Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Virginity pledge

2009-01-10T01:00:39Z

Learn together:

A virginity pledge is a commitment, usually made in a group, to practice [[abstinence]] until [[marriage]]. These pledges are usually symbolized by purity rings, or covenant cards.<ref>http://www.waitt.org/</ref>

According to the Heritage Foundation, teens who make virginity pledges enjoy the following life outcomes <ref>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/cda04-07.cfm</ref>:

*Are less likely to experience teen pregnancy;
*Are less likely to be sexually active while in high school and as young adults;
*Are less likely to give birth as teens or young adults;
*Are less likely to give birth out of wedlock;
*Are less likely to engage in risky unprotected sex; and
*Will have fewer sexual partners.

In contrast, a study by Janet Elise Rosenbaum PhD, published in the January 2009 edition of the journal ''Pediatrics''<ref>Rosenbaum, Janet '''Patient Teenagers? A Comparison of the Sexual Behavior of Virginity Pledgers and Matched Nonpledgers''', ''Pediatrics'' 2009, vol 123, issue 1, e110-e120</ref>,addressed the sexual behavior of socially/religiously conservative students who signed a virginity pledge compared to the sexual behavior of socially/religiously conservative students who did not sign a pledge. This study found that pledgers and nonpledgers were not different in likelihood of premarital sex (53% vs 57%), age at first sex (21.2 vs 20.7), number of lifetime sexual partners (3.2 vs 3.5), and number of sexual encounters in the previous year (22.8 vs. 23.6). Overall there were no differences between the two groups in 12 of 14 measured sexual behaviors, 3 of 3 STD rates, and 4 of 4 marriage outcomes. The study did not address overall pregnancy rates, teen pregnancy rates, or birth rates. Rosenbaum found that pledgers did differ from socially similar nonpledgers in the following ways:

*Unmarried pledgers were less likely to report using birth control and condoms over the last year;
*Unmarried pledgers were less likely to report using birth control at last intercourse;
*Pledgers reported 1.09 last-year sexual partners, compared to 1.2 last-year partners for nonpledgers; and
*1.04% of pledgers reported having been paid for sex, compared to 3.34% of non-pledgers.

What is difficult to ascertain is the reliability of the starting assumptions. One-tenth of those who took the virginity pledge admit they had lied about being virgins.<ref>http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/virginitypledge.html</ref> It is also difficult to know how many of those who took the pledge were conservatives versus those who may have just been temporarily talked into it during the seminar, but did not actually uphold conservative ideals in their own lives.

==references==
<references/>

[[Category:Abstinence Campaigns]]

Virginity pledge

2009-01-10T00:59:58Z

Learn together: Additional information

A virginity pledge is a commitment, usually made in a group, to practice [[abstinence]] until [[marriage]]. These pledges are usually symbolized by purity rings, or covenant cards.<ref>http://www.waitt.org/</ref>

According to the Heritage Foundation, teens who make virginity pledges enjoy the following life outcomes <ref>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/cda04-07.cfm</ref>:

*Are less likely to experience teen pregnancy;
*Are less likely to be sexually active while in high school and as young adults;
*Are less likely to give birth as teens or young adults;
*Are less likely to give birth out of wedlock;
*Are less likely to engage in risky unprotected sex; and
*Will have fewer sexual partners.

In contrast, a study by Janet Elise Rosenbaum PhD, published in the January 2009 edition of the journal ''Pediatrics''<ref>Rosenbaum, Janet '''Patient Teenagers? A Comparison of the Sexual Behavior of Virginity Pledgers and Matched Nonpledgers''', ''Pediatrics'' 2009, vol 123, issue 1, e110-e120</ref>,addressed the sexual behavior of socially/religiously conservative students who signed a virginity pledge compared to the sexual behavior of socially/religiously conservative students who did not sign a pledge. This study found that pledgers and nonpledgers were not different in likelihood of premarital sex (53% vs 57%), age at first sex (21.2 vs 20.7), number of lifetime sexual partners (3.2 vs 3.5), and number of sexual encounters in the previous year (22.8 vs. 23.6). Overall there were no differences between the two groups in 12 of 14 measured sexual behaviors, 3 of 3 STD rates, and 4 of 4 marriage outcomes. The study did not address overall pregnancy rates, teen pregnancy rates, or birth rates. Rosenbaum found that pledgers did differ from socially similar nonpledgers in the following ways:

*Unmarried pledgers were less likely to report using birth control and condoms over the last year;
*Unmarried pledgers were less likely to report using birth control at last intercourse;
*Pledgers reported 1.09 last-year sexual partners, compared to 1.2 last-year partners for nonpledgers; and
*1.04% of pledgers reported having been paid for sex, compared to 3.34% of non-pledgers.

What is difficult to ascertain is the reliability of the starting assumptions. One-tenth of those who took the virginity pledge admit they had lied about being virgins.<ref>http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/virginitypledge.html</ref> It is also difficult to know how many of those who took the pledge were conservatives versus those who may have just been temporarily talked into it during the seminar, but did not actually uphold conservative ideals in their own life.

==references==
<references/>

[[Category:Abstinence Campaigns]]

Category:Dictators

2009-01-10T00:53:42Z

Learn together: Subcategory exists

[[Category:Totalitarianism]]
[[Category:Heads of State]]

Black hole

2009-01-08T08:46:10Z

Learn together: Reference section

[[Image:Iu8969hu.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Artist's conception of a binary system consisting of a black hole and a main sequence star. The black hole is drawing matter from the main sequence star via an [[accretion disk]] around it, and some of this matter forms a gas jet.]]
A '''black hole''' is a theoretical mass with an [[escape velocity]] greater than the speed of light. They cannot be observed directly, but several have been identified via indirect observation<ref>http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/971124b.html</ref> <ref>http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/04/01/smallest-black-hole.html</ref>. While matter and energy, even light, may not escape a black hole, [[Stephen Hawking]] has shown that they should emit [[Hawking radiation]], which absent of an influx of mass-energy would lead to the evaporation of the black hole. This theory however is unable to be tested.
The outer surface of a black hole is an [[event horizon]], a non-material dimensional boundary, beyond which nothing can escape.

Black holes are thought to form when supermassive stars more than ten times the mass of the Sun run out of hydrogen fuel and die. When this happens, the iron core at the center of the star implodes under its own gravity in a supernova. The outer layers of the star are blasted into space in one of the most energetic events in the universe. Not all supernovae result in black holes though. If the mass of the core is large enough, [[Chandrasekhar limit|about 1.2 times the mass of the Sun]], the leftover gravity of the shrinking core stalls the outward rush of the initial blast, and crushes the core into a point of infinite gravity: a black hole. This rare event is known as a hypernova and is even more energetic than a supernova.

Schwarzchild discovered that black holes were possible in the [[theory of relativity]]. [[Albert Einstein]] tried to re-work the whole theory to eliminate the need for these [[Singularity|singularities]]. However, [[Roger Penrose]] and Stephen Hawking proved the first of many [[Singularity Theorems]], which states that singularities must form under certain conditions. This demonstrated that, rather than mathematical oddities, singularities are a fairly generic feature of realistic solutions to [[relativity]]. According to relativity, any mass with radius less than its [[Schwarzchild Radius]] is a black hole.

But contrary to popular myth, a black hole is not a cosmic vacuum cleaner. In other words, a one-solar-mass black hole is no better than any other one-solar-mass object (such as, for example, the Sun) at "sucking in" distant objects. However, a one-solar-mass black hole has the same amount of matter as any other one-solar-mass object but compressed into a much smaller space.

== External links ==

*[http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/black_holes.html Black Holes]
*[http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html Black Holes (Frequently Asked Questions)]

== References ==
<References/>

[[category: physics]]

Alexander Hamilton

2009-01-07T18:05:34Z

Learn together: Subcategory exists

[[image:alexhamilton.jpg|300px|thumb|Alexander Hamilton by John Trumbull 1792.]]
'''Alexander Hamilton''' (January 11, 1757 - July 12, 1804) was one of the most important, and most conservative and nationalistic, of the [[Founding Fathers]] of the [[United States]]. After wartime service as chief of staff to General [[George Washington]], he became a leading lawyer in New York. He called for a strong new constitution to replace the weak national government, and in 1788 he wrote half the ''Federalist Papers'', which mobilized supporters of the Constitution and continues to be the single most influential interpretation of what the Constitution means. He was a leading intellectual of his time, and the driving force of the Washington Administration that shaped the young nation. Hamilton played a key role in:

* the continued success of George Washington as his top aide
* the ratification of the Constitution
* the policies that made the United States an economic power
* writing George Washington's [[Farewell Address]], which remains one of the finest statements of conservative principles in political history
* the compromise that placed the nation's capital at Washington, D.C.
* the election of [[Thomas Jefferson]] as president rather than Aaron Burr
* saving the young Union by blocking Aaron Burr from becoming governor of New York

As the nation's first [[United States Secretary of the Treasury|Secretary of the Treasury]], Hamilton's far reaching vision put the United States on an stable financial basis and promoted national unity. His Treasury took over state debts as well as debts owed by the national government, and funded them with long-term national debt, which in turn was paid by a new tariff on imports and a tax on whiskey. He set up the Bank of the United States, a central bank to make liquidity in financial markets possible. The nation's business and financial communities for the first time became united in a single economy, and provided critical support for Hamilton. To mobilize that grass-roots support he founded the [[Federalist Party]], which operated in every state. It was the first popular political party in the world, but soon had competition from the [[Democratic-Republican Party]] founded by his great adversary [[Thomas Jefferson]]. In foreign affairs he was a strong supporter of Britain, and the well-balanced British political system. Working closely with Washington, Hamilton in 1795 secured the critical [[Jay Treaty]] over the intense opposition of Jeffersonians who favored France in its war with Britain. Despite an embarrassing sex scandal, Hamilton tried to keep control of the Federalist Party while [[John Adams]] was president, and orchestrated the creation of a powerful national army in 1798, which he and Washington were to head. Adams' achievement of peace with France frustrated Hamilton's plans, so he sabotaged Adams' reelection in 1800. Nevertheless he helped Jefferson become president when it appeared the scoundrel [[Aaron Burr]] might take the office. He was killed by Burr in a duel, and for most of the 19th century was a target of attacks by Democrats as undemocratic and even pro-monarchy. By the [[Progressive Era]] after 1900, however, Hamilton's nationalism, financial wizardry, and promotion of business and banking increasingly appealed to conservatives, who made Hamilton into a hero of their own. Hamilton was one of the great expositors of the American political creed of [[Republicanism]], and set up programs that proved a strong, effective government of the people could be made operational without an aristocracy or monarch.
==Early life==
Hamilton was born out of wedlock in the [[British West Indies]]. A prodigy, he was handling merchant accounts as a teenager, and his essay on a hurricane attracted patrons who paid his way to the American colonies. Some scholars have argued that Hamilton’s origins can be reflected in his later life, where, unlike much of the Revolutionary generation, his views were more nationalistic, rather than tied to the interests of a particular region or state.
==Revolution==
As a student at King's College (now Columbia University), Hamilton took a major role in the political debates over independence. Hamilton raised a company of artillery and was selected captain. Fighting the British invasion of new York City in late 1776, he came to the attention of [[George Washington]], commander in chief of the Continental Army. Washington promoted Hamilton to colonel and made him his senior aide--in effect the chief of staff (although that title was not in use. Hamilton had a combat command at the battle of Yorktown that ended the war in 1781. Hamilton may have alerted General Washington to the existence of the Newburgh Conspiracy, in which disgruntled officers might have become a threat to civilian government. Washington prevented that.
==New York==
Hamilton became a leading lawyer in New York City, and married into the rich and powerful Schulyler family. Along with his close friend [[John Jay]], he was active in anti-slavery movements. Hamilton was elected to the Continental Congress, the [[New York]] State assembly, and was chosen by the legislature as a delegate to the [[Philadelphia]] Constitutional in 1787/ he played a minor role in the convention.

Hamilton authored 51 of the 85 ''[[Federalist Papers]],'' while [[James Madison]] and [[John Jay]] composed the others. These essays, published anonymously in newspapers in New York and throughout the United States, helped turn popular opinion in favor of ratifying the Constitution, particularly in the decisive states of [[New York]] and [[Virginia]].
==Secretary of the Treasury==
Perhaps Hamilton's greatest contribution to the success of the United States occurred during his tenure as Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury from 1789 to 1795. Through a system of tariffs and excise taxes (some of which, as demonstrated by the [[Whiskey Rebellion]], caused a great deal of resentment), Hamilton placed the United States on sound financial footing. While Hamilton disliked taxes, he also realized that they were necessary. Hamilton not only favored close trade ties with [[Great Britain]], the world’s leading commercial power, but he believed that the United States should emulate their economic system. In his Report on Manufactures, Hamilton envisioned the United States as a nation that would rely on manufacturing and commerce in order to become a great power. This (among other things) put him at odds with [[Thomas Jefferson]], who envisioned the United States as an agrarian republic.
==Federalist Party==
Hamilton saw the need for political newspapers and subsidized numerous editors, most famously [[Noah Webster]]. In 1801, with $10,000 from investors, Hamilton started the ''New-York Evening Post''.<ref> It is currently published by Rupert Murdoch under the name [[New York Post]].</ref>

==Adams and Jefferson administrations==
==Republicanism==
Jefferson repeated attacked Hamilton as an enemy of American values--and Jeffersonians have echoed the criticism over the centuries. Jefferson said he was an enemy of popular government, did not believe in republicanism, admired the British system too much, and even wanted to set up a monarchy. Since the 1980s scholars have rescued rescue Hamilton from these interpretations and stressed his republicanism, arguing that Jefferson went too far in his attacks. Historians now portray Hamilton as a moderate, mainstream republican. They point to the ''Federalist Papers'' as a core statement of American values, and also Washington's "Farewell Address." One debate in the 1790s was whether true republican citizens should have "confidence" in their elected leaders, which was Hamilton's position, or maintain a "vigilant" scrutiny of them, which was Jefferson's. Hamilton stressed confidence in his vision of republican citizenship and freedom of the press. Hamilton's philosophy, argues martin (2005), is best understood as an energetic, elitist reformulation of republicanism

==Death==
Hamilton's long standing rivalry with [[Aaron Burr]] eventually lead to Burr accusing Hamilton of [[slander]]. Hamilton replied that the anti-Burr statements he had made were not slander, but were instead the truth. The resulting argument brought a lifetime of feuding to a head in the form of a duel. The duel took place on the 11th of July 1804 at Weehawken, New Jersey. Hamilton believed that a gentleman shoots over his target, and that honor is served.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/hamilton/filmmore/pt_2.html</ref> Burr had no such belief. Hamilton shot over Burr's head, but Burr's shot struck its target into Hamilton's body. Hamilton was taken away and after suffering horribly from the wound throughout the night, died the next day. <ref>[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000101 Biography]</ref> Hamilton's son, who was given the same advice by his father that a gentleman shoots over his target, had earlier died in a duel the same way.

==Reputation==
No figure in American history has had so many ups and down, so many champions and detractors as Hamilton over the last two centuries. Historians continue to ask, "Was he a closet monarchist or a sincere republican? A victim of partisan politics or one of its most active promoters? A lackey for British interests or a foreign policy mastermind? An economic genius or a shill for special interests? The father of a vigorous national government or the destroyer of genuine federalism? A defender of governmental authority or a dangerous militarist?"<ref>Ambrose and Martin, ed. ''The Many Faces of Alexander Hamilton'' (2006) p. 11 </ref>
==Trivia==

Hamilton, along with [[Benjamin Franklin]], is one of the very few non-presidents to be portrayed on American money. Hamilton's portrait is on the $10 bill, while Franklin is on the $100 bill.

