he has represented [[Texas's 14th congressional district]] in the [[United States House of Representatives|U.S. House of Representatives]] since 1997, and had previously served as the representative from Texas's 22nd district in 1976 and from 1979 to 1985.

Paul, a [[pro-life]] [[libertarian]], advocates the limited role of government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He has earned the nickname "Dr. No" for voting against any bill he believes violates the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill. He has never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay. He has always voted against the [[USA PATRIOT Act]], the [[Military Commissions Act of 2006]], and the [[Iraq War]].

==Congressional record==

*He has never voted to raise taxes.
*He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
*He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
*He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
*He has never taken a government-paid junket.
*He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
*He voted against the Patriot Act.
*He voted against regulating the Internet.
*He voted against the Iraq war.
*He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
*He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
*He introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any other single member of Congress.

== Early life and education ==

Dr. Ron Paul was born in [[Pittsburgh]], Pennsylvania to Howard Caspar Paul and Margaret Paul.<ref>http://dailypaul.com/node/53</ref><ref>http://www.wargs.com/political/paul.html</ref> He graduated from Dormont High School in Dormont, Pennsylvania, in 1953. Paul attended Gettysburg College, receiving his [[Bachelor of Arts]] degree in 1957, and the [[Duke University School of Medicine]], receiving [[Doctor of Medicine|M.D.]] in 1961. He did his [[internship]] and [[Residency (medicine)|residency]] at [[Henry Ford Hospital]] in [[Detroit]], Michigan, from 1961 to 1962, and was a [[flight surgeon]] in the [[United States Air Force]] from 1963 to 1968. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County. As a specialist in [[obstetrics]]/[[gynecology]], Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He and Carol, who reside in Lake Jackson, Texas, are the proud parents of five children and have seventeen grandchildren.

===Political affiliations and support===
Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas whose political views are considered libertarian. Paul remains on good terms with the Libertarian Party and addressed its national convention as recently as 2004.<ref>[http://www.theadvocates.org/liberator/vol-09-num-10.htm Liberator online archive] on Advocates for self-governing accessed at March 4, 2007</ref>

Paul served as honorary chairman and is a current member of the [[Republican Liberty Caucus]], a political action organization dedicated to promoting the ideals of individual rights, limited government and free enterprise within the Republican Party.<ref>[http://fl.rlc.org/ Republican Liberty Caucus of Florida] accessed at March 4, 2007</ref>

Unlike many political candidates, Paul receives the overwhelming majority of his campaign contributions (96.8% in 2005-2006), from individuals. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?CID=N00005906&cycle=2006/]

===Political Views===

Paul wants to "reinstate the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] and restore the [[Republic]]." He rejects a [[welfare state]] or [[nanny state]] role for the federal government, and advocates a strong [[non-interventionism|non-interventionist]] [[foreign policy]].

He voted against the [[Iraq War]] in 2002 and has offered alternatives such as granting the President authority to grant [[Letters of Marque and Reprisal]], and arming [[pilot]]s. He is the only Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War.

Paul's desire to secure U.S. borders remains a key topic in his 2008 presidential campaign. He opposes the [[North American Union]] proposition and its proposed integration of Mexico, the United States of America, and Canada. Paul voted "yes" on the [[Secure Fence Act of 2006]], which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico. Paul opposes illegal immigration as well as amnesty for illegal immigrants.

In the May 3, 2007 GOP Debate, Ron Paul stated that as President, he would seek the immediate abolition of the [[Internal Revenue Service|IRS]] and the abolition of the income tax. As Congressman, he has long fought for the [[Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Congress|prohibition of direct taxes]] by repeal of the [[16th Amendment to the United States Constitution|16th Amendment]] which created the [[income tax]].

==2008 Presidential Campaign==

Paul formally declared his candidacy for the Presidential election in 2008 in 12 March, 2007 as a guest on [[Washington Journal]] on [[C-SPAN]].<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA031207.paul2008.EN.74141d9.html | title = Paul formally launches presidential bid | first = Gary | last = Martin | work = San Antonio Express-News | accessdate = 2007-03-13}}</ref> <ref>[http://chbn.com/Clip.aspx?key=1CD9E3A0397BCBEC Ron Paul announcing candidacy on C-SPAN]</ref>. In regards to his candidacy, he had a 30-minute interview with online political analyst [[James Kotecki]] regarding foreign policy, Congress and the Constitution, and personal liberties. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/jameskotecki James Kotecki interviews Ron Paul]</ref>

Paul participated (along with nine other Republican presidential candidates) in the [[Ronald Reagan Presidential Library]]'s 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates Debate on May 3, 2007. Ron Paul finished first in the MSNBC poll following the GOP primary debate with 43 percent -- beating second place [[Mitt Romney]] by 5 percentage points.[http://www.ronpaul2008.typepad.com/]

Paul seemed to have dropped slightly in the polls that followed the second Republican debate in Columbia, South Carolina, to 25 percent. This was probably as a result of his suggestion that weekly bombing of [[Iraq]] following [[Operation Desert Fox]] in December 1998 may have contributed sufficiently to [[Arab]] anger at the United States as to make the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]] inevitable. Paul was excoriated by [[Rudy Giuliani]], who said that this was the most bizarre explanation for the attacks he had ever heard. Other Republican commentators sought to explain Paul's continued strength in post-debate polls as the result of multiple votes by his supporters or voting by non-Republicans. In response to Rudy Giuliani, the next day at the National Press Club, Ron Paul offered Rudy a book list to read regarding the issue of American foreign policy. These books are ''Imperial Hubris'' by Michael Scheuer, ''Dying to Win'' by Robert Pape, ''Blowback'' by Chalmers Johnson, and ''The 9-11 Commission Report'' by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks.

Eric Dondero, a former Ron Paul staffer, has declared himself a candidate against Paul in the 2008 Republican primary election to represent the 14th District of Texas in Congress.

==Telephone hotline==
Ron Paul runs a toll-free [[telephone]] hotline with a recorded message of conservative commentary. It is updated every Monday. The number is 1-888-322-1414.

==Books by Ron Paul==
* ''Challenge to Liberty''. Lake Jackson, Tex.: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
* ''Gold, Peace, and Prosperity''. Lake Jackson, Tex.: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
* ''Ten Myths About Paper Money''. Lake Jackson, Tex.: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education
* ''The Case for Gold''. Reprinted by the [[The Cato Institute|Cato Institute]], 1982; Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007. ISBN 0-932790-31-3. ([http://www.mises.org/books/caseforgold.pdf])
* ''A Republic, If You Can Keep It''
* ''Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View''. Auburn, Ala.: [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]], 1984.
* ''Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years''. Lake Jackson, Tex.: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, 1987. ([http://www.dailypaul.com/node/65] Book distributed with permission in 7 parts in pdf-format)
* ''A Foreign Policy of Freedom''. Lake Jackson, Tex.: Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, 2007. ISBN 0-912453-00-1

== References ==

* Gwynne, Sam (1 October, 2001). ''Texas Monthly''.
* Bernstein, Alan (May 23, 1996). “Newsletter excerpts offer ammunition to Paul's opponent; GOP hopeful quoted on race, crime”, ''The Houston Chronicle'', p. A33.
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ Official Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Site]
*[http://www3.webng.com/ronpaul Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Overview]
*[http://www.myspace.com/congressmanronpaul Ron Paul's MySpace page]
*[http://www.house.gov/paul/ Official web site of Congressman Ron Paul]
*[http://www.ronpaul08.blog-city.com/ Ron Paul 2008 Blog]
*[http://antiwar.com/paul/ Rep. Ron Paul's Column for Antiwar.com]
* [http://RonPaulReport.SquareSpace.com/ The Ron Paul Report]
* [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allsummary.asp?CID=N00005906 OpenSecrets.org - Congressional campaign contributions]
* [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/primaries/candidates/paul.html Vote 2008: Ron Paul - Online NewsHour with Jim Lehrer]
* [http://ronpaul.ning.com Ron Paul 2008 social network]
* [http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/P80000748 Federal Election Commission - Presidential campaign contributions]
* [http://senate.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm On the Issues - Ron Paul] issue positions and quotes
* [http://vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=BC031929 Project Vote Smart - Ron Paul]
* [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ron_Paul SourceWatch Congresspedia - Ron Paul]
* [http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/ Voting record maintained by the Washington Post]
* [http://www.ronpaul08.blog-city.com/ Ron Paul 2008 Blog]
* [http://electronpaul.blogspot.com/ Ron Paul for President 2008 Blog and Links]
* [http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/ron-paul.html Advocates for Self-Government profile of Ron Paul]
* [http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/BiosInd/Paul.htm Congressman Ron Paul and Medical Marijuana]
* [http://www.321gold.com/editorials/taylor/taylor031706.html Congressman Ron Paul Talks About Gold, Oil & the Economy]
* [http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2004/pr042104.htm National Taxpayers Union Honors Ron Paul as one of 29 Congressmen who are "Taxpayer's Friends"]
* [http://www.mediamonitors.net/ronpaul2.html Commentary by Rep. Paul on U.S. policy in the Middle East]
* [http://www.virtuemag.org/articles/ron-paul Virtue Magazine Political profile of Ron Paul]
* [http://www.counterpunch.org/paul03182004.html The Broadcast Indecency Act, An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment] by Ron Paul
* [http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr062702.htm Is America a Police State?], speech before the U.S. House of Representatives on June 27, 2002
* [http://dailypaul.com/node/53 The American Dream - Through the Eyes of Mrs. Ron Paul] by Mrs. Ron Paul on TheDailyPaul.