==Notes==
<references/>

==Further reading ==
* Ellis, Joseph J. ''Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation'' (2002), won Pulitzer Prize. [http://www.amazon.com/Founding-Brothers-Revolutionary-Joseph-Ellis/dp/0375405445/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196083971&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ferling, John. ''A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic'' (Oxford University Press, 2003), good overview of the era
* Brookhiser, Richard. "Alexander Hamilton, American". (1999) biography [http://www.amazon.com/ALEXANDER-HAMILTON-American-Richard-Brookhiser/dp/0684863316/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196083822&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Chernow, Ron. "Alexander Hamilton". (2004) full length detailed biography [http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Ron-Chernow/dp/B000UENRQU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196084039&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* McDonald, Forrest. ''Alexander Hamilton: A Biography'' (1979), biography by leading conservative historian; focused on intellectual history esp on AH's republicanism. [http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Biography-Forrest-McDonald/dp/039330048X/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220839663&sr=8-5 excerpt and text search]; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101665868 complete edition online from Questia]
* McDonald, Forrest. "Hamilton, Alexander"; [http://www.anb.org/articles/02/02-00154.html; American National Biography Online 2000], 5000 words
* Miller, John C. ''Alexander Hamilton: Portrait in Paradox'' (1959), full-length scholarly biography; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/alexander-hamilton-portrait-in-paradox-by-john-c-miller.jsp online edition]

===Biographies===
* Ambrose, Douglas, and Robert W. T. Martin, eds. ''The Many Faces of Alexander Hamilton: The Life and Legacy of America's Most Elusive Founding Father.'' (2006) 310pp, essays by scholars; [http://www.amazon.com/Many-Faces-Alexander-Hamilton-Americas/dp/0814707149/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196083971&sr=8-7 excerpt and text search]
* Cooke, Jacob E. ''Alexander Hamilton: A Biography.'' (1982) by leading scholar
* Flexner, James Thomas. "The Young Hamilton: A Biography". (1997)
* Hacker, Louis M. ''Alexander Hamilton in the American Tradition.'' (1957) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=95039628 online edition]
* McDonald, Forrest. ''Alexander Hamilton: A Biography'' (1979) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101665868 online edition] biography focused on intellectual history esp on AH's republicanism.
* McDonald, Forrest. "Hamilton, Alexander"; [http://www.anb.org/articles/02/02-00154.html; American National Biography Online 2000], 5000 words
* Miller, John C. ''Alexander Hamilton: Portrait in Paradox'' (1959), full-length scholarly biography; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/alexander-hamilton-portrait-in-paradox-by-john-c-miller.jsp online edition]
* Mitchell, Broadus. ''Alexander Hamilton'' (2 vols, 1957–62), the most detailed scholarly biography; [https://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=33716230 online edition of vol 1]
** Mitchell, Broadus. ''Alexander Hamilton: A Concise Biography'' (1976), 395pp
* Nevins, Allan. "Alexander Hamilton" in ''Dictionary of American Biography'' (1934)
* Randall, Willard Sterne. "Alexander Hamilton: A Life". (2003) Popular. [http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Willard-Sterne-Randall/dp/0060954663/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196083900&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]

===Political philosophy===
* Chan, Michael D. "Alexander Hamilton on Slavery." ''Review of Politics'' 66 (Spring 2004): 207-31.
* Fatovic, Clement. "Constitutionalism and Presidential Prerogative: Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian Perspectives." ''American Journal of Political Science'' 2004 48(3): 429-444. Issn: 0092-5853 Fulltext in Swetswise, Ingenta, Jstor, Ebsco
* Horton, James Oliver. "Alexander Hamilton: Slavery and Race in a Revolutionary Generation" ''New-York Journal of American History'' 2004 65(3): 16–24. ISSN 1551-5486 [http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:88cftz6zXJYJ:www.alexanderhamiltonexhibition.org/about/Horton%2520-%2520Hamiltsvery_Race.pdf+james+horton+%22alexander+hamilton%22+slavery&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 online version]
* Mason, Alpheus Thomas. "The Federalist--A Split Personality," ''American Historical Review'' 57 (1952): 625-43 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(195204)57%3A3%3C625%3ATFSP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z online at JSTOR]
* Martin, Robert W. T. "Reforming Republicanism: Alexander Hamilton's Theory of Republican Citizenship and Press Liberty." ''Journal of the Early Republic'' 2005 25(1): 21-46. Issn: 0275-1275 [http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_the_early_republic/v025/25.1martin.html in Project Muse]
* Rossiter, Clinton. ''Alexander Hamilton and the Constitution'' (1964)
* Sheehan, Colleen. "Madison V. Hamilton: The Battle Over Republicanism And The Role Of Public Opinion" ''American Political Science Review'' 2004 98(3): 405–424. [http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=245205 online abstract]
* Stourzh, Gerald. ''Alexander Hamilton and the Idea of Republican Government'' (1970),
* Staloff, Darren. "Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson: The Politics of Enlightenment and the American Founding." (2005)

===Politics===
* Bassett, John Spencer. ''The Federalist System, 1789-1801'' (1906) old scholarly survey; [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0qz0JCJMPjp9xrk7lF2zF07&id=LAoOAAAAIAAJ&printsec=toc&dq=bassett+%22federalist+system%22&sig=CPcsG1aOwgXiDZ7TIRpl1bKO4P0 online edition]
* Bowers, Claude G. ''Jefferson and Hamilton'' (1925), a slashing attack on Hamilton as unamerican aristocrat
* Charles, Joseph. "The Jay Treaty: The Origins of the American Party System," in ''William and Mary Quarterly'', 3rd Ser., Vol. 12, No. 4. (Oct., 1955), pp. 581-630. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-5597%28195510%293%3A12%3A4%3C581%3ATJTTOO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C online at JSTOR]
*Elkins, Stanley M. and Eric McKitrick, ''The Age of Federalism.'' (1993), the most advanced history of politics in 1790s [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-age-of-federalism-by-stanley-elkins-eric-mckitrick.jsp online edition]
* Kurtz; Stephen G. ''The Presidency of John Adams: The Collapse of Federalism, 1795-1800'' 1957 [https://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14355519 online edition]
* Miller, John C. ''The Federalist Era: 1789-1801'' (1960), scholarly survey
* Nevins, Allan. ''The Evening Post: A Century of Journalism'' (1922) [http://books.google.com/books?id=q-F2daxBy1AC&pg=PA7&dq=inauthor:allan+inauthor:nevins&num=30&as_brr=1#PPA5,M1 online edition] ch 1 on Hamilton's ownership
* Sharp, James. ''American Politics in the Early Republic: The New Nation in Crisis.'' (1995), survey of politics in 1790s

===Finance===
* Edling, Max M. "'So Immense a Power in the Affairs of War': Alexander Hamilton and the Restoration of Public Credit." ''William and Mary Quarterly'' 2007 64(2): 287-326. in [[History Cooperative]]
* Flaumenhaft, Harvey. ''The Effective Republic: Administration and Constitution in the Thought of Alexander Hamilton'' Duke University Press, 1992 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=37077611 online edition]
* McDonald, Forrest. ''The Presidency of George Washington'' (1974).
* McNamara, Peter. ''Political Economy and Statesmanship: Smith, Hamilton, and the Foundation of the Commercial Republic.'' (Northern Illinois University Press, 1997). 256 pp.
* Nettels, Curtis P. ''The Emergence of a National Economy, 1775–1815'' (1962). general survey of economic history and policy
* White, Leonard D. ''The Federalists'' (1949), detailed coverage of how the Treasury and other departments were created and operated.
* Wright; Robert E. ''Hamilton Unbound: Finance and the Creation of the American Republic'' Praeger (2002) [https://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=102032054 online edition]

===Foreign Policy===
* Bemis, Samuel Flagg. ''Jay's Treaty: A Study in Commerce and Diplomacy'' (1923) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/jays-treaty-a-study-in-commerce-and-diplomacy-by-samuel-flagg-bemis.jsp online edition]
* Coleman, Aaron N. "'A Second Bounaparty?': A Reexamination of Alexander Hamilton during the Franco–American Crisis, 1796–1801," ''Journal of the Early Republic,'' Volume 28, Number 2, Summer 2008, pp. 183-214 [http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_the_early_republic/v028/28.2.coleman.html in Project Muse]
* Combs, Jerald. A. ''The Jay Treaty: Political Background of Founding Fathers'' (1970) Combs dislikes Hamilton's quest for national power and a "heroic state" dominating the Western Hemisphere, but concludes the Federalists "followed the proper policy" because the treaty preserved peace with Britain
* Harper, John Lamberton. ''American Machiavelli: Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of U.S. Foreign Policy.'' (2004) [http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=220511093955403 online review]
* Lycan, Gilbert L. ''Alexander Hamilton and American Foreign Policy: A Design for Greatness'' (1970),
* Smith, Robert W. ''Keeping the Republic: Ideology and Early American Diplomacy.'' (2004)
* Walling, Karl-Friedrich. ''Republican Empire: Alexander Hamilton on War and Free Government'' (1999),

===Personality===
* Ambrose, Douglas and Robert W. T. Martin, eds. ''The Many Faces of Alexander Hamilton: The Life & Legacy of America's Most Elusive Founding Father '' (2006)
* Freeman, Joanne B. ''Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic'' (2001). essential on the meaning of duels; [http://www.common-place.org/vol-02/no-02/author/ online interview]
* Kennedy, Roger G. ''Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson: A Study in Character'' Oxford UP, 2000 [https://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59887100 online edition]
* Knott, Stephen F. ''Alexander Hamilton and the Persistence of Myth'' University Press of Kansas, (2002) (ISBN 0-7006-1157-6).
* Trees, Andrew S. "The Importance of Being Alexander Hamilton." ''Reviews in American History'' 2005 33(1): 8-14. Issn: 0048-7511 Fulltext: in Project Muse
* Trees, Andrew S. ''The Founding Fathers and the Politics of Character.'' (2004)

===Primary sources===
* Freeman, Joanne B., ed. ''Alexander Hamilton: Writings'' (2001), [http://www.loa.org The Library of America] edition, 1108 pages. Most of Hamilton's major writings and many of his letters [http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Writings-Library-America/dp/1931082049/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220839663&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
* Syrett, Harold C. ed. ''The Papers of Alexander Hamilton'' (27 vol, Columbia University Press, 1961–87); includes all letters and writing by Hamilton, and all important letters written to him; this is the definitive letterpress edition, heavily annotated by scholars; it is available in larger academic libraries; there is also a separate Law series.
* Morris, Richard. ed. ''Alexander Hamilton and the Founding of the Nation'' (1957), excerpts from AH's writings, by topic, 617pp
* Morton J. Frisch ed. ''Selected Writings and Speeches of Alexander Hamilton.'' (1985), 528pp. [https://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=58312678 online edition]
* ''The Works of Alexander Hamilton'' edited by Henry Cabot Lodge (1904) [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC01013&id=R7TukmWbcrcC&printsec=toc full text online at Google Books] [http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/Author.php?recordID=0135 online in HTML edition]. This is the only online collection of Hamilton's writings and letters. Published in 10 volumes, containing about 1.3 million words. [http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=Hamilton%2C%20alexander%20works full text online at archive.org]
* ''Federalist Papers''] under the shared pseudonym "Publius" by Alexander Hamilton (c. 52 articles), [[James Madison]] (28 articles) and [[John Jay]] (five articles)
* Cooke, Jacob E. ed., ''Alexander Hamilton: A Profile'' (1967), short excerpts from AH and his critics.
* Cunningham, Noble E. ''Jefferson vs. Hamilton: Confrontations that Shaped a Nation'' (2000), short collection of primary sources with commentary.
* Taylor, George Rogers. ed, ''Hamilton and the National Debt'' 1950, excerpts from all sides in 1790s [http://www.questia.com/library/book/hamilton-and-the-national-debt-by-george-rogers-taylor.jsp online edition]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hamilton, Alexander}}

[[Category: Founding Fathers]]
[[Category: United States Appointed Officials]]
[[Category: United States History]]

Nation of Islam

2009-01-07T18:01:15Z

Learn together: Fix link

The '''Nation of Islam''' (or '''Farrakhanism''') is a political and religious group with a [[race]]-based, pro-black philosophy.
It is active primarily in America.

They believe that [[African Americans|black people]] are [[racial superiority|racially superior]] to other races, and that the "blue-eyed devils" (whites) were selectively bred from blacks by an evil black scientist named Yakub, whose work supposedly took hundreds of years for him and his disciples to fully whiten his creations, with the intent to enslave the black race.
According to [[Malcolm X]], on his pilgrimage to [[Mecca]], the [[Muslim]]s there were shocked to learn of the Yakub doctrine.

Unlike mainstream Islam, which traces its roots to [[Abraham]] like [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]], NOI:
*is a [[racist]] [[African-American|black]] hate group
*its positions are based on radical [[Islam]]ic philosophies. Its current leader is [[Louis Farrakhan]].
*is [[anti-Semitic|antisemitic]], criticizing Jews for allegedly controlling the U.S. government and the economy.
*is classified as a [[hate group]] by [[SPLC]].

Many mainstream Muslims regard NOI as a [[cult]] and not a true Islamic denomination.

==Notable members==
*[[Elijah Muhammad]]
*[[Louis Farrakhan]]
*[[Malcolm X]] (Later broke away from NOI and became a mainstream [[Muslim]], changing his name to ''Malcolm Shabazz''.)

[[Category:Nation of Islam]]
[[Category:Black Nationalists]]
[[Category:Islam]]

User talk:AddisonDM

2009-01-07T17:55:42Z

Learn together: /* Hans Christian Andersen */

{{Welcome}}
Hey!! Welcome to Conservapedia. [[User:BethanyS|~Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 13:40, 15 October 2008 (EDT)

== Edits to [[1984]] ==

Thanks for your superb edits to 1984. You might be interested in this discussion we've had about Orwell:[[Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:45, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

Hey, thanks! I added a new section also, called Governmental Structure. I also revamped the plot a bit.

== The Message ==

I really enjoyed your new entry [[The Message]] and your quote from Psalm 23!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:40, 20 December 2008 (EST)

Hey thanks! You gave me the idea to create articles about Bibles. I'd even like to make a table of all the translations and put it at the bottom of the pages, you know.

: I bet there's more good stuff to find in Bible translations, and it's extremely educational to study these issues. I find it fascinating.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:19, 20 December 2008 (EST)

== Second model answer ==

I just added a second model answer from your homework. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 11:16, 21 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks so much! Hey, I did a real good job! :)

== Block reversed ==

I'm surprised that you were able even to edit my talk page. In any event, the block has been removed.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:04, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks. Interestingly, it disappeared a few minutes later so that in fact I have been editing all day. Who knows. But thanks. [[User:AddisonDM]] 29 December 2008

== Please feel free to create a [[Creation]] article and then put the pics you wanted in the article. ==

Please feel free to create a [[Creation]] article and then put the pics you wanted in the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:06, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Congratulations! ==

Congratulations on your promotion to Sysop (Admin) status! This gives you many new privileges. Well deserved!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 23:45, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Wow! That is honoring. Haha now I can edit at night! Thanks so much. Happy New Year all! [[User:AddisonDM]] 1 January 2009

: Very well deserved indeed!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 00:54, 1 January 2009 (EST)
Congrats Addison. I hope we can work together on the news project, etc. this year. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 01:21, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::and many congratulations (and happy new year!) from me too. I look forward to working even closer with you this year.--[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 06:27, 1 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Congratulations! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:08, 1 January 2009 (EST)

::::: You did good kid, go team and Happy New Year. --Jpatt 23:02, 1 January 2009 (EST)

Thank you all so much. Happy and BLESSED New Year. [[User:AddisonDM]] 1 January 2009

Congratulations on your promotion! --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:16, 4 January 2009 (EST)

==Move requests==

Thank you for taking care of all these move requests. Some of them had been bugging me for quite some time, but unfortunately there was nothing I could do about them. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 12:06, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks! [[User:AddisonDM]] 3 January 2009

== Some help? ==

Would you like some help with all those moves? Problem is I can not remember where to find the list of pages! --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 13:13, 3 January 2009 (EST)

You made a good decision on using "Debate" for debates, Addison, rather than putting them in the "Conservapedia" namespace.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:19, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Thanks.

Terrific cleaning up with your deletions!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:11, 3 January 2009 (EST)

Thank you!

:Thanks for the [[Edmund Ironside]] fix. I had asked for that to be done months ago but was ignored. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:56, 3 January 2009 (EST)
::I think I have finished the debates clean up. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 04:29, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== Please block ==

I see that you are an administrator. Could you please block [[User:NumaL]], he is making a mess. [[User:Kuyper|Daniel_Kuyper]] 11:46, 4 January 2009 (EST)

==Oklahoma City Thunder==
Thanks for moving that page! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 12:19, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant" ==

Addison, I'm sorry, but I had to delete your essay for inappropriate content. Even though you substituted symbols for the vowels, it was still inappropriate. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:48, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Alright. That will stand unless and until Andy himself agrees. In fact, he likes it. I am going to ask him what he thinks. As he says, he has the last word.

== Could you re-name an article??? ==

Hello AddisonDM!!! I was wondering if you could change the title of the [[Why do people choose homosexuality?]] article to "Mystery:Why do people choose homosexuality?". It is in the category mystery but is not titled like the others (i.e. does not have "Mystery" on the beginning of the title). If you could fix that I would appreciate that very much. Hope you had a merry Christmas and a happy new year!!! --[[User:AmeliaJ|AmeliaJ]] 17:56, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Your welcome!!! --[[User:AmeliaJ|AmeliaJ]] 18:05, 5 January 2009 (EST)
#
==Urgent==
Please see Michaelds' edits and do whatever necessary [[User:Bradlaugh|Bradlaugh]] 18:07, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I believe he is already gone.

== Templates ==

Addison, all templates are to be locked, sysop only, all the time. No exceptions. Per Andy. Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:07, 6 January 2009 (EST)

:This wasn't acknowledged....did you see it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:18, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Hans Christian Andersen ==

Hi, I noticed you added an edit to the page [[Hans Christian Anderson]]. I added a merge template to this page back in September 2008, noting that the name of the article is '''mis-spelled''' and should be [[Hans Christian Andersen]] for which we also have a page. Somehow the suggestion to merge must have been overlooked, and edits continued to be made to the page with the incorrect name. Now that you are a Sysop, I think you should be able to correct the name of the page, otherwise I would urge you to merge the two pages, and not to keep the page that is mis-spelled. Thanks! [[User:Taj|Taj]] 19:27, 6 January 2009 (EST)
:That was fast - you must have fixed this 30 seconds before I hit save on this edit, lol. Thanks! [[User:Taj|Taj]] 19:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)

:Hi AddmisonDM,

:It's best to just redirect the pages instead of deleting them first. That way it saves a step and also saves the history.

:Thanks

:[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:55, 7 January 2009 (EST)

Christian Science Monitor

2009-01-07T17:48:57Z

Learn together:

The '''Christian Science Monitor''' is a daily [[newspaper]] published by the [[Christian Science]] church. Based in Boston since its founding in 1908 by [[Mary Baker Eddy]], it covers a full range of national and international topics, especially international news, with reporters in 11 countries, including [[Russia]], [[China]], [[France]], [[England]], [[Kenya]], [[Mexico]], [[Israel]], [[India]], as well as the [[United States]].

The ''Monitor'' is still considered a highly respected prestige newspaper, but its circulation has fallen sharply, as the membership of the sponsoring Christian Science church has shrunk.