{{2008_presidential_candidates}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Paul, Ron}}
[[Category:United States Representatives]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Human Rights Watch

2007-10-31T22:30:28Z

Konservativekanadian: /* References */

'''Human Rights Watch''' (HRW) is a large, well-funded
<ref>HRW has a full-time staff of 190 employees worldwide and a budget of approximately $22 million per year. [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258 Discover the Networks] </ref>
[[liberal]] advocacy group presenting itself as a [[human rights]] watchdog. One of its four co-founders also founded [[SDS]], a pro-communist group masquerading as a supporter of [[democracy]].

HRW mainly criticizes the [[United States]]<ref>Discover the Networks-A guide to the liberal Left,http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref> and [[Israel]].<ref> “Human Rights Watch shows a disturbing disparity in its treatment of Israel and China.” Gerald M. Steinberg(head of the Program on Conflict Management at Bar Ilan University and is the editor of NGO Monitor.) May 2006 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzdkNDA3NTY4ZmMwMzFmNWYwYTBkMWU4MzFiMTMxNGM </ref>
Yet it studiously avoids any criticism of Arab groups who launch rocket attacks against Israeli civilians.<ref>“NGOs Make War on Israel” Gerald M. Steinberg Middle East Quarterly Summer 2004, http://www.meforum.org/article/633</ref>
As [[conservative]] author and [[human rights]] activist [[David Horowitz]] stated, Human Rights Watch is a "reflexive Israel-basher … who, in his zest to pillory Israel at every turn, is little more than an ally of the barbarians".<ref> Rosa Brooks on Criticism of Human Rights Watch, Kevin Jon Heller, http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1157149379.shtml</ref>

[[Alan M. Dershowitz]], <ref>Alan Dershowitz bio,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/#blogger_bio</ref> professor of law at Harvard Law School and one of the most distinguished defenders of individual rights, wrote regarding HRW,
{{Cquote|"Who will guard the guardians?" asked Roman satirist Juvenal. Now we must ask, who is watching Human Rights Watch, one of the world's best-financed and most influential human rights organizations? It turns out that they cook the books about facts, cheat on interviews, and put out pre-determined conclusions that are driven more by their ideology than by evidence. These are serious accusations, and they are demonstrably true……... Human Rights Watch no longer deserves the support of real human rights advocates. Nor should its so-called reporting be credited by objective news organizations.” <ref>Alan Dershowitz,[ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-human-rights-watch-_b_27701.html “The "Human Rights Watch" Watch, Installment 1”] </ref>" }}

==History==

===1978-1998===

Human Rights Watch (HRW) was founded under the name, “Helsinki Watch.” Its original goal was to monitor the [[Soviet]]'s adherence to human rights provisions in the [[Helsinki Accords]]. In 1980, the organization started to develop a number of “Watch” committees in [[America]], [[Asia]], and [[Africa]]. <ref> Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref>
These committees monitored human rights compliance of government and groups inside these continents. In the 1980’s the organization heavily scrutinized the [[Region Doctrine]], they also denounced the [[United States]] aiding of anti-[[communist]] fighters in [[Latin America]].
Jeri Laber, one of the founders of HRW, stated, "Americas Watch reports … were eagerly read in the United States by people who deplored the Reagan policies." <ref> Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref>
Critics claimed that Human Rights Watch painted a bad picture of the freedom fighters in Latin America, while glossing over the abuses of their communist governments. In 1980, [[Turkey]] began a major [[military]] campaign against a [[Kurdish]] terrorist group, the [[PKK]]. HRW documented the violations caused by the Turkish forces in their efforts, highlighting the abuses in the justice system, and use of [[torture]] by the government. In 1994 HRW’s “African Watch” covered the [[genocide]] in [[Rwanda]].<ref> Human Rights Watch, “Rawanda”,1994, http://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/WR95/AFRICA-08.htm#P397_139563</ref> , Their work documenting the atrocities in the region later won them praise from Karel Kovanda, the [[Czech Republic]]'s ambassador to the [[United Nations]], who stated in 2004, “I already knew the track record of Human Rights Watch in its work in my own country. I had every reason to believe that the organization was equally meticulous and well-informed on Rwanda.”<ref> Karel Kovanda, Czech ambassador to the [[United Nations]], 2004,http://hrw.org/about/what_they_say.html </ref>

===1998-2006===
In 1998, Human Rights Watch united all of its “Watch” groups under the United States based HRW in 1988. They led the effort of non-governmental organizations in pressuring the United States to enter [[Kosovo]] to stop the 'genocide'. When [[NATO]] and the United States began their operation, HRW was one of the most critical organizations of its handling. They frequently wrote articles on the abuses carried out by the United States in their use of [[Cluster Bombs]]. <ref> HRW, “NATO's Use of Cluster Munitions in Yugoslavia”, 1999, http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kosovo98/cluster.shtml </ref>
After [[9-11|September 11, 2001]] terrorist attacks on the United States, HRW called for the United States to settle the terrorist attacks as a legal matter, rather then using military force to wipe out the [[Taliban]]. <ref> Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref> HRW endorsed the [[Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004]] <ref>Summary: Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004by The Rights Working Group, http://www.bordc.org/threats/legislation/clrasummary.php</ref>,a bill that would take away vital tools that the United States enacted after the September 11th attacks. HRW has been critical of both of the United States recent operations in [[Iraq]] and [[Afghanistan]]. A HRW report alleged that there was, “excessive use of force by U.S. troops.” They state that they were, "deeply concerned about the consistent reports we are getting about women, children and unarmed civilians being killed." Even though they admitted that they did not have complete reports from the ground in Iraq. <ref> Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref>

===2006-2007===
In 2006, HRW greatly criticized [[Israel]]’s defense against the terrorist group [[Hezbollah]]. They created a report entitled, “Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon.” <ref> “Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon.” Human Rights Watch, August 2006, http://hrw.org/reports/2006/lebanon0806/lebanon0806web.pdf</ref>
Critics also stated that HRW also defended the terrorist organization. In a 2006 report they stated that there was no evidence of Hezbollah’s use of civilians as human shields, this was obviously not true. <ref>Alan Dershowitz,[ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-human-rights-watch-_b_27701.html “The "Human Rights Watch" Watch, Installment 1”] </ref>
HRW started campaigning for the United States to intervene in Darfur, Sudan, to end the atrocities committed in the region. Over its years, HRW has been embraced by the left, well being deplored by conservatives and supporters of Israel. HRW wrote president, [[George Bush]], and asked him to release prisoners that he was holding in “secret prisons”, they also called on him to stop the use of [[Guantanamo Bay]] as a U.S. [[prison]] for captured [[terrorist]]. The organization’s director, Kenneth Roth, claimed that the United States has lost its credibility on human rights. "The trend is bleak, but not irreversible," <ref> Kenneth Roth, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011101658.html</ref> Roth stated in a report in 2007. The organizations credibility has been brought into serious question.

==Founders==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Name
! Position
! Biography
|-
|[[Bob Bernstein]]
|Founder
|[[CEO]] of [[Random House]] publishers
|-
|[[Aryeh Neier]]
|Founder
|Neier worked 15 years at the liberal [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (ACLU). He currently serves as President of the [[Open Society Institute (OSI)]], a foundation funded by liberal [[George Soros]], who was also OSI’s founder. <ref> “Open Society Institute”, Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5181&category=79</ref> Neier was co-founder of [[Students for a Democratic Society]] in 1959.
|-
|-
|[[Orville Schell]]
|Founder
|As a former graduate of their school of [[journalism]], Scheell now stands as Dean of the [[University of California]], Berkley. Schell is a liberal and claims to be a "Discontented [[Democrat]]." <ref> Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref>
|-
|[[Jeri Laber]]
|Founder
|Senior Adviser to Human Rights Watch, was formerly executive director of its [[Helsinki]] division. She is a prominent journalist and political activist.
|-
|-
|}

==Political Position==
[[Image:HumanRightsWatch1.jpg‎ |thumb|200px|Members of Human Rights Watch with Speaker of the House, [[Nancy Pelosi]]]]
Evan though HRW claims that it is a “non-partisan” human rights group, many of the views held by HRW reflect those of [[American]] [[liberal]]s. They believe that [[abortion]] is “first and foremost a human right<ref> Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref>
" and support gay marriage. The organization is also a opponent "in all circumstances" of the [[death penalty]], stating that the death penalty is "a form of punishment that is unique in its barbarity and finality<ref> Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref>
." The organizations work has had a liberal approach of blaming America first.

==Organizational Structure==

===Method===
Human Rights Watch states that the organization, “tries to strike a balance in its work between countries with the worst human rights problems and countries where there is a moment of special opportunity for us to propel change.” <ref>Human Rights Watch, “Frequently Asked Questions”
http://www.hrw.org/about/faq/</ref>
When the location for work is agreed upon, the organization sends out a “fact find group” which is sent from their headquarters. These groups use the method of interviewing victims and witnesses in the crisis zone. These finding are published into dozens of books and reports posted on the organizations website. In intense times of crisis, the organization covers the “up-to-the-minute information.”In some situations the organization uses the help of organizations, such as [[United Nations]], the [[European Union]], international financial institutions, and the [[United States Government]]. In particularly egregious abuses, “Human Rights Watch may press for the withdrawal of military and certain economic support.” <ref>Human Rights Watch, “Frequently Asked Questions”
http://www.hrw.org/about/faq/</ref>

===Location===
In 1998, Human Rights Watch united the international organization in United States. They based their main organization headquarters on 350 Fifth Avenue St, New York. HRW has anchored offices in major United States cities, including, [[Chicago]], [[New York]], [[Washington D.C.]], [[Los Angeles]], and [[San Francisco]]<ref>Locations of Human Rights Watch, http://www.hrw.org/contact.html </ref>.
They also created offices internationally in [[Brussels]], [[Geneva]], [[Berlin]], [[Toronto]], and [[London]]. The organization has been criticized for having a lack of [[diversity]] in headquarter locations. <ref> “Who’s Behind Human Rights Watch,”(2004), http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/HRW.html</ref> When on a assignment the "fact finding group" will, in some cases, make temporary headquarters in the conflict zone.

===Leadership===
Human Rights Watch consists of a Board of Directors and chairmen from five continents, along with three other boards which cover specific issues<ref> Human Rights Watch Board and Committee’s, http://www.hrw.org/about/info/board.html </ref>. Each board consists of chairmen and co-chairmen, with exception of the board on “Terrorism and Counterterrorism.” The smallest board, “Terrorism and Counterterrorism,” consist of eight members, while the largest board consists of over forty members. Although the organization composed of 190 full time employees’, they also hire part time employee’s, bringing the number to 255 working employee's working for the organization
<ref>Human Rights Watch, “Frequently Asked Questions”
http://www.hrw.org/about/faq/</ref>. HRW also has a ‘Counsel’, which can be joined by giving donations to the organization (usually $5,000), the counsel remains primarily symbolic. While this list of counsel members used to be confidential; it is now since open to the public<ref> “Who’s Behind Human Rights Watch,”(2004), http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/HRW.html</ref>. The organizations main leadership role is held by the executive director. This position has been held, since 1993, by Kenneth Roth, a graduate of [[Yale Law School]], [[Brown University]], and former prosecutor<ref> HRW website, Kenneth Roth, http://www.hrw.org/about/bios/kroth.htm </ref>.[[Bill O'Reilly]] called Roth, the “stand up man” for the organization, his job includes talking to the media and overseeing the organizations operations. <ref>O’Reilly Factor, 2004, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138990,00.html</ref>

===Funding===
The organization total operating cost for Human Rights Watch annual in 2006 was $30,185,486.
<ref>Human Rights Watch, “Frequently Asked Questions”
http://www.hrw.org/about/faq/</ref>
HRW is a non-governmentally organization ([[NGO]]), which receives its funding from private donors and foundations. The organization claims that they do not accept money from government institutions. Its annual budget is 22 million, ten million behind [[Amnesty International]], another human rights monitoring group. In January of 2005, the Oakland-based Golden West Financial Corporation gave a grant of 15 million dollars over a five years period to the organization.<ref> Foundation Center, 2005, http://foundationcenter.org/sanfrancisco/gitn/sf_gitn_010105.html</ref>, this was the largest contribution to the organization in its twenty-seven year history. Other contributors to the organization include; Ahmanson Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Ford Foundation, Columbia Foundation, William and Floea Hewlett Foundation, John D. & Catherin T. MacArthur Foundation, Nathan Cummings foundation, Joyce Foundation, JEHT Foundation, J.M. Kaplan Fund, the Open Society Institute, the Davie and Lucile Packard Foundation, Righteous Persons Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fud, Scherman Foundation, and the Rockefellers Foundation<ref> Discover the Networks, http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258</ref> . HRW financial statements are made public on the organizations website<ref> Financial Statements for Human Rights Watch, 2004- http://www.hrw.org/annual-report/finStmt2004.pdf, 2005- http://www.hrw.org/annual-report/finStmt2005.pdf, 2006- http://www.hrw.org/annual-report/finStmt2006.pdf </ref>.

===Website===
The main tool used by the human rights organization is their website (hrw.org). The website receives an estimated average of 48 thousand visitors a day in 2006, which led to an average 118,642 daily page views<ref>Human Rights Watch, “Frequently Asked Questions”
http://www.hrw.org/about/faq/</ref>
. The site also gives HRW the ability to report up to the minute happenings when the situation calls for it. HRW has been criticized for having most of its reports and website in English only <ref> “Who’s Behind Human Rights Watch,”(2004), http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/HRW.html</ref>.

==Criticism==

===Anti-Israel===
The Israeli conflict with the Palestinians and [[Hezbollah]] has brought about serious questions of HRW objectivity. During the span of four years, from October 2000 to April 2004, HWR wrote one-hundred and three reports, the vast majority of these reports condemned Israel<ref>“NGOs Make War on Israel” Gerald M. Steinberg
Middle East Quarterly Summer 2004, http://www.meforum.org/article/633</ref>. During the same time the organization only wrote thirty highlighting the Palestinian terror attack.

According to [[Gerald M. Steinberg]], a research associate at the BESA Center for Strategic Studies, HRW has ignored the terrorist suicide attacks designed to kill innocent civilians, while criticizing Israel for a, “policy of targeted killing of terrorist leaders, such as [[Hamas]] leaders Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ar-Rantisi<ref>“NGOs Make War on Israel” Gerald M. Steinberg
Middle East Quarterly Summer 2004, http://www.meforum.org/article/633</ref>
.” He wrote later in the same article, “The political bias of non-governmentally organizations on the Middle East, coupled with their lack of public accountability and transparency, is beginning to chip away at their credibility<ref>“NGOs Make War on Israel” Gerald M. Steinberg
Middle East Quarterly Summer 2004, http://www.meforum.org/article/633</ref>
.”

In 2006, HRW released a 50 page report, "Fatal Strikes: Israel's Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in [[Lebanon]]," which covered civilians deaths they claimed were caused by Israel in their conflict with the terrorist group [[Hezbollah]]. Israel stated that the many of the deaths were caused by Hezbollah’s use of civilian areas and human shields. HRW stated that there was no evidence that Hezbollah used human shields, but this notion was widely known as untrue. While focusing on Israel’s “indiscriminate bombing”, HRW failed to report significantly on Hezbollah’s launching of 2,000 rockets at civilian areas. HRW criticized Israel’s building of a fence in the [[West Bank]], calling it part of an "illegal" land grab<ref>NGO Monitor, 2005, http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/news/HRWLetter-NYSun.htm</ref>. [[Anthony Weiner]], a Democrat Congressman, was shocked at the idiosyncrasy of the charges, he stated, "Given that the security fence has inarguably reduced [[terrorism]] and death by would-be Palestinian bombers, it seems any organization truly concerned about human rights should be supporting [[Israel]]'s right to construct it”<ref>NGO Monitor, 2005, http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/news/HRWLetter-NYSun.htm</ref>. Even a liberal newsmagazine, [[The New Republic]], could not resist the slant of HRW coverage<ref> Rosa Brooks on Criticism of Human Rights Watch, Kevin Jon Heller, http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1157149379.shtml</ref>
.
===Hypocrisy===
Human Rights Watch has called on the [[United States]] to stop workplace discrimination on nationality and class inside the United States and other countries, but the organization does not even follow that standard, nearly hiring all of their employee's from American and English nationalities<ref>http://www.antiwar.com/rep/treanor1.html</ref>. The Committee members for HRW also include only decisions makers from the upper-class, none from the middle-income class. Nearly all of the organizations articles and reports are produced in English, HRW claims that they are not produced in more languages because of the cost of translation. They have asked for volunteers to translate reports and documents. The organization has held double standard in its dealings in the [[Middle East]]. President of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein, stated, "For Human Rights Watch to call on Israel and Jews not to live in Judea and Samaria is simply racist. Why is it that Arabs can live in Israel, and Arabs can live in the West Bank, and Jews cannot live in the West Bank?” <ref>NGO Monitor, 2005,http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/news/HRWLetter-NYSun.htm</ref>.

==External Links==

*[http://hrw.org/ Human Rights Watch Official Website]

==References==
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
<references/>
</div>
[[category:Political Organizations]]
[[Category:Liberal activists]]

Amnesty International

2007-10-31T22:25:15Z

Konservativekanadian: /* External Links */

As stated by their homepage: "'''Amnesty International''' (AI) is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights." Founded in the UK in 1961, the organization works to highlight reported deviations from the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] of the [[United Nations]]. It attempts to garner public support, most notably in the form of [[letter writing campaigns]], in the belief that this can exert political pressure.

It was the winner of the 1977 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]].

==Amnesty's goals==

At the 27th International Council meeting, 2005, it was decided that:

"''Amnesty International’s vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. In pursuit of this vision, Amnesty International’s mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights.''"