==External links==
[http://www.csmonitor.com/ Official Site]

[[category:Newspapers]]

War elephants

2009-01-07T17:44:15Z

Learn together:

[[Image:WarElephants.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''War elephants''' were a form of cavalry used by the [[Carthage|Carthiginians]], and by various [[India|Indian]] empires. The former, when used by [[Hannibal]], struck fear in to the [[Roman]]s who had never heard of War Elephants and did not know how to defeat this menance. [[Alexander the Great]] faced 100 war elephants earlier in 326 B.C. when he was crossing the Hydaspes river in India, but unlike the later Romans generals, his military genius improvised how to handle them and sent many of the maddened creatures rushing back through the defenders' lines.<ref>Dupuy & Dupuy, The Encyclopedia of Military History, 1977, Pg. 51-52.</ref>

In recent years they have been used in several fantasy movies, including ''300'' and the film adaptation of ''Lord of the Rings''.

== References ==

<References/>

[[Category:Military]]

Zeus

2009-01-07T17:41:15Z

Learn together: Reference form, removed category where subcategory exists

[[Image:Jupiter.gif|right|thumb|Statue of Zeus, created by the famous Greek sculptor [[Pheidius]] during the 5th century B.C. It was considered one of the [[Seven Wonders of the Ancient World]]. The statue stood for over 800 years in the temple of Zeus at Olympia in Greece, until it was destroyed by fire.]]
In [[Greek mythology]], '''Zeus''' was the king of the [[Greece|Greek]] gods and the supreme ruler of [[Mount Olympus]]. He was the son of [[Cronus]] and [[Rhea (mythology)|Rhea]], who led the [[Titans]] (a race of mythical beings descended from Uranus and Gaia who preceded the Olympians as rulers of creation). Zeus overthrew his father to become the king of the gods. He was said to rule the world with his siblings [[Hera]] (also his wife), [[Poseidon]], [[Hades]], [[Demeter]], and [[Hestia]]; his children [[Athena]], [[Apollo (mythology)|Apollo]], [[Artemis]], [[Hermes]], [[Hephaestus]], and [[Ares]]; and [[Aphrodite]]. These were the thirteen major Greek gods; the Greeks also worshipped numerous minor deities.

Zeus is a philanderer, has favorites, and severely punishes mortals who dare attempt to resemble or rival him. <ref>http://www.unification-thought.org/01ward.html</ref> His punishment against mortals was usually in the form of a bolt of [[lightning]].

Zeus is depicted as having a number of infidelities. The most famous of his children from these liaisons was [[Hercules]], a demi-god of great strength.

Zeus was adopted by the [[Roman]]s as their chief god and called [[Jupiter (god)|Jupiter Optimus Maximus]], whose temple was in [[Rome]].

== See also ==

*[[Iliad]]
*[[Sculpture]]

{{Clear}}

==References==
*[http://quest.nasa.gov/galileo/About/mythology.html The Mythology of Jupiter], NASA Quest.
<references/>

{{Nb mythology greece}}
{{Nb mythology iliad}}

[[Category:Olympians]]

Ken Shamrock

2009-01-07T17:34:02Z

Learn together: Started Article

'''Ken Shamrock''' was an early pioneer in mixed martial arts ([[MMA]]) competitions and an early champion and fan favorite of the [[UFC]] in its fledgling state before there were weight classes. He was also the former King of Pancrase. Shamrock left the world of MMA to join the [[WWE]], a wrestling entertainment organization. Upon his return to MMA, Shamrock was never able to recapture the success that he once enjoyed.

Shamrock has known personal adversity, including a divorce and a financial nosedive after his early success that once saw him having to sleep on the floor in the spare rooms of some of his friends. Now remarried, the charismatic Shamrock has gotten his life back together. A natural TV personality, Shamrock refuses to curse as part of his religious convictions and has told his story on the [[700 Club]].

{{DEFAULTSORT:Shamrock, Ken}}

[[Category:Mixed Martial Artists]]
[[Category:Religious People]]

Category:Mixed Martial Artists

2009-01-07T17:24:38Z

Learn together:

[[Category:Mixed Martial Arts]]

Dana White

2009-01-07T17:23:31Z

Learn together:

'''Dana White''' is the current president of the [[UFC]] and the public face in in promotions and shows such as ''[[The Ultimate Fighter]]''. A bald man who was once an accomplished boxer, the charismatic White is known for his business savvy, although not necessarily for his personal ethics. He has had multiple public fueds with athletes under contract to the UFC (such as [[Randy Couture]] and [[Tito Ortiz]]) and uses a great deal of corse language.

{{DEFAULTSORT: White, Dana}}

[[Category:Ultimate Fighting Championship]]

Dana White

2009-01-07T17:23:19Z

Learn together:

'''Dana White''' is the current president of the [[UFC]] and the public face in in promotions and shows such as ''[[The Ultimate Fighter]]''. A bald man who was once an accomplished boxer, the charismatic White is known for his business savvy, although not necessarily for his personal ethics. He has had multiple public fueds with athletes under contract to the UFC (such as [[Randy Couture]], [[Tito Ortiz]]) and uses a great deal of corse language.

{{DEFAULTSORT: White, Dana}}

[[Category:Ultimate Fighting Championship]]

Dana White

2009-01-07T17:21:48Z

Learn together:

'''Dana White''' is the current president of the [[UFC]] and the public face in in promotions and shows such as ''[[The Ultimate Fighter]]''. A bald man who was once an accomplished boxer, the charismatic White is known for his business savvy, although not necessarily for his personal ethics. He has had multiple public fueds with athletes under contract to the UFC and uses a great deal of corse language.

{{DEFAULTSORT: White, Dana}}

[[Category:Ultimate Fighting Championship]]

Dana White

2009-01-07T17:21:19Z

Learn together: Some expansion

'''Dana White''' is the current president of the [[UFC]] and the public face in in promotions and shows such as ''The Ultimate Fighter''. A bald man who was once an accomplished boxer, the charismatic White is known for his business savvy, although not necessarily for his personal ethics. He has had multiple public fueds with athletes under contract to the UFC and uses a great deal of corse language.

{{DEFAULTSORT: White, Dana}}

[[Category:Ultimate Fighting Championship]]

Separation of church and state

2009-01-07T17:09:59Z

Learn together:

'''Separation of church and state''' is a [[liberal]] interpretation of the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[United States Constitution]], an interpretation particularly favored by [[atheists]]. The section in question is the [[First Amendment]], which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.". <ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti 1st Amendment of the US Constitution]</ref> This phrase has been interpreted by some judges to exclude religion from [[Government]] by declaring that [[Church]] and state must be kept separate.<ref>''See, e.g.'' [[Lemon v. Kurtzman]].</ref> [[Conservatives]] have long criticized this interpretation as being without justification in the text or meaning of the [[First Amendment]].

The founding fathers had also included a provision for separating the undue influence of religion from the government in the original [[United States Constitution]]. Article VI, ''Debts, Supremacy, Oaths'', states "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

== Keeping the State from the Church's Influence ==
[[Thomas Jefferson]], the least religious of the [[Founding Fathers]] and one of the few who played no role in the drafting of the [[U.S. Constitution]] or the [[First Amendment]], first coined the phrase as president in 1802 - a decade after the [[First Amendment]] was ratified.<ref>[http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html Religion and the Federal Government], ''LOC.gov''</ref>. Jefferson used the phrase to appease the Danbury Baptist Association rather than recite an objective interpretation of the law. At the end of his letter, in reflection of how Jefferson himself did not interpret his own phrase to exclude religion from government, he expressed prayers for the letter's recipients:<ref>[http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/dba_jefferson.html Letter from Thomas Jefferson to the DBA]</ref>

:''To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.''

:''Gentlemen''

:''The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.''

:''Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.''

:''I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.''

:''Th Jefferson''
:''Jan. 1. 1802'' <ref>http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html</ref>

The [[Treaty of Tripoli]], drafted during [[George Washington|Washington]]'s presidency, ratified by unanimous vote of the [[United States Senate|Senate]] June 7th, 1797 <ref>[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ej001383)): Journal of the executive proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1805]</ref> and signed by [[John Adams]] three days later, states that "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the [[Christian]] Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen ([[Muslim]]s),-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation (Islamic), it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries"<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.] Ratified in 1796 and again in 1797.</ref> Many proponents of a Christian America point out that the treaty was superseded by the [[Treaty of Peace and Amity]] in 1805 when the United States had more of an upper hand against the pirates. It has also been noted that since the war was against an Islamic regime, that the United states did not want to make it seem like it was a Crusade of Christianity against Islam, but rather that the kidnapping actions of the government regardless of their religious views was what was being objected to.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html</ref>

== Separating the Church from the State's Influence ==
Like many political doctrines, the separation of church & state is a double-edged sword. If religion cannot influence government, nor can government influence religion. Accordingly, churches and religious organizations are kept from government intrusion with the highest deference to ecclesiastical matters. For example, Title VII contains a built-in exception for religious organizations.<ref>42 U.S.C. 2000(e)-(1).</ref> The provision has been construed to allow churches to handle their ministerial matters without government intrusion in any way.<ref>McClure v. Salvation Army.</ref> In this sense, separation of church & state is ''good'' for the church, as it ensures religious autonomy.

==Only a Limit on Federal Power==
[[Pat Robertson]] has argued that the [[Establishment Clause]] was intended merely to prevent the Federal government from imposing a state religion, as many of the original 13 states already had their own official religion.<ref>http://www.patrobertson.com/Statesman/StatesRights.asp</ref>

:''Let's look again at the constitution's intent to empower the legislature. With Congress holding such power, the states got nervous. They reasoned that relinquishing so much power to the Congress threatened state sovereignty. After all, this is a United States of America. It is not one vast democracy of homogeneous people. It is Maryland. It is Connecticut. It is Massachusetts. It is New York. These are separate states. So the Constitution was enhanced by the Bill of Rights. The first point in the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment to the Constitution, said "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There were certain states at that time that had established religions. Massachusetts was a case in point. They had a state religion. And they didn't want this enormously powerful Congress to superimpose a religious system on their state system. To guarantee the states retained critical rights, the tenth amendment said, "All the power that is not expressly delegated to the federal government is reserved for the states." The intent? The people, i.e. the states, have delegated power. They gave up some powers, but they did not give up all powers because they are sovereign states.''
:Pat Robertson, [[Yale University]] Law School, March 25, 1986

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

Coptic Church

2009-01-05T20:52:49Z

Learn together:

The '''Coptic Church of Egypt''' is one of the oldest denominations of [[Christianity]], originating in [[Alexandria]], [[Egypt]] in the 1st century. <ref>http://www.gotquestions.org/Coptic-Christianity.html</ref>

The Coptic Church of Egypt is a non-Chalcedonian Church and is similar to the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]] in ethos, lifestyle, and worship.

Although most of Egypt presently follows Islam, a 10 million member remnant<ref>http://www.copts.com/english1/index.php/who-are-the-copts/church-history/</ref> of the Coptic Church persists to this day in Egypt. Due to radical Islam, persecution of the Coptic Church has increased in recent years and the percentage of Coptics adherents as a percentage of the population is shrinking.

On March 30, 2008 London Security forces ordered a "body search" for the Coptic Pope before boarding a flight to Egypt.<ref>http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/pope-strip-search-row-cen-42508-p-6/</ref> The intervention of an Egyptian diplomat prevented a full strip and body cavity search. It is unknown if the security forces who tried to conduct a "body search" had any [[Muslim]] ties.

The Coptic Pope says other Churches were wrong to exonerate the Jews for the Crucifixion of Christ and states his belief that the [[New Testament]] shows that Jews were responsible for The Crucifixion."<ref>http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/row-over-coptic-leaders-anti-semitic-call-cen-51807-p-6/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Links==
[http://www.goarch.org Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America]

[[category:christian Denominations]]

User talk:DeniseM

2009-01-02T04:42:24Z

Learn together: /* Edit to Book of Ruth */ new section

==Bible Retranslation Project==
Is there a reason that you use the word "I" in that article? The phrase "It is believed..." might sound more encyclopedaeic. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 18:08, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: It would, but on some matters I don't want to claim that I speak for everyone. Really, the contents of that article might be better refactored into lots of talk pages, since it's for collecting ideas. As it is (or was with the first draft), it looked almost like Aschlafly was planning to do translation by search-and-replace ;) [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 18:12, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== Additional privileges ==

Thanks for your very insightful edits. I've just given you additional privileges of uploading (only public domain images, please) and blocking. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:24, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Thank you! [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 09:29, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Do I gather from this that you like the idea of starting with Esther, maybe chapter-by-chapter progress? [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 09:37, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:: I wasn't referring to that specifically, but I'd love to see your insights about the Book of Esther, chapter by chapter! I'll contribute also.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 09:42, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::: As I say, I haven't got the time (after the Christmas holidays are over and I get back to work) to do the thing myself, but I'll happily get a bit of a framework togther that you and the other CPians can fill in as you go, and I'll certainly try and add my comments. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 09:46, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Wow, Denise, your posting of the Hebrew is amazing!--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:27, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::: You're welcome. I confess that I copied the text (with nikud) from an online source, but I tidied and wikified it. Right-to-left plus wikimarkup takes a bit of fiddling. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 10:28, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Oh, and do let me know how you get on with the grammar I recommended - or whichever other one you plumped for - it's nice to have feedback about these texts. [[User:DeniseM|DeniseM]] 19:40, 29 December 2008 (EST)

==Public Schools==
Just testing... ;-) [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:02, 29 December 2008 (EST)

== Happy New Year, Denise! ==

{{cquote|'''Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!'''--Oprah Winfrey}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:47, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Edit to Book of Ruth ==

Hello Denise,

I was hoping to see something in the talk section about the edit that you made. Could you tell me the purpose? If it is in Hebrew, do you know why it doesn't seem to match the Masoretic text as shown here? [http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rth&c=1&v=15&t=KJV#conc/15]

Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:42, 1 January 2009 (EST)

User talk:Learn together

2009-01-01T08:49:03Z

Learn together: /* Happy New Year! */

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]}}

* [[User talk:Learn together/1|Archive1]]
* [[User talk:Learn together/2|Archive2]]
* [[User talk:Learn together/3|Archive3]]

== Congratulations! ==

Congratulations, you've been promoted to Sysop! Well deserved indeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

:Congratulations and welcome aboard! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:01, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

::Congrats, man! --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 16:54, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations! --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:50, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Congrats, brother. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:58, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

:Good job LT! You deserve this promotion, and I'm glad you got it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:35, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

WOW! Thank you very much Andy and all of my friends. I guess when I least expect it is when it happens. ;-) I will try to live up to the honor that you have given me and try to fill the shoes of those who have come before me who I will hopefully be able to emulate. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:20, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

: Excellent promotion, congratulations! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:26, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

::Congratulations! Quite honestly, I didn't think there was any other candidate. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 09:51, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Congrats!! :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 10:40, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Please ban Breebree, (vandalism to mobile phones) [[User:Dalek|Dalek]] 15:43, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

HenryS banned him [[User:Dalek|Dalek]] 15:58, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Whoo-hoo! Sorry I missed it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:08, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== TomMoore ==

*14:43, 13 April 2008 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked "TomMoore (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (personal remarks)

Don't wait for him to reply. I'm not quite sure what the "personal remark" was, but from what I gather, I'm in no position to ask, so...

On the topic: You're applying an interesting standard there, am I to suppose that it's also to be applied to articles? --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 06:35, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Virgin Mary gallery ==

Any contribution? [[Virgin Mary gallery]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Why was Todd Haynes deleted from Brown University alumni?==

I added Todd Haynes, the director of Far From Heaven and I'm Not There, to the list of Brown alumni and you deleted it. Why? Haynes has been nominated for an Oscar and -- in Far from Heaven -- directed one of the most highly praised films of the past decade. How on earth can he be described as "not notable"? George Harrison's SON is included, for Pete's sake. I will reinstate Todd with citations as there is no possible reason for him to be excluded. KeithJoseph 21:30, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

== query ==

Fellow admin, please review this block. The user's name is "oh stupid TK" backwards. The users first contribution was entering a dispute with User:TK. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AUniversity_of_California%2C_Los_Angeles&diff=425607&oldid=425435]. What do you think? Sock puppet? Unblock? Thanks, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:01, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:It was a good call my friend. We block infinite for names like that. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:53, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::I know. I never planned on unblocking. I was surprised the user wasn't banned right away. I only asked because I receiced an email from "Diputsho" asking to be unblocked. Thanks for helping though. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:03, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== City/town/county names as article titles ==

In case you don't check the [[Conservapedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#City.2Ftown.2Fcounty_names_as_article_titles.3F|manual of style talk page]] very often, I just wanted to draw your attention to a suggestion I had. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 21:04, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[September 11, 2001 attacks]]==

You may want to review your reversion, it seems that FiscalConservative's edit was made in good faith and improved the article. He appears to have used the motivations stated by bin Laden (the mastermind of the attacks), whereas the motivation section in the present article seems to be a parody: "Luckily, the president declared a counter war called the "War on Terrorism" before any holy war started" [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:01, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:I don't want to speak toward the removed portions, as I could see how they could be controversial, but what is there right now definitely looks like parody to me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::Am I right in guessing the controversial sections relate to the Sikhs being mistaken for Muslims? If so then this would appear to be acceptable content, as from my understanding there were a number of attacks against innocent Muslims following the attacks, and this should be added if there is to be complete coverage of the aftermath. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:08, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:By putting his edits at the top right under the primary paragraph, he detracts from discussing what actually occurred. He also included a link to an article that states that a Sikh killed several days later 'may' have been the victim of hate crime -- and this is inserted before the section discussing the casualties that occurred from the 9/11. And you call that an improvement? The incredible thing with America is that we are so strong in our desire for freedom for all that even a heinous crime like 9/11 gets barely a ripple in any type of reprisal attacks against those believed to be of similar ethnicities. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:09, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::No one said that in "our desire for freedom for all" we believe reprisal attacks are more important than the actual casualties, I said that they need to be covered in order to provide a complete recount of the aftermath. How about moving the section and expanding it rather than removing it? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:12, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