This manifests itself as Amnesty's goals:

#Abolish [[capital punishment]]
#Put an end to [[extrajudicial executions]] and "disappearances"
#Put an end to torture and ill-treatment
#Put an end to unlawful killings in armed conflict
#Ensure conditions in prisons meet international standards of human rights
#Ensure rapid and fair trials for all [[prisoner of conscience|prisoners of conscience]]
#Ensure free education to all children worldwide
#Put an end to the recruitment and use of child soldiers
#Promote economic, social and cultural rights for marginalised communities
#Protect human rights defenders
#Protect the rights of [[refugees]], [[Immigration|migrants]] and [[asylum seekers]]

One topic of particular controversy is the organisation's stance on [[abortion]], as both pro- and anti-abortion members belong to Amnesty. In August 2007, Amnesty International changed its position to [[pro-choice]]. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/8/21/153220.shtml?s=ic Amnesty International Becomes a Pro-Choice Organization]. ''NewsMax'' Aug. 21, 2007 </ref> <ref> [http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGORG500412007 Amnesty International takes on divided world] "Amnesty International committed itself to strengthening the organization's work on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and other factors contributing to women's recourse to abortion and affirmed the organization’s policy on selected aspects on abortion (to support the decriminalisation of abortion, to ensure women have access to health care when complications arise from abortion and to defend women's access to abortion, within reasonable gestational limits, when their health or human rights are in danger), emphasizing that women and men must exercise their sexual and reproductive rights free from coercion, discrimination and violence." ''Amnesty International'' 17th August 2007</ref>
<ref> [http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGPOL300122007 Amnesty International defends access to abortion for women at risk] ''Amnesty International'' 14th June 2007</ref>

==Criticism==
[[Image:Amnesty international1.jpg|right|200px|thumb| A summary of all critical press releases
put out by Amnesty over the period 1995–1998.<ref name="Phelps" />]]
Amnesty International has disproportionately criticized free democratic nations over authoritarian nations with grave human rights abuses, such as [[Cuba]], [[Vietnam]], and [[North Korea]]. Peter Phelps, a writer for [[Australia]]’s leading free market think tank; The Institute for Public Affairs, wrote that Amnesty International has deviated from its founding goals,

<blockquote>
“In the midst of the Cold War, Amnesty was a beacon to prisoners of conscience languishing in the Gulags of the Soviet empire and the work camps of Communist
China. It was an institution whose time had come. Today, its time has passed. Rather than attack real abuses of human rights, it has lost sight of its original objectives. It has become, like Greenpeace, the Wilderness Society and ACOSS, yet another self-perpetuating bureaucracy. More effort is directed into recruiting new members, whose subscription fees pay for this entrenched class of apparatchiks, than in exposing real violations of human rights.</blockquote>

<blockquote>
The decline in standards has become especially apparent over the last five years.
The collapse of the Soviet empire has deprived Amnesty of most of its raison d’être.
In its place is an active campaign against free, democratic nations. For example, in Amnesty’s 1999 Annual Report on the Internet, 165 lines of text were devoted to criticism of Australia’s human rights. In contrast, the Communist dictatorship of North Korea had only 83 lines of critical text. Yet there is simply no comparison between the human rights records of Australia and North Korea.”
<ref name="Phelps">Phelps, Peter, [http://www.ipa.org.au/files/review51-3.pdf Amnesty Infomercial], ''Review'', (Intitute of Public Affairs), September 1999, p.13.</ref></blockquote>

One of the main reasons for the disproportionate criticism has been Amnesty Internationals flawed methodology which relies heavily on the press inside of nations. This leads to a nation that is free and open, but had minor infractions, receiving much more criticism then a closed nation.<ref name="Phelps" />

==References==
<references/>

==Also See==
*[[Human rights]]
*[[Human Rights Watch]]
==External Links==
[http://www.amnesty.org/ Amnesty International's homepage]
[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]
[[Category:Liberal activists]]

Amnesty International

2007-10-31T22:25:05Z

Konservativekanadian: /* External Links */

Toronto Blue Jays

2007-10-31T21:20:32Z

Konservativekanadian:

[[Image:RogersCentre.jpg|240px|right]]
The '''Toronto Blue Jays''' are a [[Major League Baseball]] team located in [[Toronto]], [[Ontario]], [[Canada]]. In 1992 and 1993 the Blue Jays won the [[World Series]] marking the first time a non-American Team won the championship. The Blue Jays were founded in 1976 and became the only Non-American MLB Team after the [[Montreal Expos]] moved to [[Washington_DC|Washington, DC]] and became the [[Washington Nationals]] in 2004. The Blue Jays play in the American League, East Division and have their home games at the Skydome which is now known as the Rogers Centre.

==See also==
*[[Texas Rangers (baseball team)|Texas Rangers]]
*[[Tampa Bay Devil Rays]]

{{Nb_sl_mlb_american}}

Talk:Pleistocene

2007-10-31T02:26:13Z

Konservativekanadian:

==SysOP Vandalism==
The SysOPs Conservative and Bohdan keep taking evolution out of the article. Just delete anything you don't agree with, real brave --[[User:JimmyMacDonald|JimmyMacDonald]] 23:16, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is a fairy tale you liberal troll --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 22:26, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Radical Islam

2007-10-31T02:02:13Z

Konservativekanadian: Redirecting to Islamism

#REDIRECT [[Islamism]]

Radical Islam

2007-10-31T02:01:52Z

Konservativekanadian: Redirecting to Islamic fundamentalism

#REDIRECT [[Islamic fundamentalism]]

Radical Islam

2007-10-31T02:01:36Z

Konservativekanadian: Redirecting to Islamofascism

#REDIRECT [[Islamofascism]]

John Walker Lindh

2007-10-31T02:01:19Z

Konservativekanadian:

John Walker Lindh was an [[America]]n born [[terrorist]] who [[treason|betrayed his own country]]. He left his home in [[California]], converted to [[Islam]], went to the [[Middle East]] and studied [[radical Islam]], and then joined the [[Taliban]]. He was captured in 2001.
[[Category:Terrorists]]

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-10-31T01:33:20Z

Konservativekanadian: /* Fred Phelps is NOT left-wing */

==No linking to Phelps's web sites==

They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites. However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality? As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.

*Posts not signed are ignored. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion of subject==

I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).

Also, I drove by his "church" once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I just moved it because it was under "Fred phelps," and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a more humorous note, [http://www.barzelay.net/files/images/other/phelps.jpg this] was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny.
One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution.
And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had "longer" hair. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach. There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page. Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. I just don't think that the word "fag" is appropriate for an article on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings. I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Edits by Jack ==

please push your liberal views in an article about yourself. This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing. One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced. This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today. He goes to military funerals with signs that say "God Hates F*gs". That is an objective, well documented fact. However, the sysops delete it from the main page. However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article. Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible. In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen. The article is about his views and him. And he is certainly notable. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is "literally following the Bible", and please stop attacking Jack. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Not an attack, but a statement of my views. 2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window. 3. I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade. Just to add God's word. 4. Your views of Phelps are "your views". Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine "his views", not everyone elses opinions. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Landover Baptist==

Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==?==

"Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical."

Wow. QED. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

With all respect to the fact that it shouldn't be stated on an encyclopedia, Phelps probably is going to Hell. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual==

There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays". There's a reason that it's called the "Family Research Council". The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything. Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label "PRO-lifers" as "ANTI-choicers"). Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe. So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree! I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative! Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY "bias"!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*My reading of scripture, perhaps not as advanced as some, tells me if we keep judging, which God has said is his alone to do, we will all be burning. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with Terry, but as I've learned from much debating with christians, the argument doesn't work. They've chosen to ignore one thing the bible says in order to use another thing the bible says to achieve their goals or to justify their hate.[[User:Nsmyth|NSmyth]] 04:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*Well, really, in the Grand Scheme of things, it isn't important. All of us, eventually, will face the harshest, yet most loving Judge in the Universe. Justifications, and legal arguments won't be allowed, lol. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:You can be anti homosexual without being pro-family. The cult Phelps has developed targets and belittles families, he is truely a Bad person in every sense of the word, if he has gotten anything right it has been by way of accident [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Being anti-homosexual is not being pro-family. It is being pro-YOUR-idea-of-family, and forcing that idea on the rest of the world. There's a big difference.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his "hymns", and neither are his images. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What does Phelps stand for, _besides_ hating gays? That seems to be his one schtick. And by all accounts, he psychologically and physically abused his OWN family, which doesn't sound too 'pro-family' to me. [http://blank.org/addict/] (Court evidence--not for the weak of stomach.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

If what you say is true, then "pro-family" must oppose homosexuals becasue they asume that homosexuals are "anti-family". That is not true, it's not the desire of homosexual people to wreck family, they just want personal freedom to have the kind of living arangement they choose. The only reason they have gathered together is because it's their common cause to get that freedom for themselves. I'm pretty certain that if they had those rights, they would leave everyone else alone.
Homosexuals don't suggest that everyone should be homosexual, that would be stupid, they just want the right to live their lives as they want to, not bothering anyone, and not being bothered by anyone. If God (if he exists) dislikes it it's solely up to him to judge, none of us are entitled to do that. --[[User:Atkins|Atkins]] 23:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

It seems that whoever said that in the first place was being a parodist. We definitely don't stand for Phelps's hate here in Kansas, or here at Conservapedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:50, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== What the #$@% ==