==Vietnam War Reversion==

Erm, I don't exactly understand what your apprehensions to my edits with the Vietnam article were, especially given the information in question is improperly placed to begin with. Vietnam's economy showcases significant market elements, and to insinuate that Vietnam is a communist country (without any other reference or acknowledgement of it's free-market development post-war) detracts considerably from the article as is given the disregard among the general public to differentiate between a communist government and it’s economic policies, which in Vietnam’s case are clearly not concurrent. [[User:Willink|Willink]] 3:30, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
==I say Psychiatry, You say Psychology, Let's call the whole thing off==
Psychology as the main category for mental health problems etc is incorrect. In fact, "mental health" should be the main category, with psychology and psychiatry as sub-categories (perhaps even with psychotherapy as an additional sub-category). Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis, not a psychological model; therefore it is appropriately placed within the Psychiatry category. Psychologists are *not* always involved with patients who are diagnosed with schizophrenia, whereas psychiatrists *are*. The other types of psychological endeavour (industrial, educational, etc) should be in the Psychology category (and, correctly, are). The Psychiatric Disorders category should be a sub-category of Psychiatry itself. [[User:HumbleServant|HumbleServant]] 06:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can go ahead and rework them IF you can change all of them appropriately. We don't want to have a category with some entries in one place and some entries in another. Please be aware though that when there is a subcategory, such as Psychiatric Disorders under Psychiatry, that articles in the subcategory are not also placed in the main category. The general idea behind subcategories is to decrease the number of articles in the main category. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:16, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::Thank you, Learn together. I shall work out an appropriate schema for this before changing anything further. May God bless you and be with you. [[User:HumbleServant|HumbleServant]] 17:20, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sprawl ==

See Orange talk. Ta.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:51, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== Can you upload The Scream by Edvard Munch? ==

I got the link![http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/munch/munch.scream.jpg] Can you upload for the [[The Scream]] page? {{unsigned|TagoPagdaluhong}}
:Nevermind, I found it--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 20:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

== your edits to [[Orthodox Church]] ==

Hi, I noticed your edits to this article. You may not be aware, but one of your edits removed some sources, as well as the reference list at the end. Cheers! [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 15:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:Can I ask why the article is locked? I don't see that edit warring is going on, nor do I see any efforts by you to discuss your changes. [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 12:14, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
::Posted a note [[Talk:Orthodox_Church|here]], and I'd appreciated your comment. Cheers! [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 23:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Golden Compass article block ==

Is there any way I can edit the article? Or should I post my proposed changes here for you to make? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:34, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:Put them in the article talk section please for reviews. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:21, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Engrish==
Thanks for filling me in. I'm sorry I put up that article on Engrish. I didn't know it was a slur, despite it being offensive However, now I know better to not write articles like that again!
[[User:RKLuffy88|RKLuffy88]]

== Featured articles ==

Please see [[Conservapedia talk:Featured articles]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:46, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

==Thurgood Marshall==

This is not meant to sound combative, but why did you go through and change every mention of African American or African to Black? '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 12:50, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:The term African American did not exist during the time of discussion. Black would have been recognized then and is still considered to be acceptable today. I did leave the last African American as it discussed Clarence Thomas and by then the term had entered society. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:56, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

::I understand your reasoning, but that seems a little strange... are we going to only mention people based on the term society used for them? In that case, we could end up with some rather strong racial slurs posted in articles. Even though we would detect and revert, it seems like opening the door to extra work on our part. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 15:05, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::That's not what he's saying. What is your point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Nice block ==

Nice block of "Mmmm" last night!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:50, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 09:19, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

==NASA Pictures==
The NASA article needs more pictures, can you upload some? Thanks--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 15:31, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

==Crusades==
You appear to have removed my section about the pogroms against the Jews during the First Crusade in your reorg of [[Crusades]]. Was that a mistake or did you intend to do so? I was going to just assume the former, since it was well-sourced, but I thought it might do to check anyway.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 02:06, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:It was intentional as it was misplaced. The First Crusade was a success. The reference was to the totality of the Crusades and why they failed. If your source leaves out the pain of Francis of Assisi when he visited the Crusader army based on what he saw or the need of the Pope to excommunicate the Crusaders during a later Crusade, and believes it was only due to not keeping Church holidays, then it won't stay. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:16, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::...you could have added those things, if you wanted, without removing other accurate information, don't you think? Or moved it if you thought it was misplaced? Isn't that the usual thing done with sourced actual information? Are you denying the pogrom that occurred in the Rhine valley, which is what I was asking about?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 02:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It depends what you think is accurate. The information was entered based upon the 'failure' of the First Crusade and the reasons for it - while in reality that was the one Crusade that succeeded far beyond what would be expected. It's not my place to try to salvage information under those conditions. If you wish to see what information should be put back into the article in some form, one of the things you should ask yourself is does it belong and why? The previous avenue has been closed. I would hope your desire is to enrich the article with whatever information you find that is naturally a part of the subject and that however that unfolds, it unfolds. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I read that several times, but I guess I am just not smart enough. What I get is that you didn't think it was your job, essentially. That's weird, since generally on wikis people try to retain the good contributions of other people.
::::My desire is, naturally, to add information about the Crusades. In this case, I was adding information about the hideous atrocities enacted against Jews during the First Crusade. I don't know if you consider that "naturally a part of the subject," but I hope so.
::::Help me out: can I put that back in, or not?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:12, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::It is not my place to try to find somewhere for it to fit. The placement and reason for that placement originally given, was incorrect. If you feel it is has natural placement in another part of the article and matches the article scope and flow then put in those elements that you feel meet that criteria and I will examine it. But please realize the following historical information will be included:
:::::1) The mobs that attacked the Jews had nothing to do with the Crusading armies that eventually fought in the Holy Lands
:::::2) The Church authorities consistently tried to order them to desist, to no avail
:::::3) The Christian townspeople tried to hide the Jews from the approaching mobs
:::::4) When the mobs reached a fortified Christian nation, they were denied access as they were viewed as a bunch of unsavory criminals
:::::5) They then attacked the borders of the Christian nation
:::::6) At the moment it appeared victory was in their grasp as they were breaking through, they oddly got confused and fled, dispersing for good
:::::7) Their sudden defeat and fleeing was viewed as divine justice upon them from God
:::::[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Uh... okay, cool. You put whatever you want in there, that's fine with me. It's a wiki. I was just going to add the blurb about the pogrom in the Rhine valley, and since I think somewhere in there was assent, I will do so again.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:44, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
==Email==
I sent you an email -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 01:43, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Email me back after you follow the instructions -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 01:44, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

==Apology for my Edit on [[Al Franken]]==

I sincerely apologise for any harm I caused by suggesting that you hadn't read ''Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them''. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:48, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

== Where does one find the sysop group? ==

I don't know where to find it.
But common sense would dictate that the one who puts a disputed fact into an article is the one who needs to back it up. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 02:59, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:While I certainly respect that you have been given Sysop authority longer than I have, the general concensus among Sysops from when I asked the question before I was given the honor has been that flags are given for questioning only when there is a belief of error. Part of the belief is that we want all editors to actively contribute which means coming alongside and helping to build instead of pointing out to others where they need to do work. It's also best to send a private email to a fellow Sysop as a courtesy before questioning him in public. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:11, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
I
::Fair enough. On second thought, I think the tags are not needed. However, with the citations, I disagree. If you make a claim in court, the burden of proof is on you. It is the same way here, (or should be) regardless of how it has been applied up till now. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 03:15, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I've sent you an email to discuss this further if you wish. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:32, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Apology ==

It was wrong of me to reverse your block without contacting you first. I would like to apologize for that. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you Tim, and no problem. I am writing you back right now. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:45, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

== Barack Obama Edit ==

You removed a section that I had added to the Presidential Campaign paragraph: "In analyzing the plans of both candidates, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that Senator Obama's plan offered larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers. Alternately, McCain's plan, the center found, would result in tax cuts that "primarily benefit those with very high incomes." <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25133125/ Economists across political spectrum question McCain's portrayal of Obama </ref>" It was clearly referenced, plays a part in the presidential campaign, adds information to the entry, and it was from a nonpartisan center.

Can you explain your removal of it from the encyclopedic entry of Barack Obama? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:11, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:The article isn't about a comparative analysis of what each candidate has adopted as their platform. Sticking that in there was out of place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:14, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::Then can I add it to the 2008 presidential elections entry, since that is more about comparative analysis? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:57, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If that article is constructed in that form, then it may be an appropriate entry, but you will need to clean it up first. As it is right now, it says very little. What are the plans of the two candidates? You completely leave that out and instead address only the conclusion of a group to that which you have not even explained. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Fixed==
Thanks for replying to me email, it has been fixed now. Not sure what was going on but I was missing the 'edit' button. It appeared back again though.
Thanks though mate!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:14, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:You sent your message rather late, so it is possible editing privilages were shut down for the night. Any time you have a difficulty, we'll do our best to look into it and help where we can. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:09, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

==Christian category==

I was wondering why you removed the Christians category from Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Al Sharpton. You may certainly (and understandably) view them as not practicing what they preach, but the Clintons are professed Christians, and Sharpton is an ordained minister. And about the schtick about Sharpton never having had a job...since when is being a minister not a job? Thank you. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 09:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Considering I removed over 40 people, why did you only choose those three? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:56, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::Because they were the ones I added. I hadn't noticed the others. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 12:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I was "equal opportunity". We're not looking for people who have church membership, but for those who in word and deed live the Christian message and seek to share that knowledge with others, often times even in the face of hardship. I hope this helps. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:07, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Your call, but is that our place to judge? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 14:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::In this case yes. The Bible talks about what it means to be a Christian. I don't particularly care for the category, but since it exists, it is important to uphold that value. This does not mean that people left off of the list are certainly not Christians, only that it does not match the bar that has been set. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:24, 21 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::If you feel that you are righteous enough to proclaim who is a true Christian and who does not meet the standards, then go for it. I personally believe only Jesus has that authority. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 00:53, 22 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::As do I. Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:19, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

== McCain Edit? ==

Is the information that McCain hadn't received a divorce when he obtained his marriage certificate not factual? Do you think that it's not important that a presidential nominee was still married when he got a new marriage certificate? Or that he told a different story in his book than public records indicate? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:03, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:You are talking about clerking errors and delays. After taking the steps to procede with a divorce, a final date when it legally takes place is indicated. That the clerks in that Arizona jurisdiction did not file it until later is not John McCain's concern. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:34, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::Reasonable explanation. But how about the fact that in his book he states that he had separated from his former wife before beginning to date his current wife, when according to the court petition he filed, he "cohabited" with his former wife until 1/7/80---nine months AFTER he started dating his current wife? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:41, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I think you may be misunderstanding part of the goal of our site. Over a year ago a new user added information to the Hillary Clinton article that although they resided in the same state and were married, Bill and Hillary Clinton lived apart. That was easily verifiable and not open to interpretation. It was reverted by a Sysop because the site is not about gossip; it's about pertinent information about those aspects that make the person famous and noteworthy. So direct scandals such as Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky are worthy of mention, but their current living situation serves no purpose. That new user was me, and I have tried to adhere to the standards set ever since - and still try to adhere to those standards now that I am a Sysop. John McCain has admitted to failures in his first marriage and failures at that time in his life. It's simply not a place that we go.

:::BTW you may also find that legal documents often have different meanings than common usage. Most of the time he didn't "cohabitate" with his wife at all because he was a senator in Washington, although he would still be considered to be cohabitating because that was his legal residence. Insinuation is not always the same as reality, and in this case it could be difficult to separate the two. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:00, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::::I appreciate your taking the time to respond. As much as I hate to do it, I'd have to refer you to the entry on Barack Obama as a comparative piece of the two nominees. Obama's entry is filled with insinuations and speculations. I believe one of the most egregious is the insinuation/question of when he said 57 states (instead of 47 states) he was referring to the 57 Islamic states. Obviously that type of conjecture is far beyond the pale, and yet many of the sysops here have sidestepped the debate on that entry rather than stand up for a clearer and less gossip-filled encyclopedia.

::::If you are going to uphold the John McCain article to the standards you have tried to adhere to since starting here, I would hope that you would do the same for the Barack Obama entry I have now brought to your attention. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:13, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::I can not bring about change in the Barak Obama article. I too am under authority and my edits were not accepted. But I do wish to make sure that the goal is not to see how much mud can be thrown and so, where I can, I try to uphold the standards that I have been told we adhere to. So please try to make the articles that you edit as professional as possible. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:29, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::<nowiki>*Thumbs up*</nowiki> --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 19:36, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::Hi! I appreciated your edit of John McCain and personally feel that it needs much more work. I take special offense to individuals who smear and place ridiculous facts on this website, and feel that Conservapedia is more moral than that. Please add further information as you discover if the article is ever going to appear on the Main Page, it must be informative an article as possible. --[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 18:58, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

==New McCain Edit==

I must admit I tend to agree with you about the removal of the passages you did. However you should be aware there was a debate on this in the past few days and a consensus was reached to remove some, and leave some. I wonder if perhaps you should refer to that consensus first.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 12:26, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you. I'll comment on the talk page now. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:39, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

==Obama==

Just browsing through the Obama talk page it seems that there is no longer any issue about his place of birth. How would one go about getting that changed as it looks ridiculous to have it say "allegedly born". --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 18:39, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:If the page is locked, then you'll have to leave a request on the talk page or find a sysop who will make the change for you. I've chosen not to get involved in that article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:03, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

== Re: Zogby Poll ==

LT, I took out the Zogby poll because for the past few weeks we have been doing the five most recent polls. When a newer poll comes in, we drop the oldest. Hence I dropped the Zogby poll which finished on 8/1 by replacing it with a poll completed on 8/4. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:57, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
:I've been doing it more by date range, and, quite frankly, more people would be interested in what Zogby reports than in organizations not usually known for polling or at least not very recognizable.

:I've been reporting results without "leaners". Do you wish to report leaners? It's ok if you think that's a better indication of polling numbers. I would just like us to be consistent. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:12, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

::You're right on leaners. On Real Clear Politics, they report the Rasmussen # with leaners, and I always forget to click the link for the actual results. That was just a slip of the brain. As far as the Zogby poll, I've been trying to stick with the 5 most recent polls, otherwise we could end up just adding and adding and having a table with 18 polls in it. I wanted to use the most recent ending date polls because that reflects the most recent trends in the campaign. If you want to keep the Zogby poll in there to make it 6, so be it, but it'll probably get knocked out in a day or two since the most recent polls now go through the 4th and 5th. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:15, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

== Swaggart ==

I added the quote as a controversy because it was big enough for him to issue an apology for it afterwards. He was speaking about gay marriage and had stated he never saw a man he would want to marry, and then went on to the aforementioned remarks. It was well-known enough to make it to the newspapers and, again, forced him to apologize. Seems like it was a controversial statement at the time he made it. The original section was termed "Quotes" but I didn't want it to appear as quote-mining so I changed it to controversy.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:17, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:I would see it as more of a controversy if he held to that view. Similar to talk show hosts, ministers such as Swaggart preach for several hours every week of every year. Things are going to come up that offend some people. I have found, on a whole, that ministers apologize more readily than most other people; that they do so should not be held against them. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:30, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Block of RuralHall ==

Hi, was wondering why you blocked this user? Contributions seem sourced and there's no warnings/discussion on their talk page suggesting they are breaking any commandments or anything. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 16:49, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:When a user makes a change to an article to refer to the "cult of Christianity", he's basically asking for his walking papers. Other places may find that to be cute; we don't. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:34, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
::I can't see that in his contributions, do you have a diff? [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 15:19, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Wrong person. RuralHall was removed for ignoring discussion on talk page of what information was inappropriate and why and adding what he wished to anyway. When he was reverted, he added it again. Since he had no positive contributions to the site, he was removed for good. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:29, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Moving of an article ==

Hello there,
I'd like to request your help; the [[David Milliband]] article (British foreign secretary) is misspelt and should be at [[David Miliband]] (as noted within the article and the source therein), however I don't seem to have the rights to move an article. I'm not sure if it's because of the age of my account or whether this operation is restricted to sysops, so I thought it wiser to approach someone who obviously has the community's respect. Thanks for the time. [[User:ChrisSmith|ChrisSmith]] 18:55, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I would also like to request a few moves. I'm sorry if this the wrong place to ask. These images should be moved to the appropriate "Category:Middle-earth", as they are all scattered over the place: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Hobbit_cover.JPG], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Mhjfjfr7.jpg], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Silmarillion.jpg], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Middle-earth.jpg], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Sundering_of_the_Elves.png]. And these articles should be under proper names and spellings: [[Fatty Bolger|Fredegar Bolger]], [[Elf (Middle Earth)|Elf (Middle-earth)]], [[Dwarves (Middle-earth)|Dwarf (Middle-earth)]], [[Théoden (Middle Earth)|Théoden]]. It would be nice if you could do this, if it isn't a bother. ~ [[User:Tolkiendil|Tolkiendil]] 17:52, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Image uploads ==

Hello again, thanks for moving the article to the correct title per my request, I now have another query. I created the article [[European Parliament]], and have found some images on wikimedia commons which would illustrate the article quite well. I'm not really sure about the image policy on Conservapedia, and the upload tool is restricted to sysops anyway, so I was wondering if you could help out. The image is located [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:European_Parliament_from_Cathedral.jpg here], and licensed under the GFDL, I'm not sure if that's compatible with this site or not. There are more images [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament here]. Thanks for taking the time. [[User:ChrisSmith|ChrisSmith]] 21:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:As I am not sure what is common usage myself, I usually defer to other Sysops when it comes to the proper implementation of pictures. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:04, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
::Ok, no probs, cheers! [[User:ChrisSmith|ChrisSmith]] 13:39, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