This page mention nothing about the sick twisted and evil nature of Fred Phelps and his family cult. I don't know how this site can call itself conservative and not utterly denounce someone who celebrates the deaths of our fighting men and women and taunts the families of our brave departed soldiers. I am disgusted that he gets off with one line of criticism. [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Opcn, I believe the principle at work here is "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend." Which is a very long way from "Love thine enemies" but that was just some liberal claptrap from about 33 AD or so. [[User:Teresita|Banned User Teresita]] 01:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps and Religion ==

"It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin.
--[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== disgusting liberal bias ==

this article is terribly condemning of this man. this is the same kind of p.c. bias crap that made me sick of wikipedia. mr. phelps believes in the same things we all do, so why is this article against hihm? he only believes in the things that jesus taught1!1[[User:Manifestdestiny|Manifestdestiny]] 18:42, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong. At no time did Jesus ever condemn a soldier, unlike this man. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:49, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::but jesus did condemn homosexuals. [[User:Cryingeagles39|Cryingeagles39]] 12:51, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Jesus told everyone in plain terms that if they continued to sin, they would not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. His message in the Gospels was that everyone should repent. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Exactly. Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexuality in the gospels, but he did do what Karajou mentioned, which would encompass all types of sin, including homosexuality. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:20, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

*I do know Jesus commanded that we not judge, or we would be. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== God Hates Canada ==

Didn't Phelps also light a flag on fire in the middle of an airport, thus causing his arrest? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I haven't heard about this! Do you have a link? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.holysmoke.org/hs02/phelps3.htm] is the best I can find. I was wrong, I guess. Seems he didn't actually get around to torching the flag. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:03, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

:Nevermind... "When WBC members did in fact actually burn the Canadian flag in religious protest to Canada's approval of same-sex marriage, the so-called Christians of Canada were the loudest in denouncing WBC and "widely reviling" her Gospel message." That's from his God Hates Canada page. Appears I was mistaken about the airport thing, though. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:09, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps And The Democratic Party ==

Can someone please get rid of this header at the bottom of the page? Seems a bit of a stretch to me. --[[User:Ouzo|Ouzo]] 14:35, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've addressed your concerns. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} The "God Hates Fags" Left]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Activist!???==
Last time I checked liberals support gay people and are secular. Calling Fred Phelps a liberal would be akin to calling Osama bin Laden a pacifist. Someone should change this --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:50, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not a leftist, he is on the extreme fringes of the religious right, he's an embarrasment to conservatives so he is called a "liberal". I can't believe how biased this website is --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Phelps celebrated the 9/11 attacks and the more recent al-Qaeda strikes in London as the just recompense of Western decadence. He supported Saddam Hussein and has been appreciative to Fidel Castro. Phelps is probably more appropriately described in psychiatric than political terms. '''But his political roots are in the Democratic Party, having run for office in Kansas five times, and actively supported Al Gore in 1988 and 1992, whose campaign used Phelps’ family office space. Son Fred Phelps Jr., who had hosted a fund raiser for Gore, attended the 1993 Clinton-Gore inaugural.'''

More careful media coverage acknowledges that Phelps’ ostensibly Baptist church is "unaffiliated" and comprised of only his family members, whose compound of houses is assembled around the church and its swimming pool used for baptisms.

Phelps, now age 76, has demonstrated outside the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas. He has demonstrated against conservative religious activists James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. He has demonstrated against the Southern Baptist Convention.
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 08:41, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Even if Phelps did support the Democrats at one time, that doesn't make him a liberal. Guiliani is a Republican and he is certainly not a Conservative (pro gay marriage, pro abortion). I'd argue that Phelps is delusional rather than liberal or conservative but I think it is terribly biased and incorrect to state that he is a leftist and a liberal. Liberals tend to be secular and pro gay marriage, Phelps does not embrace liberal values --[[User:Fredphelpsisamoron|Fredphelpsisamoron]] 16:17, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I would argue that Phelps is actually a conservative. He is against gay marriage and is very religious, these are two traits of conservatives. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:44, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't buy it sounds more like an anti liberal rant, and is the sort of statement which will atract vandals to this site. Liberals didn't support Saddam, I mean some might of, they just didn't support the war in Iraq, ! [[User:Tubesock|Tubesock]] 17:35, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:There is more to conservatism than ONE ISSUE. Economics, etc.

Also, there are religious liberals out there. Ever heard of Jimmy Carter? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:45, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

True, but Jimmy Carter is only moderatly oppposed to homosexuality and believes in evolution, he is not the same hate filled bigot that Phelps is. Maybe Phelps isn't conservative, but he certainly isn't liberal either. I think saying Phelps is a leftist is POV pushing. It should be taken out. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, wait, wait. What does evolution have to do with it? We've had a lot of liberals tell us that we should not be politicizing science. I actually agree with that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:51, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps doesn't believe in evolution and he believes in creationism. Creationism, particularly YEC is associated with conservatism. I agree that science shouldn't be politicized but creationists, especially YEC, tend to be conservative while evolutionists tend to be moderate or liberal. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:53, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. So we have evidence liberals may be open minded and tolerant of other views. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
::*There is no such thing, outside of perhaps Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as 100% Liberals. Guiliani, I might chime in, isn't taking a "liberal" stance on some issues, but a old line conservative POV, pre-neoconservative, more Libertarian stance. Many of Phelps' idealogical pronouncements most certainly do fit more within the secular-progressive tent than the conservative one. And one must note there wasn't any repudiation on the part of Citizen Gore when he was happily taking Phelps & Company money and office space, was there? End of argument there. Point is, Phelps is almost certainly a Demon from Hell. He certainly isn't worthy of anyone's defense, or the attention he is getting. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't think any of Phelps stances fit liberalism at all. The use of liberal and leftist is misleading and biased --[[User:JimmyR|JimmyR]] 20:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because he opposes Bush and conservatives doesn't mean that he isn't one of them. Conservatives, like Liberals can have disagreements among one another and are not one monolithic block. Besides Ronald Reagan supported Saddam in the 80s, does that make him a liberal? I think you should take out "leftist" and "liberal activist" it is terribly biased and misleading and just makes Conservapedia look bad --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 10:19, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:I agree. Phelps is no more a liberal activist than the KKK is a conservative action group. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:54, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Phelps has been criticized across the political spectrum from leftist gay rights groups to conservative Christians, he is neither liberal or conservative, he is just plain nuts --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 17:55, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:ok, we know the 'ol "he's a bad guy so he must be a religious conservative" argument is the basis of many Wikipedia articles, and thousands of other websites. But this is CP, we're basically (1) concerned with facts.

:So, Phelps, a creationist, is an example of a broadminded [[leftist]]. What's wrong with that? Although some of his views are extraordinarily repugnant, Al & Tipper, in keeping with thier one time advocacy of censoring [[music]] content and being pro-[[big tabacco]], once courted a constituency there. Gore only dropped these views when the Clintons put him on the ticket. Perhaps the [[Nobel Prize]] Committee made the award to the wrong guy. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:15, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not really a leftist. More a flip-flop, his views swing from liberal to conservative depending on how the political wind blows. Besides supporting Gore doesn't automatically make Phelps a liberal. I'm not saying you should say he is a conservative. But liberals/conservatives calling those who are repugnant to both groups the group they disagree with is wrong and biased. Both liberals and conservatives oppose Phelps so he should be called neither. --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 18:22, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:hmmm, so Phelps is [[mainstream]] or [[centrist]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:28, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

No, he's just an extremist. Like the KKK. --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 18:34, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

:Very interesting; on [[political spectrum theory]] I once postulated that the theory was useless, and meaningless. Perhaps Phelps is an example. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:00, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then I think the word leftist should be taken out, it is misleading and besides Phelps is usually considered part of the Religious Right, whether that is true or not --[[User:DanielJamesRideout|DanielJamesRideout]] 12:26, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:So, because the so-called "Religious Right" is unfairly defamed, we should pile on in support of liberal fascist objectives. ''Wiederlich.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

The conservatives call him liberal and the liberals call him conservative. He is clearly insane. Liberalism and insanity often go together but here insanity crowds everything else out. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 12:54, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Liberalism and insanity go together, thats a pretty harsh insult for people who you merely have a political disagreement with? Why so much hate? --[[User:NathanRodgers|NathanRodgers]] 12:57, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:If it was not for the '''fact''' of Phelps [[political]] [[activism]], in support of [[political]] candidates, or the [[fact]] Phelps ran for [[political]] office on the ticket of a major [[political party]], we would not be having this discusssion. But given the [[political]] realities, we can only use Phelps own stated [[political]] affilliations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is true that Phelps was associated with the Democrats but remember that at one time the Democrats were the "Conservative" party. The Democrats are now supportive or at least tolerant of homosexuals and Phelps has referred to his former friend Al Gore as a "Fag-enabler". There aren't too many differences between Republicans and Democrats anyways. I think that leftist and liberal activist should be taken out, other than that the article is fine. --[[User:NathanRodgers|NathanRodgers]] 14:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:You say "was associated." We have no basis for that. It was Al Gore who shifted, not Phelps. And we have no reason to believe Gore publicly shifted other than [[career opportunism]], not any personal, inner, [[moral]] change in his fundamental beliefs. Further, we have ample evidence Gore has both consistently, and persistently, been less then ingenuous in his own personal, inner convictions since pursuing a path of personal career opportunism. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:42, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think anyone with a natural mind can see that Phelps openly supports an agenda that is complicated. However, as Rob eloquently sated above, he ran as a [[Democrat]]. This fact is undeniable. Now, if anyone else wants to take issue with that, that's fine, but I would advise that this is a waste of everyone's time and ought to be a bannable offense. The "but but but" crowd needs to grow up and acept that this guy is one of their own. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 17:56, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