== Category ==
Hi I reverted Saints listed Catholicism. I had a question regarding categories and thought you may be able to help. Under Saints, the structure is alphabetized but the names do not always match, e.g. Siant John of God, technically should be under (J) , by current sort it is under (S) and if I am correct- sort is established by last name or last word. Is there a better way to organize? Template structure flaw? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:31, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks for taking care of this. The DefaultSort function allows sorting in whatever form is desired. Look at Saint Andrew near the bottom as an example. For Saints sorting should generally be done by first name, as many are known and referenced that way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:03, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

== Could you please explain this edit? ==

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Star_Trek&curid=13058&diff=513749&oldid=513747

<blockquote>
In another episode where the ship is trapped and aliens will perform experiments that will kill half the crew, Picard admits to 'Ryker' (actually an alien in disguise) that he does believe in God, because the universe is just too orderly to have happened on its own.
</blockquote>

Which episode? What aliens? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:49, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

:Unfortunately that's all I remember. It was a 'cloud' type area of space that they entered and then couldn't get out of. The alien materialized in the air on their ship and looked non-human. It had no legs or anything touching the ground. He said his species wished to study all forms of death and dying and then he killed one of the crew on the bridge. He said that to finish his experiments would take a little more than half of Picard's crew. It was a phony Ryker and Troi who were talking to him in his quarters when he made his statement. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:13, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::See [http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Where_Silence_Has_Lease this page] which I've added to the Star Trek page. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Thank you for including that. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:48, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Okay, got it. Unfortunately, Picard doesn't say anything about God in that scene, though he obviously is open-minded about there being something more than this life. See [http://tng.trekcore.com/episodes/scripts/128.txt here]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:15, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== Imagining -> roleplaying ==

Ah ha! That's the word I was looking for! (My initial thought was "simulating", but I knew that wasn't right!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:02, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== McCain's education ==

I noticed you reverted my edit about McCain's lack of performance at the Naval Academy. I've reinserted the source for the claim, which I forgot to put in before your reversion. I hope this helps. --[[User:DrHubertJNugz|DrHubertJNugz]] 14:16, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:This parodist has been dealt with. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::You do know what a parodist is, right? How can he be a conservative parodist if he is inserting information that is harmful to a conservative? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Google the name. A false name calculated to raise sniggering hilarity among his [[adolescent]] [[Liberal]] chums, and obviously here solely to cause trouble. My nostrils scent parodist, Jazz, they scent vandal and troublemaker, doubtless spawned in the cesspit. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::A false name, like "trumpeter", you know, "one who plays the trumpet"? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:54, 10 September 2008 (EDT) (Um and Googling "Dr Hubert J Nugz" doesn't come up with anything. So try a little harder or you are going to start to look like a parodist.)
:::::Do you not know how to use Google? It came up with 2 hits to a parody site. You really need to try harder. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:57, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Hint: drop the Dr. I doubt it comes from any reputable academic institution. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:58, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Give me links then. Everything's so obvious to you, why not just point it out instead of saying it's so obvious? I see two links to The Site That Must Not Be Named (which is not a parody site, unless you are trying to suggest something), and both of those links ''don't actually work'', so there's no way to verify that they aren't just pointing back at this Dr. And you still haven't explained why you are blocking people who have zero edits and no obvious harmful intent. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:04, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Heaven help us. You would let [[Osama bin Laden]] post on this site unless he questioned some dinosaur theory or other. Get real. We are surrounded by enemies: sniggering [[adolescent]] [[Liberals]], assorted leftist scum and [[atheists]] who seek to destroy this project. They fear what it may achieve. Let them fear us. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:08, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:In other words, when again asked a direct question, you make some assertion about me and dodge the question. I'm seeing a pattern here. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:22, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::None so blind as those that will not see, HJ. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Actually, I have deleted the link as on closer inspection it is anti-CP and non-family-friendly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:27, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Please don't call me HJ. I followed your link and magically found the exact same thing as when I did the search myself: a whole lot of nothing. Here's the first page: some guy's blog that nobody appears to read (and isn't parody), a myspace page for a hip-hop band, a research paper, and several other no-name links. You know, if you actually had any real proof, this could have been taken care of almost ''an hour ago'' by just telling me what it is. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:37, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Well, you can call me B if you want. It helps a friendly atmosphere, I feel. If you found that blog wholesome and helpful thenm I pity you. I would rather give an innocent youth or maiden a phial of prussic acid than let him or her read that filth. And consequently the good doctor is not a fit or proper person to practice his moral perversions on this site. End of discussion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::Is it parody, or is it unwholesome? Because it looks to me like you blocked someone for being mentioned all of twice on a rarely-read blog (judging by the amount of comments) which has a lot of articles about golf, law school, and poetry. It is, granted, often peppered with swears and material not appropriate for this website, but that's just it, ''it's not on this website'', and you really have no basis for blocking DrHubertJNugz, and what evidence you did give is clearly false. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

== Missed posts ==

You appear to have missed my posts on [[Talk:National Center for Science Education]] and [[Talk:Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them]]. Your response would be appreciated at your earliest convenience. --[[User:Horace42|Horace42]] 21:43, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

==Thanks for the unblock==

I appreciate the opportunity to keep contributing. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:33, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

:...and here's the time-sensitive project I mentioned: [[Essay: Conservapedia Questions for the 2008 Presidential Candidates]]. I'm waiting to see if Aschlafly approves of the concept. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

==FAs==
If [[Hollywood Values]] has not been nominated to be featured, could you do so? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 18:42, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

==Palin Talk Page Edits==

I've left the article alone regarding rape kits, and will not change your edits to my update with details on the troopergate votes. Why though, was it necessary to pull my closing comment on the Talk page as well? I wasn't rude or insulting, and I provided evidence to back up the point I made. Are these statements of fact made with the supporting evidence so inappropriate that they had to be erased from the page instead of being responded to in kind?

That was my final say on the Palin Talk page for the rape-kit matter, and since I have the truth on my side I'm okay with leaving your deletion of it intact - you can deny the facts but it doesn't make them any less true. I've moved on to other constructive tasks here like the candidate-questions project, so please don't block me again over this. I'm letting this one go. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:04, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:Your numbers make that small town the rape capital of the world. It would appear there was more there than your site is reporting. For issues such as this I dig deeper and want to know more. Did any insurance companies refuse to pay? Was anyone who reported they were assaulted actually billed? I'd imagine your site would provide that information if they had anything that was damaging to Palin. As it stands right now, the reasons and what occurred are more tied together by innuendo.

:And, as you know by our private conversation, you requested I allow your talk page entries to stay - but never said anything about continuing to post more. I don't like when someone stretches to get in one last shot - and I think you understand that. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:21, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Siteadmin? ==

Hi LT, what exactly does a siteadmin do? I'm having some, uh, problems. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:28, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:So am I, but I'm not running to teacher like a whining little coward. Nor am I a saboteur from a site overtly determined on the destruction of Conservapedia. Sorry, HJ (sob sob) - or is that ''Jazzman''?. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::To be fair, Bugler also thinks he's having a problem so it's not fair of me to say that I'm the only one. I apologize again. Though I don't think asking a third party for mediation constitutes "running to teacher". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:37, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
:::Fairly said. I apologise for my intemperate rematrks. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:40, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

Gentlemen: As much as we can, we prefer to have those who have been given rights and privileges on this site, and both of you have, to solve differences between yourselves. We are part of a greater community and that means an ability to work together among our valued editors. We can get involved if there truly is no ability to find common respect and acceptance, but that is not the preferred method if it can be avoided. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:43, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== Category Religion ==
Revert category complete. Any possibility you will join [[Wikiproject: Religion]]? This project needs direction. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:12, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
:The project is way too large and unwiedly to work in its current form. Even if it had been a Wikiproject: Bible it would have been a huge undertaking, but by massing every article that even touches upon religion, it's more of an exercise in lumping categories than a project that could actually work. I'm afraid there is little I could add or do. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:02, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

==Erasing threads of inquiry on Talk|Palin==

I'm not going to go back and forth on the Palin page anymore, but I have to ask you for an honest answer to this: You seem intent on erasing any discussion about the Palin rape-kit issue and try to redirect the conversation to what you perceive as press bias, instead of actually addressing the questions and facts presented. If you are so insistent that this story is not true, then why not take up the challenge of rebutting the evidence presented with evidence of your own? When you just erase things you don't agree with, it's an endorsement of them being true - an uncomfortable, inappropriate truth to you, but still the truth as long as you don't refute it openly and credibly. This isn't personal, and I'd appreciate your thoughts on this instead of dismissing or erasing it. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:See answer above under the previous time you asked me. You have made me regret that I believed in your initial email correspondence. I will not be fooled again. In the future, your block stands for full duration. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:36, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::Why are you treating me like I'm some kind of subversive out to harm this project, or a deceiver taking advantage of your goodwill? We had a back-and-forth over my edits on the Palin page (regarding a subject I won't even mention again with you), and the key point you and Jpatt kept making is that the stories were smears without proof. So I did the responsible thing, and found the proof to back up the point and show it was the truth. At that point my edits were called "inappropriate" - not untruthful, just inappropriate, and I was blocked for reinserting them. When I asked you to remove my block so I could do other constructive things here, I promised to leave the article alone, and asked you to preserve the discussion. You kept your word, and I thanked you publicly for it. I kept my word, creating a project here you commended, and added a last post to the Palin ''Talk'' page to achieve closure. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]]

::: A) Do not try to label my concerns into what you wished they were. I did not just say there was no proof and that's why we can't insert it. Do not act otherwise.
::: B) I already stated above that your choice to continue to write on the talk page on the subject was inappropriate in view of your email request. That you have chosen to ignore it above while bringing it up here again is also unfortunate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:01, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:: ...When you removed that you responded as if I had misled you, and I apologize if that's the case. I had asked you to leave the talk thread intact wit the intent of closing it - the last point was you asking for proof because you asserted there was none, and my last edit was to respond with the proof you asked for. That's why others added their comments, which have been deleted as well. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]]

:::If you had every intention of continuing the talk page discussion then you should have stated it as such. By asking me to please just keep what you had put, you implicitly implied otherwise. Your efforts to continue were, of course, removed as well as any reference to them. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:01, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::Okay, enough of the recap. I just wanted to point out that I'm a respectful and professional contributor here, even when people don't like what I'm contributing. I didn't lie or mislead you when I asked to have my block lifted, and constructive things you approve of have happened because I've been back here. I always follow the CP commandment to contribute true and verifiable edits, and simply ask that they be responded to in kind, instead of being erased when they can't. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]]

:::Can't? I had already responded with my thoughts above before you wrote this - which you have conveniently ignored. And that is fine as long as you don't try to open a new thread as if I never put my response - like you are doing here. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:01, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::I've been blocked a dozen times for being true to my convictions, --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]]

:::Actually, I think other reasons have been given. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:01, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::... and I think the only reason I'm allowed to remain here is that I'm still recognized as a constructive editor who honestly tries to make this project better.

::If you disagree, then feel free to restore my block for as many days left as I had on the original. The only request I'd have is that you pick up and guide the "Questions for the Candidates" project I set up while I'm blocked. That's a worthwhile project, and time-sensitive. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:41, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I've said my piece, you've said your piece, and I'm letting it go - time to move on. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:08, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

==McCain talkpage==
I feel you should at the least, leave Aschlafly comments to JonPdh since it was a response posted today. Also, I feel IanG doesn't deserve to be here at CP for his snide reply comments. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:47, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
:JonPdh seemed to just like rehashing things that already had answers, albeit with a sprinkling of negative insinuations along the way. It served no useful purpose. If he had asked for clarifications at first then that could have been valid, but we don't need to give an audience to a 'new' user who likes to force in his view against previous decisions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:57, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

While I was on my, um, sabbatical, I noticed this in the block log:
*''13:19, 3 October 2008 Learn together (Talk | contribs | block) blocked JonPdh (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled, e-mail blocked) ‎ (Bye Bye) (unblock) ''
What does the "e-mail blocked" part mean? Is that something only a sysop can do? I've started noticing that recently and it's got my curiosity piqued. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:19, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

:It's the bottom of the 3 boxes to check when you block someone. I am assuming you have that option as well, but I don't know. Blocking email is usually only used in the case of overt vandalism or users who only seek to disrupt. For anyone else, email correspondance is left open in case they wish to discuss their block and how to become positive contributors to the project. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:37, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

::"Ordinary" editors with block rights don't appear to have this option. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:57, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I figured it was something like that; I was just curious. And to paraphrase what Brian said, we peons don't have a third option :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:03, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
::::Actually, I noticed this third checkbox in the block dialog about a month ago, but it quickly disappeared after less than a week, so maybe it was a new feature introduced with a wiki upgrade that then had to be calibrated. In any case, I'm in the same boat with HelpJazz and BrianCo in that I don't have it anymore. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:54, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
::::: I believe that it ''was'' a new feature with the software upgrade, but I still have it, so it does seem as if it's only available to sysops, even if it was temporarily available to all for a short while. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:41, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Roman Catholicism==
When you've a moment, please take a look at my comments (and those of Jpatt) on the talkm page re. Controversy. I don't want to do anything precipitously but do feel very strongly about this issue and the unfairness of it. Thanks, [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:53, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

== Scottish religious history ==

my dear fellow conservative,
i was a bit unhappy to find my addition to the page in question modified in the way it has been, i have 'counter-repaired' it if you dont mind.

yours merrily, PhilipV

:I'm not sure I understand your concern. The information you presented was incorrect and was adjusted. You have since added an edit that is correct. Good [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:13, 26 October 2008 (EDT)

== Blocks needed ==

Please block parodists [[user:City]] and [[user:Ihateobama]].--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:44, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:There should be some kind of a rank that allows something on the level of a citizen's arrest here... let regular users with no other special privileges have blocking rights on accounts that have been active for say... at most 20 minutes, just to get rid of the annoying vandals [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 11:48, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::If that's possible, I second it - it's an excellent idea.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:53, 5 November 2008 (EST)

== Great catch ==

Superb catch on User:Virginian. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:28, 7 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:33, 7 November 2008 (EST)

==Favour Please, Learn together==

This is embarrassing. Could you change two subject headings for me please - both misspellings that got under my radar....
*[[Angevan]] to Angevin.
*[[Tewksbury]] to Tewkesbury.
:::Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 13:17, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Thanks![[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:10, 14 November 2008 (EST)

== How Dare You ==

How dare you delete my comment on another user's talk page? That's suppression of free thought, not to mention interception of a message intended for a specific user. If you have an issue with my opinion, I'd me more than happy to discuss it on my own talk page, but please don't go out deleting comments that you don't agree with. It's very offensive and just plain wrong. -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 23:39, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:I believe you can put what you wish on your talk page as long as you don't slander anyone else. The idea that you can rant on the page of a user who is no longer here and expect your rant to stay is odd to say the least and has been dealt with accordingly. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:40, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== How Dare You! (II) ==

*Goodness! So long this page has gone without archiving! I say HOW DARE YOU! :p
--[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:16, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:It's good to hear from you my friend. Yes, I guess I haven't archived in a while. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:40, 15 November 2008 (EST)

==[[Messianic Judaism]]==

Sorry about the edit conflict. Did I delete much?

Maybe we should discuss on the talk page? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:54, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:No problem Ed. It won't be the first time we've tripped over each other. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:31, 22 November 2008 (EST)

::I stopped editing there, so you can fix up what I trashed. I seem to recall two really good edits of yours. Shall I point them out? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:32, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:::If I miss them, put them back in. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:34, 22 November 2008 (EST)

== Member ==

Dear friend

TK has accepted to be part of the team for Featured articles, I am sure you will be glad to have him with us. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:17, 1 December 2008 (EST)

== Robert Bolling article? ==

Hello,

I was encouraged by Rob Smith (RobS) sometime ago to add articles that I had written at other sites to this one. I don't know if Rob is still editing here. Anyway, I have been doing so slowly. A few of my articles are being selected for deletion. The [[Robert Bolling]] article had this posting, "This article has been proposed for speedy deletion. The reason given is: It is obvious vandalism, sarcastic mockery, or inappropriate according to The Conservapedia Commandments." Really? The article is appropriate? It is sarcastic mockery? Or it is vandalism? This is beginning to sound like the garbage I was facing at Wikipedia! This editor says he is a historian and he is also listing two other articles of mine for deletion [[John Allen Borgman]] and [[Abel Prescott]] who is just as important historically as [[William Dawes]] but because some historian or poet through the years didn't mention him in his work, he has been almost forgotten. This does not make the person any less significant or encyclopedic. What am I to do to argue my points or should I just not bother? [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 14:25, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== Star Trek ==

The idea of categories is to have as many as needed to improve search ability. While "Star Trek" might well be a category unto itself, it should be included under all media, Television, Movies and Books/Literature, since its franchise has spread to all of those. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 16:33, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:StarTrek yes my friend, but not Sulu ;-) The theory with categories is to only put the article in categories where they are prominent or well known. We want to avoid the clutter of WP. Of course you probably remember this Terry; you were one of the people who put it together. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:05, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::Ha Ha! That will teach me to multi-task, Bill! I thought I was looking at the [[Star Trek]] page! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:33, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:::It happens to the best of us Terry. We've all got to be able to laugh at ourselves sometimes. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:11, 30 December 2008 (EST)

== Happy New Year! ==

{{cquote|'''Cheers to a new year and another chance for us to get it right!'''--Oprah Winfrey}}
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:30, 31 December 2008 (EST)

:Have a Happy New Year my friend. May the rest of your year go as well as this one has started. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:49, 1 January 2009 (EST)

User talk:AlanE

2008-12-31T08:28:08Z

Learn together: /* Categories */ new section

{{welcome}}

In case you weren't aware, typing four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) after a comment automatically produces your signature. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you...I'm new in town, so to speak.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: AlanE, thanks for your contributions. I just gave you blocking powers so that you can block the accounts of vandals yourself, as soon as you see them. Thanks much and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:16, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. Appreciated. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:14, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Categories ==
Alan, I think your comments on the monarch categories are good, and would encourage you to fix the categories as you see fit. It seems to me, since this is such a new project, that a lot of things got categorized willy-nilly style (which is understandable), and anything we can do to set things straight, I think it is better sooner than later. I think you'll notice a lot of redundant categorization on some articles too that need cleaned up. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 19:48, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

*Personally, I would check with a Sysop before doing what Colest is suggesting, especially removal of categories. Okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:49, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

==Email==

Unless there's a bug in the software, then, "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users."

Although we do not require an email address, refusing to supply one is one of several factors which can add up to grounds for banning your account. If you really support the goals of this project, why not take a couple of minutes to create a free yahoo or account and put it in your preferences? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:42, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, check your preferences page. It was changed by Webmaster many months ago. ;-) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:52, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
**Yes, I see that now, Terry: "E-mail (required): Enables others to contact you through your user or user_talk page without needing to reveal your identity."

OK. I will go back and change the email address in my Preferences. Hang on. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:15, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
I have changed it to the address stated at the bottom of my user page and hit the "Mail confirmation code" even though I never got one. I did get the following though: A confirmation code has already been e-mailed to you; if you recently created your account, you may wish to wait a few minutes for it to arrive before trying to request a new code.

This wiki requires that you validate your e-mail address before using e-mail features. Activate the button below to send a confirmation mail to your address. The mail will include a link containing a code; load the link in your browser to confirm that your e-mail address is valid.

The above is what I have always received...right from day one. Maybe my geriatric brain is missing something. Ban me if you wish, but it must be obvious by now I am not refusing to supply it. It is sitting there in my User Page. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:30, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:Don't be silly. It's not grounds for banning: Terry says I was wrong. But have you tried this link? http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Emailuser/AlanE --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:36, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, Ed; but it tells me I need a valid email address!! Perhaps I should go away and come back as someone else... throw off AlanE and don the cloak of, um, how about Guddle. The IP address will be the same, but if I start from scratch, you (CP) will hopefully send me a confirmation code which I can send on its way (rejoicing or not) and I will be legitimate, so to speak. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:50, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:You can get a free email address from Yahoo. Send me an email from your new account when you're set up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:54, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

No, Alan...get at me on AIM if you have it, mine is on my user page. You need to fill in the box on your preferences here, AND check the box below, to the right! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:37, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

==Re Buglar's "debate"==

Bugler; I would qualify for banishment. I am a non-believer in your brand of faith. I also consider myself to be pretty middle of the road in social and political matters, being conservative in some issues and left of centre in others, but certainly do not consider myself Conservative. (In other words I am normal.) I am neither American nor British. I follow the tenets of Christ's teaching and the Commandments without any of the trappings nor the passionate narrowness of orthodoxy of belief that says "we are always right and everyone else is always wrong". I do not attend a church. Too many good and wonderful people have died because that. I am known as a "man of goodwill". I know there are many others like me in Cp. I joined for the sake of the homeschoolers and others who I thought, in my vanity it now seems, might benefit from the breadth of my knowledge and my desire to share it.

Except for a long break enforced by ill-health, I have been editing since early May last year. I work at giving articles in my chosen fields, of a substance that I would have found useful in my teens when I was starting my love affair with history and classical music half a century ago. I believe passionately in historical veracity - and as much as anyone I have repaired the fun and games of historical parodists and mistakes as I have found them. (I fixed two blatant pieces of misinformation yesterday…both well over a year old.)
Go through my edits and you will see what I mean. I am actually trying to create a viable encyclopedia.

I know I am blowing my own trumpet, Bugler (um), but there is a reason - there are a lot of us here that are doing this sort of graft, many of whom would qualify for banishment under your “proposal”. More and more, Conservapedia is becoming a blog, and less “The Trustworthy Encyclopedia” – your proposal would finish that process.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:14, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

== Notice ==

We need to close night editing early tonight. Hope to see you early tomorrow morning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:29, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

== Portuguese names ==

Ok, I will review some of the Portuguese names. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 20:47, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
==Trade winds==
You're welcome...BTW, be sure to make comments on people's TALK page, the user page is for personal use. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 10:26, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

== Composers ==

Be my guest. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:22, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks...you may notice Chabrier has just arrived. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:27, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Strauss ==

Some works are now lost. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:20, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

== I hope you enjoyed your breakfast ==

I was not implying that you did not contribute to this encyclopaedia and apologise for giving that impression. The guilt lies elsewhere. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:33, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, I did. And thank you for this note.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:08, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Schumann ==

What is wrong with the pic?
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:45, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Oh 'ell! Sorry! I think I must have edited an old page. Um. If you want to revert it to your last edit, I'll do my last edit again in the morning....''Carefully'' this time. Sorry again. Gulp. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:23, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

== Sergei Prokofiev ==

Good work. Clap, Clap...!

Only a favor; Please save the valuable material that is already posted. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:32, 30 September 2008 (EDT
::Why? I made sure everything of value was transferred into my post. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:52, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

== Alfred Schnittke ==

How about an article on Alfred Schnittke?

You may use if you like: http://home.wanadoo.nl/ovar/schnopus.htm

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:48, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

::That's one from left field! I have some of his, but usually paired with Shostakovitch and the like. Viola I think. I'll have a go. Not today. I'm already late with the day's chores.
:::And I want you to think about the Prokofiev page. The double up looks a bit silly, seeing as pretty-well all the information parts of your edit are now repeats of mine. I may be back before 2pm (my time) but I doubt it. (You don't want to have a word with Andy about that do you?) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:28, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::The repeated pieces could be just a few but not all, and users sometimes prefer to have the cake sliced. So my advice is to have that section as it is now. I admire your work and hope this will encourage you to do your best. Andy, I am sure will be glad to hear from you, please go ahead. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:54, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

::::Ok and G'morning. (It's too early to say g'day.) Give me a few days to listen to Schnittke. He's not the sort the family would like to have filling the house at all hours so I have to be on my own. He's not easy listening, but neither is Shostakovitch whom I adore!
BTW. The "''...will encourage you to do your best''" is a tad off. I left school nearly 50 years ago!
Cheers. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:26, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==Brit==
Hehe, I was hoping that no one would notice me attempting to change the British spellings. Good thing you didn't rev the whole edit. o.O [[User:NathanG|Nate]] [[User_talk:NathanG|my opinion matters?]] 15:02, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:I was in the middle of a grump when the above came in. And why shouldn't I have a bet each way on refering/referring? BTW...what was the point of putting a single very alone reference under "References"? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:12, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

==Monarchs==
Thanks for taking up the challenge to complete the red-links in the English Monarchs navbar. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 14:20, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

:I'll get there in the end...I'm on other things for a while (suffering from a surfeit of Ethels) but I'll be back to them. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:30, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

==Redirects==

I commented on the music page you edited, but just so you know, it's always better to link to the actual page (where possible) than to link to a redirect, just because redirects can be broken, and they are harder to fix then straight links. That is, if the National Association of How To spell set out a new rule that Bach should be spelled Back, you can make one change (on the actual page with the data), and not have to worry about all the redirects. otherwise, you manually have to rewrite a bunch of redirect pages. It does mean spelling out the whole name "J.S. Bach|Bach", but in the long run, it's "better". Or so the world says. grins. --JeanJacques 18:04, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

== Christopher Wren ==

Thank you! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:20, 2 November 2008 (EST)

:I was thinking about the big gap between 2nd and 14th centuries overnight...but all I could remember was Henry Yvele (or Yevele) who did some of the Perpendicular stuff. (Canterbury Cathedral at least.) I think he was 14th century though. I will chase down the fella who built Edward I's Welsh castles - he's in the back of my mind somewhere but refuses to peek out. I have half a mind on it whilst I do private stuff. If I think of anyone I'll put it on the "Famous Architects" talk page. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 13:36, 2 November 2008 (EST)

:: Please do. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:46, 2 November 2008 (EST)
:::I have already...[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:51, 2 November 2008 (EST)

== !!!! ==

Oi!

Leave my edit to scottish monarchs alone, i put the link around the dates for a reason you know!!!!
thanks a lot for making me loads of extra work! :( --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 16:11, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Or shall i put it simply, LEAVE IT ALONE!!! (i know about your work on some scottish monarchs, and i agknowledge them, dont worry.) --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 16:17, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:Smile and say please when you say that. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:31, 5 November 2008 (EST)

:: -sigh- :) --[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 16:34, 5 November 2008 (EST)

::: I aim to have this list complete by the end of the week , so please dont interfere until the list is complete, then please (note: please) do either tell me on my talk page, or on the scotland talk page if you want to take bits off it, thanks--[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 16:39, 5 November 2008 (EST)

==List==

====Monarchs of Scotland====
*[[Malcolm II]] (1005-1034)
*[[Duncan I]] (1034-1040)
*[[Macbeth]] (1040-1057)
*[[Malcolm III (1057-1093)
*[[Donald Bane]] (1093-1094)
*[[Duncan II]] (1094)
*[[Donald Bane]] (1094-1097)
*[[Edgar]] (1097-1107)
*[[Alexander I]] (1107-1124)
*[[David I]] (1124-1153)
*[[Malcolm IV]] (1153-1195)
*[[William (The Lion)]] (1165-1214)
*[[Alexander II]] (1214-1249)
*[[Alexander III]] (1249-1286)
*Margaret ([[Maid of Norway]]) (1286-1290)
*[[John Baliol]] (1292-1296)
*Robert I (Robert Bruce]]) (1306-1329)
*[[David II]] (1329-1371)
'''House Of Stuart'''
*[[Robert II]] (1371-1390)
*[[Robert III]] (1390-1406)
*[[James I]] (1406-1437)
*[[James II]] (1437-1460)
*[[James III]] (1460-1488)
*[[James IV]] (1488-1513)
*[[James V]] (1513-1542)
*[[Mary Queen of Scots]] (1542-1567)
*[[James VI]] (1567-1625) ([[James I]] of England (1603-1625)

The problem now is I can't seem to link Edgar...It may need an official disambiguation page. If I were more computer literate..... [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:36, 9 November 2008 (EST)

== Don't pollute a talk page ==

Don't pollute a talk page with a personal attack, like what you just did on [[Talk:Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:54, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:I quote:''We are trying to build an encyclopedia here. Either help out or get out of the way, HGridley. You might find more people who think you are funny on a liberalpedia, if one exists.''

''The only truly funny thing about your note is that you call them "cantidates", which is a true record of how liberals treat Black Americans -- telling them "You can't, so depend on the government to do so for you." BHarlan 18:29, 10 November 2008 (EST)''

In my eyes, that is also a personal attack. I also consider that BHarlan's edits are, in the main, not particularly encyclopedic. That is my opinion only of course. I suppose I get a bit crabby at people who come and spend nearly all their time on variations on the same theme whilst I am getting up at four in the morning to find the time to do what I do here...which is 99point something per cent true encyclopedic. Can you deny I am trying to actually build an encyclopedia. If you think I am unproductive then ban me. if you agree I am productive then please give me at least some of the same leeway you extend to those you agree with. Cheers[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:26, 10 November 2008 (EST)

: AlanE, in hockey the third person who enters a fight is ejected. You jumped into a dispute with your own personal attack. Don't pollute a talk page like that.

: Moreover, BHarlan's comment was informative and appropriate. I found HGridley's prior comment to be offensive, despite my warning.

: Your substantive edits are appreciated. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 10 November 2008 (EST)

::And don't feel bad about being singled out as a 'polluter'. Often we choose to speak to the person who has shown the greatest maturity, so a person who is already setting a good example can show an even better one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:00, 30 November 2008 (EST)

== Clausell ==

Thank you!

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:54, 14 November 2008 (EST)

== Artists ==

Done, thanks. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:22, 20 November 2008 (EST)
:Thank ''you''! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:30, 20 November 2008 (EST)

:: AlanE, please, who are those two great composers that are left? I am planing to have two composers sections to have classical along. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:23, 21 November 2008 (EST)

:::Brahms and Handel are usually considered right up there at the top.
:Film composers are a funny breed...they use the classical idiom, but its usually up to a century old. The battle scene at the start of "Gladiator" is so much like "Mars" from "The Planets" that it must be a template. The last battle in "Troy" harks back to the "Battle on the Ice" scene in Prokofiev's "Alexander Nevsky". The main phrase in the scene where Superman takes Lois for a fly in the first Superman movie, is a direct pinch from a phrase near the end of Richard Strauss' "Death and Transfiguration". They are very good at their job, but they are not "great" composers in the true sense of the word. Good, if not great composers have written film scores of course...Prokofiev, Shostakovich, William Walton, Vaughan Williams, Copland, Korngold, etc. (And did you know that the first music written specifically for a film was by Saint Saens?) but they were classical composers before they went near films.

Cole Porter, Gershwin, Berlin, Mercer, etc. were great but they were not "classical". They need their own classification. When popular composers try and write something classical (like Meredith Wilson's symphonies, or Leroy Anderson's piano concerto) it never quite gets there. I can think of only one who sits comfortably as a true classical composer whilst feted also in the popular idiom and that Leonard Bernstein. I will now go back into my hole. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:02, 21 November 2008 (EST)

:: Thank you for your reply. I like Brahms and Händel, but are they as famous as Chopin? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:14, 22 November 2008 (EST)

G'morning, Joaquín. Chopin wrote just for the piano. Apart from a couple of piano concertos and a cello sonata that is all he is known for....solo piano music. Some of the best ever written and much of it of an emotional intensity that can grab you. And for that - as well as for a strange sort of relationship with a strange sort of woman (George Sands) - he has grabbed the imagination of the public's attention (and Hollywood's) as one of the "great" composers. Which he is...''for the piano''.

Handel is known as one of the top 2 high baroque composers. People say "Bach and Handel" in the one breath - he is that good. Completely different in temperament and style in his output of course - he made and lost fortunes writing for the stage. But posterity owes him as much for his concerti grossi, organ concertos, chamber works, the two suites for augmented military band that have come down to us as the ''Water Music'' and ''Fireworks Music'' (one of which caused the first recorded traffic jam in history) his anthems and other church music, keyboard music - the lot. He is a part of every British coronation: and Christmas and Easter would not be the same in the English speaking countries without the enumerable ''Messiahs'' popping up, not only in concert halls but churches and town halls, and parks - many of them amateur productions. Grass roots stuff. I bet you that you can hum more Handel tunes than any other classical composer. He is part of the fabric of western culture right down to the farmer who turns up at his church hall to rehearse a bit of Handel for the service on Sunday.

As is Brahms, but in a different way. Brahms ain't "popular". Just great. When I say popular I mean amongst the general classical-illiterate public. And he is not for the young....you seem to grow into Brahms with age. He is recognised, though, as one of the truly great composers of "pure music"; that is music not written to a program. He is also considered the true symphonic heir to Beethoven. Like Bach and Handel mark the peak of the high baroque, and Beethoven the classical era, Brahms represents the pinnacle of the Romantic period. After him the movement started breaking up. He wrote four of the 20 great symphonies, two of the twenty great piano concertos, one of the top 4 violin concertos; he is one of the top 5 most popular writers of chamber music. His "Requiem" is in the top 5. He is one of the top four 19th century song composers. Pianists enjoy his many short piano pieces. He is second to none as a writer of "variations". When he died there was a state funeral and procession through the streets of Vienna attended by foreign heads of state...not to mention scores of thousands of ordinary citizens.

Are you sorry you asked? If you're going to hit me at 4:30 in the morning with something close to my heart.... :-) [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:06, 22 November 2008 (EST)

: Excellent Alan, a very rich dissertation! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:38, 23 November 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks again! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:37, 1 December 2008 (EST)

== Ship ==

Done, it has been a pleasure my friend! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:55, 8 December 2008 (EST)

== Happy Holiday ==

The same to you my dear friend. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:34, 19 December 2008 (EST)

== Merry Christmas! ==

Merry Christmas!----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 07:02, 25 December 2008 (EST)>>>
:....And to you, Philip. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 13:22, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== Categories ==

Please only use the subcategory and not the categories above it when applying categories to articles. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:28, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Virginity pledge

2008-12-31T05:25:54Z

Learn together:

==December 2008 Study counters statements given==
According to a December, 2008 study conducted by the American Association of Pediatrics and Harvard University and published in the journal ''Pediatrics'' the statements given by the Heritage foundation are not statistically accurate. The study showed that 5 years after taking the pledge

*82% Denied taking the pledge
*Pledgers and non-pledgers did not differ in rates of premarital sex, STDs, or oral/anal intercourse rates
*Total partners over the previous year was only 0.1 fewer for pledgers, but over the course of a life time, pledgers and non-pledgers had the same rates of sexual partners

More over, the study showed that pledgers had significantly riskier sex in that birth control rates were much lower than non-pledgers

Sources: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20081229/virginity-pledge-doesnt-stop-teen-sex
Rosenbaum, J. Pediatrics, January 2009; vol 123: e110-e120.

I wait for approbation prior to adding this to the actual article. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:That was not a new study; it simply relooked at the data that already existed and started with a population of only all virgins instead of the total pool of teenagers. It was set up to reach its conclusions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)

The WebMD article states

<blockquote>
In this study, researchers compared the sexual behavior of 289 teenagers who reported taking a virginity pledge in a 1996 national survey to 645 non-pledgers who were matched on more than 100 factors, such as religious beliefs and attitudes toward sex and birth control.
</blockquote>

It does not state that they were all virgins. The researchers used the same data as heritage foundation and older studies, but applied different statistical methods to reveal other trends. This is at least worth mentioning. We cannot claim to be balanced and trustworthy if we do not show all information related to the subject and allow the user to determine his opinion, to do otherwise is intellectually dishonest. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:46, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:Andras is correct. The goal was to answer the question "If you are inclined towards abstinence, does taking a virginity pledge help achieve that purpose?". The point of this analysis, then was study was to do a true "apples to apples" study by starting with a subset of kids inclined towards abstinence to begin with (instead of including those who were sexually active for example). By tracking the outcome over a five-year period, the analysis was able to conclude (from this population, anyway), that taking a virginity pledge was not effective in preventing or significantly postponing sexual activity. The other key finding is that the pledge-breakers were less likely to use birth control or take precautions against STDs. That made perfect sense, because they were more likely to be raised in homes and environments where that information was not made available to them.