*Very well said, Mathers! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:33, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

==Democrat (or at least ex-Democrat), sure. But liberal?==
Describing Phelps as a Democrat is justifiable, since he did run as a Democrat, but the first sentence dexcribes him as a "leftist", which I believe is the same as "liberal". This seems flawed. Not all Democrats are liberal and vice versa (anyone remember Zell Miller? Reagan and Thurmond were both Democrats once too). Looking at Conservapedia's own definition of [[liberal]] we have the following specific views how many of them apply to Phelps?
#denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as allowing men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)
#:No evidence that he feels this way
#taxpayer-funded abortion
#:Certainly not
#same-sex marriage
#:HA!
#support of affirmative action
#:No evidence of this
#support of political correctness
#:Not at all
#censorship of prayer in classrooms
#:No
#compelled taxpayer funding of government schools for nearly all ages
#:Hard to say, but publicly funded schools are hardly a liberal issue; there is widespread support for them. Most people do not want to completely privatize education.
#government-controlled medical care
#:No evidence of this
#labor unions
#:no evidence of this
#elimination of abstinence-only program funding
#:Given his religious views, this seems unlikely
#income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
#:No evidence of this
#a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
#:No idea. He'd probably support a "living constitution" if interpretations of the document would harm the homosexual agenda, but against it if it would promote it.
#support for gun control
#:No evidnce for this (seems unlikely)
#government programs to rehabilitate criminals
#:No idea
#environmentalism
#:No evidence for this
#disarmament treaties
#:No evidence (this guy seems not to be much of a foreign policy wonk, except when it comes to praising anti-gay foreign leaders)
#globalism
#:No evidence of this (except for global condemnation of homosexuality)
#opposition to a strong American foreign policy
#:No evidence
#support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right
#:Seems unlikely
#opposition to full private property rights
#:No evidence of this
#limit conservative talk radio by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
#:Seems unlikely that he'd want to do anything to aid the pro-gay liberal media
So he basically has no discernable liberal traits. This does not make him a conservative, but it really seems he's not a leftist. The only things that point to his leftism are running as a Democrat (who can say why he picked one party over the other? He didn't have much suport from either, it seems) and his support for Gore (dropped when it turned out Gore's views on homosexuality were more liberal than the previously appered). Since Democrat is not the same as liberal, I'm not sure how the latter applies to him. Can anyone justify the inclusion of the term leftist? If someone can point out statements he's made supporting strong environmentalism, opposition to gun rights, disarmament treaties, property rights opposition, or such a case could certainly be made, but right now I'm not seeing any real leftism here. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 10:51, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:The "leftist" portion is cited. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry, but I don't see it. I see citations for the Democrat part, which isn't the issue. Can point out the specific citation to me? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 14:47, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}] Perhaps we need [[CP:Common knowledge]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:12, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Sorry, but that doesn't clear anything up. Nowhere does that piece call Phelps "liberal" or "leftist" (even if it did, it would be the opinion of a journalist). We've established his conection to the Democratic Party, but where's his liberalism? This site has 21 examples of liberal traits, which does he meet? His anti-gay agenda shapes his opinions on all other matters. If supporting Castro makes him a liberal, what about condemning Sweden (The most socialist state in Europe)? I think everyone can agree that hating gays is not a trait that makes one liberal, and that is about the only trait he has. I think the guy defies all aspects of the traditional left/right spectrum, and I don't see the point of trying to pigeonhole him into one group. By all means this article should disassociate him from the Christian wing of the conservative movement, but that doesn't by definition make him liberal. Is there a source that shows how he meets even ''one'' of the 21 examples bove (and he'd need to meet more than one to be classified as a liberal)? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 15:42, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::So, were back to the definition "a liberal is a leftist," and "a leftist is a liberal." We were attacked by cyberterrorists for months trying to put that stuff in.
:::::Liberals don't hate? Please....And nowhere in the text does it say Phelps is a liberal. He is in Cat:Liberal activists, and a strong case can be made that he belongs there. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:07, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::I know nothing about cyberterrorists and such, but I was sort of under the impression that liberal and leftist were sort of interchangable. This site's own article says that leftist is associated with "social democracy, liberalism, or the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those who oppose conservative politics. The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'. But this is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word liberal." I see nothing socialist or communist about Phelps (support for Castro is based solely on his anti-gay stance, not his economics), nor any real connection with social democracy. In this country it ''is'' basically interchangable with "liberal" (classical liberalism is out of the scope of this issue), so calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal. And note that I never said liberals don't hate, I said that hating gays is not a liberal trait. Are you trying to argue that it is? I think that would be an uphill battle, but feel free to try. And by the way, calling him a liberal activist ''is'' calling him a liberal (just like saying someone is a Mexican footballer is saying he is Mexican, and a footballer). So if he isn't a liberal but is a leftist, what is it that makes him a leftist (and how is that different from the standard definition of liberal that the 21 points illustrate)? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 16:28, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::"calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal,"
:::::::Where in the text does it say this? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:37, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Okay, if the two are not synonymous (or nearly so), then explain the difference. I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable. The [[leftist]] article here is pretty unclear on just about all aspects of the term, and does not draw any real distinctions between liberal and leftist. The article even states "The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'", and since this is an American encyclopedia, aimed at the layman, it seems that if you're going to use the term in different way than it is often used you should make that distinctly clear. If the article means to say he is a leftist but not a liberal then the difference between the two should be explicitly stated, and how he fits into the category "leftist" should also be made clear. Furthermore, if he isn't a liberal he should be removed from the liberal activists category, and his entry should be removed from the [[liberal hate speech]] article. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 00:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::*''I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable.''
:::::::::*Congratulations, and ''good for you.'' Unfortuneatly, like the [[theory of evolution]], you can not impose your [[moral]]ity on me, and ''force'' me to accept the [[political spectrum theory]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

[unindenting] Well, this very site says the two terms are often used interchangably, and I have no idea what evolution and imposition of morality have to do with anything, so we'll let that bit rest. So I'll ask the questions I'd like to see addressed, and I'll number them to make it easy:
:1. What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal, as used in this case?
:2. How is Phelps a leftist? What specific opinions does he hold that make him such?
:3. If he is not a liberal, why is he in the liberal activist category, and used as an example of liberal hate speech?
I'll wait for a reply. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 00:57, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*Here it is, Troll:

* BillyFranco (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:57, 23 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:51, 22 October 2007) [6]
* Briantrust (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 20:35, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 15:54, 19 October 2007) [3]
* AuH2O (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 16:34, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:59, 20 October 2007) [3]
IP: 24.29.72.31 Schenectady, NY,United States

Here is yet another shining example of liberal [[deceit]]. They cannot even argue honestly. They need socks to hide their dishonesty.

Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT) 
:<RobS high fives TK>; By thier fruits ye shall know them. Defenders & apologists is usually a dead give away. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:24, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Activist? (Edit Break)==

I despise Liberals but I have to agree with this loonie leftie this time, Phelps is definetly not a liberal even though he was (or possibly still is) a member of the Democratic Party. Besides what's wrong with protesting homosexuality anyways? I just think he carries it too far thats all --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 16:22, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

ahaha, typical liberal behaviour lol. Still though, I don't think Phelps is a liberal. He certainly isn't conservative either but calling him a liberal when he clearly isn't just makes Conservapedia look bad.--[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 17:59, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*Did you at all read the material RobS provided? --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:13, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Not yet, I'll take a look at it and make my decision on Phelps' political views then --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:25, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I've taken a look at some of the things Rob has said, Phelps is or was a democrat but he is liberal only in name. His views are not liberal at all. I don't care what he says about homosexuality, it is a sin after all, Phelps just goes a little too nutty over it. My issue with him is the disrespect of American soldiers and his criticism of Bush. Bush is in no way a "fag-enabler" and is quite critical of homosexuality. Phelps is not firing on all cylinders though, thats for sure. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with Konserva... the guy above me, Phelps doesn't really qualify as a leftist/liberal. I mean, if he joined the Republican party, would we even be discussing this? There are probably quite a few rogues if we look hard enough into each party's details. maybe Charles Manson believed in a weak federal government and strong gun ownership rights. Does that alone make him a Conservative? At the end of the day, I think the blush is off his liberal democrat rose. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 18:49, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*It is pretty easy, as RobS says, to get people to reveal themselves! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:23, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, I will say I'm happy he's on their side. ;) [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 19:36, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
::::We should probably give credit to the watchdog organizations that single out and trash Phleps, it gives them credibility and balance, shows they are capable of broadminded thinking, and not mindless partisan trolls. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives. While I don't think Phelps is a liberal, his anti-war activities and support of Castro make him exempt from being classified as a conservative. I don't think Phelps falls neatly into either category and both liberals and conservatives are accusing him of being in the other camp because nobody wants him --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 00:05, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
*''If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives.''
:*They've obviously done that. This is why CP exists, this is closely related to one of our core missions, to counter these slanders of conservatives & conservative views by leftist ideological slander factories. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:09, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree, the media has a terrible liberal bias along with these watchdog groups. Phelps is delusional, he is neither liberal or conservative. I still think we should leave political labels out of the description (other than his support for Al Gore which is documented fact), it will just make Conservapedia look bad and give those whiney liberals something else to complain about --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 00:12, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
:Where does the media get thier impressions and opinion about Phelps? From these watchdog organizations -- you never would have heard of Phelps otherwise. Then the media & watchdog organizations also are actively engaged in an agenda, pushing [[gay rights]] and the [[homosexual agenda]], for example. Where does the opposition to this agenda come from? Church people. Who is Phelps & what is his organization? He's a preacher & preaches at a church. ''Voila!'' We have more right-wing, neofascist, hate-mongering Christain Coalition homophobic bigots that need to be exterminated.