:I know this is not the type of finding that CP wants to talk about, but it's still the truth and has to be acknowledged as such. If it can happen to Sarah Palin's daughter, it can happen to any child of conservative parents. However, that doesn't mean people should give up trying to encourage abstinence - the value of acknowledging these findings is that we now have a challenge ''to find more effective approaches'' than relying on virginity pledges, that's all. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:02, 30 December 2008 (EST)

DinsdaleP has once again found a more eloquent and effective way of communicating what I was trying to say. Thank you Dinsdale! Perhaps my wording was a bit off and too generalizing. I think with a few edits to the wording to stress a)the purpose of the study b)the population used c)the impact of the study that this will be a useful contribution to the CP infostock. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 14:13, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:The difficulty is that the original study was for those who pledged to wait until marriage -- regardless of past choices. They are then compared to those who actually had not had sexual relations. The comparison is apples and oranges. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:41, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Can you please define "original study" (meaning the heritage study or...?) as well as what is being compared in your mind. As DinsdaleP states, the study addressed the effectiveness of virginity pledges in a population that was inclined towards abstinence. One can decide individually if a high failure rate of virginity pledges in an already abstinence-prone population would suggest a high failure rate for all populations. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 15:19, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:The study used by the authors who arrived at different conclusions broke out people into two different groups. Those who wished to make a pledge to refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage and those who did not. Of course using that criteria there was a strong difference between the groups. The recent retabulation only took those who didn't make the pledge and had never been sexually active -- a variable not contained for those who chose to make the pledge. They never consider that students may have taken the pledge that had a past history of sexual activity. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:56, 30 December 2008 (EST)

The new study's entire population consists of teenagers who describe themselves as leaning towards abstinence, regardless of prior sexual activity. It then split that abstinence leaning population into those who took a pledge and those who did not. Between those groups there it was shown that the virginity pledgers not only did not have lower rates of sexual intercourse 5 years later, but that they engaged in riskier sex. Thus the study shows that within the population of teens who already favor an abstinence stance, virginity pledges do not lower reversion to sexual behavior. Again I state that one can imagine how effective virginity pledges would be in a population that does not explicitly define itself as leaning towards abstinence. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:43, 30 December 2008 (EST)

:The group for those who had not taken the pledge was specifically those who had not had intercourse. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/28/AR2008122801588.html] I should point out that Virginity pledges generally make no similar designation. Teens are encouraged to make the pledge even if they are 'born-again' virgins. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:09, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::Out of a larger sample of 7th through 12th graders who were surveyed in 1995, 1996, and 2001, 3440 students were identified who: 1) As of the 1995 survey, were virgins and had not taken a virginity pledge. 2) Were over 15. 3) Had participated in all 3 surveys.
::''From that group of 3440,'' 289 were identified who took a virginity pledge between 1995 and 1996. ''From the remaining 3151'', 645 students were selected who ''most closely'' matched the 289 (by 128 criteria!) ''at the time of the first survey, not the second.'' The assumption is that whatever differences appeared between the two groups at the second and third surveys are related to the virginity pledge and/or whatever made those children take that pledge (a AOSE course, a church group, peer pressure, etc.).
::Both the pledge and nonpledge group had specifically not had intercourse as of the ''first'' survey. Pledgers did not have to be virgins at the time of the ''second'' survey in order to be included in the 'pledge' group - that group may (or may not) have included 'born-again' virgins. The study found that the behavior of the pledgers did not differ from that of the closely matched nonpledgers except insofar as the pledgers were less likely to use methods of pregnancy and STD prevention.
::It should also be noted that the pledgers and matched nonpledgers, combined, were more sexually conservative than the remaining 2506 students in the subsample - but this is to be expected. The mass-media reports of this study have unsurprisingly underemphasized that the study was comparing sexually conservative pledgers with sexually conservative non-pledgers, not with ''all'' nonpledgers.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:11, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::Where are you getting your information that the virginity pledge adherents had not had previous sexual intercourse. I haven't explicity seen this. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:25, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2008-12-31T04:34:22Z

Learn together: /* Results of the Surge on casualties and terrorist attacks */

'''Operation Iraqi Freedom''' is the largest of several active fronts in the ongoing [[War on Terrorism]]. Other fronts include [[Afghanistan]], [[Philippines]], and the [[Horn of Africa]]. Operation Iraqi Freedom began on 3 March 2003 with the removal of the [[Ba'athist]] regime of [[Saddam Hussein]] by a "Coalition of the Willing" led by the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>. An interim government, Constitutional Assembly, and later an elected Parliament and Executive have assumed authority, however sectarian insurgent violence has hindered stability and reconstruction efforts by US contractors and the new government. Iraq's new Constitution strictly limits the emergency powers of the Executive in dealing with civil strife--a post Saddam democratic reform.

President [[George W. Bush]] and Senator [[John McCain]] are among the strongest proponents of Operation Iraq Freedom, and support continuing it until a sustained democracy is in place that can repel terrorism on its own.

==Background To Regime Change==

In the post-[[9/11]] analysis to determine discontent in the Islamic world that had produced a flurry of dedicated suicide [[jihad]]ists, the twelve year old UN imposed sanctions imposed upon Iraq and the resultant humanitarian crisis was one such often cited reason.<ref>Chris Suellentrop, [http://slate.msn.com/id/1008414/ Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?], Slate, Oct. 9, 2001.</ref><ref>Norman Bauman, [http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/wtc.htm Why they hate us: "Stopping cancer treatments will not topple a dictatorship"], 14 October 2001.</ref><ref>Michael Rubin, [http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue4/jv5n4a6.htm Sanctions on Iraq: A Valid Anti-American Grievance?], Middle East review of International Affairs, Volume 5, No. 4 - December 2001.</ref><ref>Matt Welch, [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html The Politics of Dead Children: Have sanctions against Iraq murdered millions?], Reason Magazine, March 2002.</ref><ref>Alan W. Dowd, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_3_33/ai_109580224 Thirteen Years of Causes and Consequences for the Was in Iraq], Parameters, Autumn, 2003.[http://www.ciaonet.org/special_section/iraq_review/pi_epy/pi_epy_02.html]</ref> After the Gulf War of 1991 the United States kept troops permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend against an Iraqi invasion of the Kingdom. In the findings of the the 9/11 Commission Report for example, in a section entitled, ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'', referring to Osama bin Laden's motivations for his Declaration of War and attack on the United States, the Commission found the following:
:He inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.<ref>9/11 Commission Report[http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf ''The Foundation of the New Terrorism'']</ref>

Saddam had taken advantage of corruption in both the [[United Nations]] Secretariat and [[Security Council]] to revive the Iraqi economy after the 1991 [[Gulf War]] through the [[Oil for Food]] program, nevertheless few of the intended beneficiaries of these alleged UN humanitarian efforts saw the intended relief. Meanwhile, Saddam kept intact the "intellectual capital" or "know-how" to revive [[weapons of mass destruction]] (WMD) programs which were credited with ensuring the survival of the Ba'athist regime in both the 1980-1988 War with Iran, and preventing a US overthrow of the regime in 1991. As the 90s progressed and the millennium changed, Saddam's top priority was ending the sanctions, and then a full resumption of operational WMD programs. <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf Regime Strategic Intent], Duelfer Report, 2004.</ref>
[[Image:Dynamicduo.JPG|right|thumb|300px|Sen. Hillary Clinton was a leading spokesperson in the bipartisan decision to commit troops to Iraq.]]
Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]], addressing a gathering of the radical anti-war group [[Code Pink]] spoke from her own knowledge and experience,
{{Cquote|'''There is a very easy way for to prevent anyone from being put into harms way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. I just have to respectfully disagree what the proximate cause of any action that might be taken is. …For now nearly 20 years the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered is because of his leadership. His not only tyrannical and dictatorial leadership, but his reign of terror against women and children.''' <ref>[http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD]</ref> }}

Egyptian President [[Hosni Mubarek]] and Libyan [[Socialist]] General Secretary [[Muammar Gaddafi]] in negotiations with [[Saddam Hussein]] relayed a message through Italian Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] and Spanish President [[Jose Maria Aznar]] to UK Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] and US President [[George W. Bush]] that Saddam would be willing to avoid removal by force and voluntarily go into exile, provided Saddam was allowed to take $1 billion dollars and "all the information he wants about [[weapons of mass destruction]]." <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/09/saddam_risked_his_life_for_wmd_1.asp Saddam Risked His Life for WMD Secrets], ''WeeklyStandard.com. Spetember 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003646639 Scoop for Spanish Daily: Transcript of Private 2003 Bush Talk Promising Iraq Invasion], ''Editor & Publisher'', September 26, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414.html Report Says Hussein Was Open To Exile Before 2003 Invasion], He Is Said to Have Sought $1 Billion and Information on Arms, By Karen DeYoung and Michael Abramowitz, ''[[Washington Post]], September 27, 2007; Page A17.</ref><ref>[http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Llego/momento/deshacerse/Sadam/elpepunac/20070926elpepinac_1/Tes Llegó el momento de deshacerse de Sadam], ''El Pais'', 26/09/2007. (In Spanish).</ref> For 12 years, the international community gave Saddam chance after chance, Saddam defied it all including WMD declarations. Dozens of [[UN]] resolutions and mandated sanctions failed to persuade Saddam's grip on power. In 1998, the course for present day Iraq began in earnest. President Clinton signed into law H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act. This act declares that it should be the policy of the [[United States]] to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

==Arguments For Regime Change==

The concern which has led to this front on the War on Terror was summarized by Raymond S. Kraft in his "Historical Review of the Iraq Situation" <ref> http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/03/historical_revi.html </ref> He states, quote: "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so. France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan. These weapons were paid for with billions of dollars that Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The militant Muslim Jihadis believe that a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world; and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation. If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East and the OPEC oil. The US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge." (end of quote)

What the West decided to do was help the Reformation side win. To do that the West had to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist movements. The battle had to happen somewhere, and since the West could not fight everywhere at once, the West chose to create a focal point for the battle, in Iraq. Mr Kraft went on to summarize what the West did and is doing which is important in Iraq, quote:

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is or was a terrorist, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. This has focused the battle. The ones killed there won't have to be killed here, or somewhere else. We have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The Europeans could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihadist, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam have a million tons of weapons?

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it (or are defeated by it), whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons unless WE prevent them.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting and winning it will be horrifically greater. The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes - cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas. Ideas about what society and civilization should be like. The most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

Today, in Iraq, the stakes are high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . . or a world dominated by the radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihadist under the Mullahs and the Sharia. The Liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. But if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy. If the Jihad wins, it will be the death of Liberalism. (end of quote)

Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] said in a floor speech on October 10, 2002,

{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. <ref>[http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq], United States Senate, October 10, 2002. </ref>}}

==Liberation From Ba'athist Tyranny==
[[Image:Qwwqqe.jpg|thumb|right|An Iraqi Army unit prepares to board a Task Force Baghdad UH-60 Blackhawk [[helicopter]] for a counterinsurgency mission in Baghdad.]]

After the decapitation of the Ba'athist leadership from the military under its command in April 2003, President Bush said in his address:
*Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html]

Other comments from President Bush's May 1, 2003 speech <ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html </ref> show that the context of these victory comments include warnings to Americans of an ongoing struggle to establish Iraqi democracy and counter the threat of terrorism. Quotes, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The [[proliferation]] of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory." <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/12386 </ref>

Many Iraqis welcomed the American invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and in the preceding months, showed optimism about their country's future. An 'American Enterprise'-'Wall Street Journal'-'Zogby' poll in September 2003 found that "Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better."<ref>[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003991 What Iraqis Really Think], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Furthermore, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, the BBC found that Iraqis have great hope in a stable, unified government for their country, with 80% of respondents favoring a centralized state ruled from Baghdad. <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm Survey finds hope in occupied Iraq]</ref> From 2004 to before the surge, the unceasing violence by the insurgents had caused some people (mainly in the West) to refer to the ongoing strife as a 'civil war'. <ref> [http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86201/james-d-fearon/iraq-s-civil-war.html Iraq's Civil War], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>
Since the surge, this has ceased as 60-80% of the violence has been stopped. On Sat Feb 16, 2008 reuters reported, "Attacks by insurgents and rival sectarian militias have fallen up to 80 percent in Baghdad. The U.S. military says attacks have fallen across Iraq by 60 percent since June on the back of security clampdowns and the deployment of 30,000 extra American troops." <ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080216/ts_nm/iraq_dc </ref>
[[Image:Bagpipe.jpg|left|thumb|400px|Proposed Baghdad reconstruction Plan]]
2007 - Four years into the war, the biggest poll since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003 showed that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis preferred the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security situation and a lack of public services. It also revealed that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis did not believe they were embroiled in a civil war; indeed, only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war and 64% of the Iraqis still wanted to see a united Iraq under a central national government. <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

ABC News (and USA Today) conducted a poll <ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1033aIraqpoll.pdf PDF Iraq Poll], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>and found that 56 percent of Iraqis did not believe there was a “civil war,” and a British poll determined 61 percent did not believe they were in a civil war. The Times of London's summary of the poll: “Iraqis: life is getting better." <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece Iraqis: life is getting better], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: “It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.” <ref>[http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21404747-2703,00.html It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

On January 21, 2008 there was a report about a cache of documents discovered in the fall of 2007 by U.S. forces in the northern Iraqi town of Sinjar. It gave the individual records of 606 foreign fighters who entered Iraq between August 2006 and August 2007 saying, "Based on the Sinjar records, U.S. military officials in Iraq said they now think that nine out of 10 suicide bombers have been foreigners, compared with earlier estimates of 75 percent. Similarly, they assess that 90 percent of foreign fighters entering Iraq during the one-year period ending in August came via Syria, a greater proportion than previously believed. Although Saudi Arabia was by far the most common country of origin of foreign fighters, with about 40 percent of the total, a surprising share -- 19 percent -- came from Libya. Overall, about 40 percent were North African." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/20/AR2008012002609.html </ref> This certainly justifies these poll results where Iraqis stated that many of the attacks against the Iraqi populace are the work of foreign forces rather than out of the Iraqi population (civil war).

==Insurgency==
Since the removal of Saddam, Iraq has seen the rise of sectarian violence between [[Sunni]] Muslims and [[Shia]] Muslims. To many Sunnis, the US has been viewed suspiciously because it supports the democratically elected Shia majority rule. Though a minority, the Sunni have traditionally ruled Iraq and view themselves entitled to continue the privilege of doing so. There are also some intractable Sunni whose interpretation of Muslim law says that the Shia are considered heretics and thus not fit to lead the nation.

The Shia majority, notably the [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]], have had militant factions who have not only attacked Sunni Muslims but have also attacked American and other coalition troops even while the coalition has been protecting the democratically elected Shia from Sunni attacks. Other Shia groups that have not attacked coalition forces have pursued their own factional aims while relying on the US to ensure Shia majority rule instead of seeking unity and a cohesive and representatively fair national political structure, which has hampered political progress and reconciliation efforts. <ref> Testimony of Edward N. Luttwak, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate , Hearings on [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Securing America's Interest in Iraq], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>

However, as reported on May 31, 07, in the article "US Eyes Cease-Fires End Violence in Iraq" the No. 2 American commander Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said he thinks 80 percent of Iraqis — including Sunni insurgents and Shia militants — can reach reconciliation with each other. "We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces. I believe there are elements that are irreconcilable, but I believe the large majority are. I believe about 80 percent are reconcilable, both [[Jaysh Al-Madhi]] as well as Sunni insurgents." <ref> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/national/w114445D86.DTL </ref>

With 80% of the violence ended, the united government of Iraq will be much more able to fight the remaining intractable 20% of fighters left - including the foreign and imported terrorist entity Al-Qaeda with its recruits.

===Propaganda===

Since the invasion in 2003, both Shiite and Sunni clerics have been repeating over and over again that the Americans and their mostly "[[Christian]]" allies are in Iraq to destroy [[Islam]] in its cultural heartland as well as to steal the country’s oil. The clerics dismiss all talk of [[democracy]] and [[human rights]] by the invaders as mere hypocrisy--except for [[women’s rights]], which are promoted in earnest, the clerics say, to induce Iraqi daughters and wives to dishonor their families by aping the shameless disobedience of Western women.

At first, a majority of Iraqis believed these religious leaders. The alternative was difficult for them to believe--that foreigners have been unselfishly expending their own blood and treasure to help them. Some polls and incidents demonstrate to insurgents that Americans are out to rob Muslim Iraqis not only of their territory and oil, but also of their religion and even their family honor. The most visible effects of these sentiments were the deadly attacks, the aiding and abetting of such attacks, and celebration by impromptu crowds of spectators. When the victims are members of the Iraqi police or National Guard, bystanders, family members, and local clerics routinely accused the Americans of being the attackers--usually by missile strikes that cleverly simulate car-bombs. As to why the Americans would want to kill Iraqis they are themselves recruiting, training, and paying, no explanation was offered, because no obligation was felt to unravel each and every sub-plot of the dark "Christian conspiracy" against Iraq, the Arab world, and Islam. <ref>Luttwak Testimony, [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf Committee on Foreign Relations,]U.S. Senate, pgs. 6-7.</ref>

One key to the success which has now spread all across Iraq and caused a drop in violence in Iraq by 60-80% <ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080216/ts_nm/iraq_dc </ref> is the willingness of the Sunnis to take back their country from the insurgent violence. In an article February 10, 2008 called, "U.S. Military Says Seized Docs Show Al Qaeda in Iraq Is Weakened" it states, "A diary and another document seized during U.S. raids show some Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders fear the terror group is crumbling, with many fighters defecting to American-backed neighborhood groups."