:Sorry, his views are Democrat, on the left, and quite in the tradition of stupid, pointless, [[liberal activism]] designed for no other reason than to get people angry, and draw publicity. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:22, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because someone is democrat doesn't mean that they are liberal. Bob Novak was a democrat --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:31, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

*Bob Novak is and was pretty liberal on many things, so a poor example. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:45, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Bob Novak liberal? I don't find him that liberal. He is pro-Iraq war and anti-socialized-medicine. Perhaps he is not as conservative as most Republicans but he is certainly more conservative than the vast majority of democrats and some Republicans too. Also Al and Tipper Gore weren't always as liberal as they claim they are today. They were both in favour of censoring violent and explicit lyrics of rappers and Al Gore was anti-homosexual at one point. They only distanced themselves from Phelps when it became politically expedient. They didn't mind his money though. Still the point is as much as a nut as Phelps is, he isn't really a liberal and it is misleading to label him that. He is opposed to the homosexual agenda, is antiabortion, antievolution, and is religious. While he may share the anti-war sentiment of the left, his reasons for doing so are completely different. I think it is misleading to label him a leftist and we don't want to be guilty of bias like Wikipedia is --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 13:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Maybe I need to teach a class or something, helping liberals do parody of conservatives. :S --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

You think Phelps is actually a liberal pretending to hate homosexuals to make conservatives look bad? I don't think he's intelligent enough to think of such a scheme. Liberals are usually pretty stupid. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 16:25, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Phelps is a Demon, not a Human. Important difference. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:45, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
==Fred Phelps is NOT left-wing==
The "Fred Phelps a closet liberal" source is merely a discussion in relation to an article, it is not a valid source and should be removed. The left support gays and anti-homosexuality adovocates clearly belong on the right whether they are democrat or republican. --[[User:ChavezFan|ChavezFan]] 16:41, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:Do all left-wingers [[fascism|goosestep]] to the [[gay agenda]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::They Pretty much do, liberalism and homosexuality go hand in hand, stupid liberals. Talk about Groupthink hahahaha --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 19:45, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I thought liberalism was the [[big tent]]? You mean everyone has to tow the party line, and there is no tolerance for [[diversity]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:29, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::::Liberals are very intolerant of conservative viewpoints. While they are tolerant of nearly all religions (except Christianity) they are very intolerant of anyone who criticizes homosexuality or political correctness. Liberals are highly ideological. Trust me, I come from a country full of these pinkos --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 21:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Fred Phelps

2007-10-30T23:45:18Z

Konservativekanadian: /* Fred Phelps is NOT left-wing */

Christian Democracy

2007-10-30T22:50:49Z

Konservativekanadian: /* See Also */

'''Christian democracy''' is a religious and political ideology that believes [[democracy]], [[human rights]], and the [[Christian]] faith are mutually compatible. Christian democrats tend to be centre to centre-left on the political spectrum, they are related to Christian socialists but are more moderate. Christian democrats see [[Jesus]] as the liberator of the poor and the oppressed and their political beliefs reflect those of their religion.

==Prominent Christian Democrats==
*[[Tommy Douglas]] - Former leader of the NDP, minister, and father of Universal Healthcare in Canada
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - Ex-president and now human rights activist (although some of his policies during his presidency such as support for the Dictator Suharto were neither moral nor Christian).

==See Also==
*[[Christian Socialism]]
*[[Religious Left]]

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Religious Left

2007-10-30T22:20:08Z

Konservativekanadian:

The '''Religious Left''' or more specifically the [[Christian]] Left (aka [[Liberal]] Christians) are groups of religious people who combine the Christian faith with [[left-wing]] politics. They may agree with [[Conservatives]] about issues such as [[abortion]] and [[same sex marriage]] but they see issues such as [[global warming]], [[poverty]], and [[war]] as moral issues. While all Chrisitans see poverty and war as important moral issues, the Religious Left takes liberal positions on all of these issues. While conservative Christians believe that poverty can be solved by private charity and learning self-sufficieny, liberal Christians think that government handouts are the answer. They believe in [[public healthcare]], [[public education]] (minus the secular component), and social [[welfare]]. Liberal Christians also tend to be supportive of [[evolution]] and at least tolerant of deviant [[homosexual]] behaviour. They have been criticized by conservatives as straying away from original Christian teachings. Conservative Christians believe that [[Christ]] is a personal saviour not a social one. [[Liberation Theology]] was also espoused from Christian leftists.

==Christian Leftists==
*[[Tommy Douglas]] - Minister and former leader of the NDP. Founder of Canadian Public Healthcare.
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - Evangelical Leftist, Human Rights Activist, and Former President of the United States.
*[[Hugo Chavez]] - Venezuelan Leftist President who calls Jesus the world's first socialist.
*[[Jesse Jackson]] - Liberal civil rights activist.
*[[Daniel Ortega]] - Nicaraugan President and former revoltutionary. Tried to combine Marxism with Christianity despite the fact that Marxism is heretical due to its atheism.

==See Also==
*[[Religious right]]

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Religious Left

2007-10-30T22:09:45Z

Konservativekanadian: /* Christian Leftists */

The Religious Left or more specifically the Christian Left (aka Liberal Christians) are groups of religious people who combine the Christian faith with left-wing politics. They may agree with Conservatives about issues such as abortion and same sex marriage but they see issues such as global warming, poverty, and war as moral issues. While all Chrisitans see poverty and war as important moral issues, the Religious Left takes liberal positions on all of these issues. While conservative Christians believe that poverty can be solved by private charity and learning self-sufficieny, liberal Christians think that government handouts are the answer. They believe in public healthcare, public education (minus the secular component), and social welfare. Liberal Christians also tend to be supportive of evolution and at least tolerant of deviant homosexual behaviour. They have been criticized by conservatives as straying away from original Christian teachings. Conservative Christians believe that Christ is a personal saviour not a social one.
==Christian Leftists==
*[[Tommy Douglas]] - Minister and former leader of the NDP. Founder of Canadian Public Healthcare.
*[[Jimmy Carter]] - Evangelical Leftist, Human Rights Activist, and Former President of the United States.
*[[Hugo Chavez]] - Venezuelan Leftist President who calls Jesus the world's first socialist.
*[[Jesse Jackson]] - Liberal civil rights activist.
*[[Daniel Ortega]] - Nicaraugan President and former revoltutionary. Tried to combine Marxism with Christianity despite the fact that Marxism is heretical due to its atheism.

==See Also==
*[[Religious right]]

Religious Left

2007-10-30T22:06:05Z

Konservativekanadian: New page: The Religious Left or more specifically the Christian Left (aka Liberal Christians) are groups of religious people who combine the Christian faith with left-wing politics. They may agree w...

Talk:Pastafarian

2007-10-28T16:41:29Z

Konservativekanadian:

== Liberal Deceit ==

Could someone explain how this category demarcation is appropriate? I can grant you the "liberal" part (though I personally think that there's nothing actually liberal about it), but there just is no evidence of [[deceit]]. Using the word deceit implies that they are hiding their motives; they say they are a parody religion and they say precisely what their motives are. Maybe a link to the site would help, so you can see for yourself? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:53, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

I believe that they are deceitful because they are really atheists and rather than saying they want God out of the classroom, they make this ridiculous parody that mocks religion and God. That seems like deceit to me --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:41, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Westboro Baptist Church

2007-10-28T16:38:40Z

Konservativekanadian:

I don't think that the Westboro Baptist Church qualifies as a liberal activist group especially since they oppose evolution, abortion, and the homosexual agenda, three things that liberals push for heavily. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:37, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps wouldn't be that bad if he only protesting homosexuality, its his disrespect of American troops that makes me mad. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:38, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

2007-10-27T02:10:10Z

Konservativekanadian: New page: '''Harare''' formerly Salisbury is the capital of Zimbabwe. It is home to the repressive leftist dictator Robert Mugabe. Harare was once the richest city in Africa, today it is one of the ...

'''Harare''' formerly Salisbury is the capital of Zimbabwe. It is home to the repressive leftist dictator Robert Mugabe. Harare was once the richest city in Africa, today it is one of the poorest.
[[Category: Cities]]
[[Category: Africa]]

Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?

2007-10-26T23:20:59Z

Konservativekanadian: /* Yes */

{{debate}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

As Japan attacked the United States and Germany declared war on the United tates, the question is a non-question. Perhaps the question that should have been asked is: Should the United States have aided both China and Britain before war was declared on it. I suggest that in both instances the United States was looking after its long term interests.

The United States was attacked by Japanese forces and the Axis powers threatened to take over Europe. America would be greatly harmed if the axis had taken over Europe because the resources and allies that we had there would no longer exist. If the US didn't want to attack Japan they would look weak to the rest of the world and would risk being attacked again, by the Japanese or another hostile force. So, only looking at the good for America directly it is obvious that war was necessary. The crimes against humanity that the Nazis committed are atrocious but, as we can see from current examples, such as Darfur, it is not enough to get America into battle.
--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 20:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sure, It's a Question ==

While it's true that the U.S. couldn't directly do anything to undo Germany's DoW on it, that's not really the same thing as saying we had no choice about entering the war. It's one thing to exist in a nominal state of war, and another entirely to launch a total war effort beyond anything the world ever witnessed before. Germany had approximately zero capability to project power into North America, and, while it's U-boats were capable of interdicting American shipping, that didn't require a full scale response. We could have simply chosen not to participate in shipping offensive to the Nazi regime (which collapses back to Flax's point), or simply fought a naval battle to keep open the shipping lanes.

The situation with respect to Japan was a bit more difficult, since Japan had chosen to directly attack us. But, in point of fact, Japan was at the end of its logistical tether. It couldn't repeat the attack on Pearl Harbor, much less carry the war forward. We could have simply chosen to turn the other cheek. Of course, Japan would, in that event, likely have succeeded in expanding its influence to control the petroleum resources in the co-prosperity sphere, which, over the course of 20 years or so, given them the means to project power throughout the Pacific. But that get more to the question of whether it was advisable for us to stay out of WWII, than the question of whether it was possible to do so. [[User:QBeam]]

== no ==
The British and French were no better than the Nazis. Their imperialism was what drove Germany to such desperate measures. Also, if left alone, Germany would have destroyed the Soviet Union, which would have halted the spread of Communism and the polarization of the Third World during the Cold War. It was basically the other European powers that were adding fuel to Hitler's fire. If Germany defeated them, the German people would seek a more moderate leader. If FDR hadn't interfered with Japanese expansion in the Pacific, America could have avoided war completely. The Japanese never thought for a moment that they could defeat America. They hoped that after winning a few battles, America would be willing to compromise.
[[User:neocorporatist|neocorporatist]]

:Have you read anything about the history of the war in Europe? Or are you simply spouting what other people have said? For a start, the Nazi's were a terrible party who '''murdered''' many millions of Jews, homosexuals, political leaders (who opposed the Nazi's), disabled people and many more besides. How can you possibly say that Britain and France are even comparable to that? Then you go on to say that it would have been better if Germany had defeated Europe and had a one country continent ruled by an evil dictator; oh wait they wouldn't keep the evil dictator they'd get rid of him. Oh, wait a mo, he killed everyone who opposed him so perhaps getting rid of him might be a bit hard! You need to read up on your history if you think that that's an accurate representation of what happened in WW2. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

As a European I'm glad they did, otherwise I'd probably live under Nazi rule now, that is if none of my ancestors had been disposed of by the party.

So I'm glad the Americans joined in, even though I know their reasons for doing so weren't noble: the Holocaust didn't start until after the Americans got involved and the segregation of Jews in Germany was no different from the segregation of blacks in the US.
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::most europeans still hate jews.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:38, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh, do we? What a claim... [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 12:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes because without American intervention the Nazis would be ruling over large portions of the world now.--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 12:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Edited a bit as your answer was most likely for the original question, not to me [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 13:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I wasn't aware that I hate Jews.
That's like saying everyone in the southern US still hates blacks.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::the segragation of Jews in Germany was nothing like the segragation of blacks. I am not aware of any death camps in Alabama. The holocaust did start before Americas entry. if the americans reasons werent noble, what were they?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

And its true that many Europeans do still have negative opinions of Jews. According to Abe Foxman of the ADL 21% of europeans consider themselves anti-semitic! thats one-fifth of the population. 40% of Europeans believe Jews have "too much power in financial markets" everyone knows thats the most basic anti-semitic claim. If one-fifth of our beloved continent openly admits anti-semitism, we have a problem.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

I live in Europe, and yes, there is some anti-semitism (like there is everywhere on the planet), but not 20% of the population.

No, really, the "final solution" (including the death camps) was set in motion after the Swannsee conference in 1942, partly because the Nazis felt that they wouldn't have the time and resources to ship the Jews to Madagascar (the original plan) now that the US had entered the war.

There were earlier death camps for political opponents and there was a "euthanasia" policy against the handicapped, but those were not the reasons the US entered the war, the possibility of losing trade partners and allies Great Britain and Australia combined with the attack on Pearl Harbour and pressure from American Jews were.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Those sound like pretty good reasons for war to me. I too live in Europe and even I think that these statistics are high, but the ADL stands by them.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

They are reasons for war, but they do not show the allies were morally superior to the axis (before the Holocaust took place), especially if you count the Soviets with the allies.

Let's face it: there's never been a pure "Good vs Evil" war.

:::were the Soviets really with the Allies?[[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]] Before the holocaust took place(as you say) the Nazis did many very bad things(large scale anti-semitism among others). The allies were definately morally superior. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

That pact didn't last until 1941, the Nazis fought the Soviets along the eastern front (20 million Soviet and 3 million Germans died on that front), and the Soviets had entered an official alliance with the western allies.

I'm not saying the Nazis were good (their policies were cruel and racist), I'm just saying we don't like to remember the racism and segregation in the US and Australia (isn't racism towards blacks, hispanics, asians and aboriginals just as bad as anti-semitism?), the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, the Soviet reprisals against civilians, the Soviet deportations, etc...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::this brigs up interesting debate about USSR. nothing the US or austalia did compares to the actions of Nazis. obviously the Soviets were bad, I personally think they were worse than the nazis.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

In Australia aboriginal kids were put in "re-education camps" and beaten if they spoke their own language, same thing happened to Indians in Canada and hispanics in the US, the US also officially endorsed segregation (also the official policy of Nazi Germany before the Holocaust), natives in the British and French colonies did not have the same rights as Europeans, the allies knew about the atrocities Stalin was committing, but denied it in public, carpet bombing of cities, nuking of 2 cities, that kind of thing...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Remember the part where Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, then invaded Poland? Segregation in the US, the British and French Colonies, and Australia, as wrong as they were, were not the issues at hand in WWII.

Actually, it was completely Germany's fault that the United States entered World War II. Contrary to popular belief, Germany and Japan did not work together very much. Germany did not have to declare war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. If it wasn't for Germany declaring war, the United States would have been fighting WWII in the Pacific Ocean only. [[User:PSMax8956|PSMax8956]] 13:17, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:I think this hypothesis is shown to be false by the way in which the U.S. actually responded to Pearl Harbor. "That was a dirty rotten trick the Japanese pulled, and we're never going to forgive the Germans for it!" would be a reasonable tag line. Both Germany and Japan declared war on us, but it was Japan that killed 2,000 of us in what we at least said we regarded as a dispicable and underhanded sneak attack. So how did we respond? With a maximum war effort in Europe, and no serious committment to the Pacific. In fact, as I indicated above, Germany had essentially zero ability to threaten us, and so their declaration of war was immenently ignorable, if we'd been inclined to ignore it. We weren't, and we didn't. [[User:QBeam]]

We Absolutely should have been there helping our friends the Brits, they have always been there for us. It's because of American and Britian (as well as Canada and Australia) that we are free from being a leftist totalitarian state like Germany was in the 30s and early 40s. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 19:20, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?

2007-10-26T23:20:41Z

Konservativekanadian: /* Yes */

User talk:Tree111

2007-10-26T23:15:42Z

Konservativekanadian: New page: Go back to Wikipedia

Go back to Wikipedia

Environmental alarmism

2007-10-26T22:51:31Z

Konservativekanadian: /* External links */

Marc Morano of CNSNews.com wrote:
*According to [[Richard Lindzen|Lindzen]], climate "alarmists" have been trying to push the idea that there is [[scientific consensus]] on dire [[climate change]]. [http://www.cdfe.org/global_warming_religion.htm]

The ''London Telegraph'' wrote:
*In the late 1960s, eco-evangelists such as the best selling author [[Paul Erlich]] stated: "In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of millions of people will [[starve to death]] in spite any crash programs embarked on now ... Before 1985, mankind will enter a stage of scarcity in which accessible supplies of many kinds of minerals will be nearing depletion." [http://www.cdfe.org/London_telegraph.htm]

[[Amy Ridenour]] wrote:
*Environmental alarmists, as an article of faith, peddle the notion that [[climate change]] is, as Greenpeace put it, "the biggest environmental threat facing...developing countries." For one, such thinking runs contrary to the public declaration of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development-a program sponsored by the United Nations-which found that [[poverty]] is the number one threat facing developing countries. [http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR72903.html]

==External links==
*[http://www.cdfe.org/global_warming_religion.htm Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief']

[[category:political terms]]
[[Category:Liberal Deceit]]

2007-10-26T22:31:14Z

Konservativekanadian: /* References */