The reason for this shift, "the author describes an Al Qaeda in crisis, with citizens growing weary of militants' presence and foreign fighters too eager to participate in suicide missions rather than continuing to fight, "We lost cities and afterward, villages... We find ourselves in a wasteland desert," Smith quoted the document as saying. The memo — believed to have been written in summer 2007 — cites militants' increasing difficulty in moving around and transporting weapons and suicide belts because of better equipped Iraqi police and more watchful citizens, Smith said."

The populace of Iraq has rejected the extremist viewpoint and are now willing to stand up and do what it takes to get peace in the country for themselves and their future. The article further states, "The diary, seized by U.S. troops south of Balad, was written in autumn 2007 by Abu Tariq, who refers to himself as sector leader for al-Qaida in Iraq, Smith said. Tariq wrote that he was once in charge of 600 fighters, but only 20 were left "after the tribes changed course" — a reference to how many Sunni tribesmen have switched sides to fight alongside the Americans, Smith said. The new organizations, called awakening councils or neighborhood watch groups, were key to helping push Al Qaeda in Iraq out of Anbar province, once one of the country's most violent. The terror network's top leaders are now based somewhere in northern Iraq, Smith said, having moved out of Anbar and into Diyala province last year.<ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330235,00.html </ref>

The indomitable spirit of the Iraqis has been put to the test and is prevailing against their enemies as they stand up for their country and reject the extremist view and their brutal ways (including torture) which are documented in the next section.

Most U.S. media companies have a significant stake in shaping the view of this conflict with the American public. Propaganda by U.S. media companies reported a common theme; advocating American failure and defeat in Iraq. As the conflict raged, the American public was given large doses of negative reporting for four years. During 2007, General Petraeus got approval and implemented the 'Surge' strategy for securing Bagdad. Result, deaths and bombings by militias, rogue bandits and terror cells have significantly decreased. Success was rarely reported including the 'Surge' progress. No longer the chance of a failed state along with an extraordinary decrease in violence, U.S. media reportings on Iraq are now virtually non-existent.

===Al-Qaeda's Use Of Torture===

Key to any insurgency is its ability to have the support of the people, or at least their assent. If the people turn against the insurgency as they now have in Iraq, the insurgents have no basis of operations to hide in and the insurgency crumbles. This is why the insurgents have fled to northern Iraq, as stated above. However, working toward forcing cooperation by the populace, the terrorists in Iraq have used incredible amounts of intimidation - kidnap, torture, threats and murder - to prevent the local Iraqi populace from cooperating with those who will bring them a free and democratic Iraq (the US/Coalition forces and the Democratically aligned Iraqi government forces). From the ordinary Iraqi's point of view, cooperating with those who will bring them freedom can have a high cost. If found out, the media will splash their name all over the papers, making it easy for the terrorists to target them for reprisals. Family members can go missing or they can. They could be tortured or killed.

The great tragedy in the Mainstream Media ([[MSM]]) covering up the inhumane torture methods of the terrorists while trumpeting outrage at the far milder US intimidation techniques (Abu Gharib, etc), is that it hides from public view what risks the Iraqi population must take to cooperate with those who would bring them their freedom. In the article, "Media Totally Ignore Al Qaeda Torture Manual" it says, "Glenn Reynolds this morning pointed out that “Silence is complicity,” while leading the reader to Don Surber’s piece on the subject which went much further in condemning the media boycott (emphasis added): And yet such false stories as the “flushed Koran” got widespread play in the newspapers and on television. We are hearing those awful “Sounds of Silence” that Simon and Garfunkel warned us about. Whether intentional or not, the message is clear: The United States must be above even false reports of torture, while the enemy is allowed to promote eye removal, blowtorching skin and horrors I won’t go into. The handbook shows that the enemy really is perverted; they are sickos who like to torture people. As much as I admire and respect John McCain’s war service, he is wrong when he says our interrogation methods encourage the enemy to torture our people. The enemy was torturing and beheading people well before 9/11."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/13002</ref>

Apart from brief mentions on Fox News and CNN, reports on this issue in the days prior or subsequent have been few. As a result, the populace of the US sees daily news coverage of just how ruthless the insurgents are in their attacks upon the populace in the way of guns and bombs, but are not given substantive evidence of the intimidation (torture) which the Iraqi people face. And it is this torture and intimidation which was the direct cause of slowing US progress, hampering the swift end of the insurgency in Iraq. Thinking that the people of Iraq support the insurgency and are not merely being intimidated by them, the US populace has been impatient for instant progress and their support for the Iraqi people obtaining their freedom from such a ruthless enemy waned. As a result - before the success of the surge, the drop in violence and the standing up of the Iraqis against this intimidation - US support for the war dropped significantly and many discouraged American people turned to supporting the anti-American sentiments of the far left saying America should pull the troops from Iraq.

CNN Headline News anchor Glenn Beck stated "[If the United States were to withdraw, it] would be America’s most shameful act of immorality since slavery". He added that Democrat Congressional war opponents are "just plain stupid" and "can't see the future." Beck stated that if U.S. forces pull out, a "genocide" will take place that will make Darfur "look like a picnic." For support he turned to Van Hipp, Chairman and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army who said, "Unfortunately, Glenn, I believe you`re right. And I tell you, if we surrender now, I believe you will see a humanitarian catastrophe much like or even worse than the situation in Darfur right now, the death count -- and the estimate right now beginning in a few months, they could be looking at 100,000 deaths a month." <ref> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/24/gb.01.html </ref>

John McCain, on Feb 15, 2008 delineated his position for the continuance of the war effort stated in this article, "Republican frontrunner John McCain drew sharp distinctions with his Democratic White House rivals over Iraq, saying an untimely US withdrawal would bring about "genocide." "Both Senator Obama and Clinton want to set a date for withdrawal. That means chaos. That means genocide," the Arizona senator told CNN's Larry King late Thursday. "That means undoing all the success we've achieved, and Al-Qaeda tells the world they defeated the United States of America. I won't let that happen, as president of the United States."<ref> http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/McCain:_Early_Pullout_Fro/2008/02/15/72973.html
</ref>

==The Surge And Progress In Iraq==



Since the new US-Iraqi offensive was launched in February 2007, anti-government forces have been put on the defensive in their former insurgent stronghold of Anbar, Britain’s top general in Iraq said (March 2007). <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b3fd545e-d70f-11db-b9d7-000b5df10621.html Iraq insurgents ‘on the defensive’], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> The insurgency “didn’t do too well in Anbar . . . Their claims have failed to come to fruition,” he said, referring to the declaration by Islamic radicals that they had established a “caliphate”, or successorship, encompassing much of western Iraq. Lt Gen Lamb said that US and Iraqi forces were recruiting hundreds of police for the first time in towns in the Anbar region and that the forces were working together in shared combat outposts. While conceding that car bomb attacks In Baghdad and a surge of violence in neighboring Diyala had to be addressed, he said that US and Iraqi planners were learning to reduce the threat, establishing an outer cordon around the city as well as barriers, or “point defense” protection around key targets inside. The US military has reported cases in which car bombs have been stopped at checkpoints. In some cases the bombs detonated killing Iraqi security forces, but the casualties would arguably have been much greater had the blasts hit crowded commercial districts. General Lamb, who commanded British ground forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 said that multinational forces now had the benefit of four years of experience in fighting the insurgents.

The increasing pressure from US forces with this Surge strategy has caused Sadr and his commanders flee to Iran as The Guardian reported Feb 15, 07, "Senior commanders of the Mehdi army, the militia loyal to the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, have been spirited away to Iran to avoid being targeted in the new security push in Baghdad, a high-level Iraqi official told the Guardian. "Over the last three weeks, they [Iran] have taken away from Baghdad the first and second-tier military leaders of the Mehdi army," he said. The aim of the Iranians was to "prevent the dismantling of the infrastructure of the Shia militias" in the Iraqi capital -- one of the chief aims of the United States-backed security drive. The chief US military spokesperson in Baghdad said the anti-Western cleric had fled to Iran. US forces were tracking him "very closely", he said.
<ref> http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=299085 </ref>

The Surge is showing signs as a solid strategy which is being used to good effect as Al Jazeera reports that the Baathist terrorists have begun to criticize Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in their article Sunni group condemns Iraq al-Qaeda <ref> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A6EC4EAB-854C-4D2F-A922-754648CDED8D.htm </ref> where it states: "An influential Iraqi Sunni armed group has called on al-Qaeda in Iraq to “review” its behaviour in the country. The Islamic Army in Iraq, believed to be the largest group of former Baathists and army officers fighting Iraqi and US forces, called on Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, to take more responsibility for al-Qaeda in Iraq. “Killing Sunnis has become a legitimate target for them, especially rich ones. Either they pay them what they want or they kill them,” a statement from the group said. “They would kill any critic or whoever tries to show them their mistakes.” Sunni Arab officials have also urged what they call “the real resistance” to disown al-Qaeda and engage in talks with the government to end violence which has driven the country closer to an all-out civil war."

Now, the increasing pressure appears to have caused an actual break in relations between terrorist groups as this April 12, 07 article states, quote, "One of Iraq's main armed groups has confirmed a split with al-Qaeda, according to a spokesman for the dissenting organisation. Ibrahim al-Shammari told Al Jazeera on Thursday that the Islamic Army in Iraq had decided to disunite from al-Qaeda in Iraq after its members were threatened. ".. after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi died, the gap between us [and al-Qaeda] widened, because [they] started to target our members. They killed about 30 of our people, and we definitely don't recognise their establishment of an Islamic state - we consider it invalid." The Islamic Army in Iraq is one of several nationalist groups which opposes hitting Iraqi civilians, but it has carried out high-profile attacks against multinational forces. Al-Shammari said they would be willing to deal with the Americans if certain conditions are met. Al-Shammari said that his group didn't consider US forces to be the main danger in Iraq. "There are two occupations: Iranian and American, and the Iranian one is more dangerous than American because Iran considers Iraq as a part of their country." The Islamic Army in Iraq's statement comes after Iraq's president said the presidential office was in contact with five insurgent groups. Jalal Talabani said on Wednesday that the contacts mark an attempt to bring the groups into the mainstream political process. <ref> http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/16414 </ref>

Additional progress was detailed in "Corps Commander Highlights Progress in Iraq", Apr 13, 2007, where Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of Multinational Corps in Iraq said there has been progress in the security situation in Baghdad. Three of the five promised U.S. brigades are in place in the city, an additional three Iraqi brigade headquarters and 11 additional battalions have moved into Baghdad in support of the operation. Twenty-six joint security stations in Baghdad are manned by Iraqi army, Iraqi police and coalition forces, as are more than 21 combat outposts. "This continuous presence is making the Iraqi people feel safer and has greatly increased the amount of information provided to the Iraqi army, police and coalition forces by the public," Odierno said. Sectarian murders have dropped in Baghdad, and some displaced families are returning to the city. In addition, coalition and Iraqi forces have doubled the number of arms caches found since the beginning of the operation two months ago. Security forces allow citizens to return to a more normal existence. "Across Baghdad, markets are being hardened with checkpoints and barriers, and merchants have returned to sell their produce," he said. "And Iraqis are busy shopping in the markets of Rusafa and Dura, and there are more projects such as these ... that will occur in the near future."

Positive changes are not limited to Baghdad, he said, they are also happening in Anbar province, where coalition and Iraqi security forces are working with local tribal leaders. "The people of al Anbar are fighting back and winning," Odierno said. "They've effectively turned back the tide of al Qaeda, but there will be counterattacks by al Qaeda." The general said there were nine attacks last week in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. "During the same week a year ago, there were over 84 attacks," he said. Odierno said he also sees promise in the northern part of Iraq. Coalition forces there have set up 33 U.S. police transition teams to build law enforcement capability in that region. Oil is flowing out of the Bayji refinery thanks to Iraqi security force efforts to protect distribution tankers. Progress continues in the country's south, as well. "In the south, Operation Black Eagle in Diwaniyah, conducted by joint Iraqi and coalition forces, uncovered a headquarters of a rogue element of Jaysh al-Mahdi, with a major weapons cache including materials for IED-making," he said. Even the demonstrations called by radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr on April 9 to protest the U.S. presence in Iraq are a good sign, Odierno said. "This demonstration took place without incident," he said. "It is worth mentioning three points related to this demonstration. First, the government of Iraq allowed the demonstration to take place, unthinkable under the former regime. Second, the demonstrators waved Iraqi flags rather than black flags or pictures of ayatollahs. And third, the demonstrators numbered no more than 15,000, rather than the one million its organizers called for." <ref> http://www.blackanthem.com/News/International_21/Corps_Commander_Highlights_Progress_in_Iraq5809.shtml </ref>

That being said, anti-democratic and sectarian violence in the war, as expected and predicted by the Bush Administration, is continuing: a recent Al-Qaida attack at the Parliamentary cafeteria killed one, and on April 18 2007, a series of car bombs killed 131 Baghdad residents. <ref>US CENTCOM Press Release, [http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/Lists/Current%20Press%20Releases/DispForm.aspx?ID=4767 131 Dead, More Than 160 Wounded by Multiple Car Bomb Attacks in Baghdad Multi-National Division], Release Number: 07-01-03P, 4/18/2007. </ref>

In the ABC article, "Al-Qaida claims Iraq parliament attack", the U.S. military revised the death toll sharply downward to one dead in the the parliament suicide bombing. Iraqi officials said the bomber was believed to have been a bodyguard for a Sunni lawmaker who was not among the casualties. Parliament officials said the victim was Mohammed Awad, a moderate Sunni lawmaker. Iraqi lawmakers gathered Friday in a rare - and defiant - session of parliament on the Muslim day of prayer. A red and white bouquet sat in Awad's place in the parliament chamber. Lawmakers took the podium one after another to denounce the bombing. One MP had his arm in sling and a woman lawmaker wore a neck brace. "The more they (terrorists) act, the more solid we become. When they take from us one martyr, we will offer more martyrs," Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi said. "The more they target our unity, the stronger our unity becomes." Iraqi parliament speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani said Friday's session was "a clear message to all the terrorists and all those who dare try to stop this (political) process, that we will sacrifice in order for it to continue." <ref> http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=nation_world&id=5205895 </ref>

At a news conference with Defense Secretary Robert Gates (reported Fri Apr 20, 2007), Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obaidi said the Iraqis are making progress in countering the insurgency. "Our need for support is getting less and less each day," al-Obaidi said. Gates said the U.S. troop buildup will continue at least until late summer. "We need some time for things to work," he said. Three of the five extra brigades Bush ordered into Iraq to stem violence have arrived. Officials want the rest in place by June, for a total of 160,000. Soon after that, they will assess how much longer the higher troop level — about 30,000 more than before the buildup — will be needed. Since the troop buildup or "Surge" has not even been completed, it is not surprising that the premature and rash comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying the war was already lost and the troop buildup was not stemming violence in Iraq were rejected by Gates. "I respectfully disagree," Gates said when asked by a reporter about Reid's Thursday remarks. He assured al-Maliki that the U.S. continues to be committed to the Iraqi government and the Baghdad security plan, Gates said.<ref> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gates_iraq </ref>

April 20, 2007 - Iraqi President Nouri al Malaki affirmed the indigenous Iraqi Assyrian Christians' right to have a Province of their own, which could be provided for under the Iraqi Constitution. Malaki was addressing questions concerning the minorities, many of whom are in neighboring countries, including an estimated nearly 500,000 Assyrian Christians. Additionally, Malaki said, "I think it is important to let the world know that things in our country are improving dramatically. Our unemployment rate has gone from nearly 70 percent to now under 30 percent. Our most recent growth rate was 3 percent and we have seen, in particular as a result of the recent Baghdad program, a dramatic drop in so-called sectarian violence. What is particularly encouraging to me is the changes we have seen in our security forces and the trust from our people once again. We are finally seeing individual citizens provide information to our forces, which has changed the situation dramatically in rooting out those who are determined to ruin our country."

Malaki stressed three key goals. National Reconciliation, Economic Development and Expanded Security as the way forward. "In spite of much information to the contrary, we are seeing a return to the Iraq we all once knew when we considered ourselves all Iraqis and not belonging to a particular sect or group," he said. "Recently we have brought back large numbers of former members of the Ba'ath Party who were not involved in any problems in the past and this has significantly helped to bring our people together. Economic development is taking place at a good rate. Part of the reason we are here is to encourage even more investment into our country. The monthly income of our people has gone from about $20 a month to now over $200. The dramatic rise in electrical use is one good sign that the economy is taking off. The stores are full." Describing the current military situation as "moving from sectarian to outside interference," Malaki stressed that the so called Baghdad Plan was working. "We are seeing a dramatic drop in the sectarian conflicts and see our major challenge as that from the outside including Al Quaida and remainders of the Ba'athist groups," he said. "In the end we will be able to take care of ourselves. Meanwhile, we need the help of our friends to stand against those who want to harm us."
<ref> http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2007/s07040107.htm </ref>

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said in a recent interview, that the increase of nearly 30,000 U.S. troops in the country had achieved "modest progress" but had also had setbacks such as a rise in suicide bombings and other problems. Petraeus also stated that he was uncertain whether his counterinsurgency strategy would be ultimately succeed, but he stated "We have certainly pulled [Baghdad] neighborhoods back from the brink." Assessing the first two months of the U.S. and Iraqi plan to pacify the capital, senior American commanders -- including Petraeus; Adm. William Fallon, head of U.S. forces in the Middle East; Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of military operations in Iraq; and top regional commanders -- see mixed results. Critical now, they said in interviews last week, is for Iraqi leaders to forge the political compromises needed for long-term stability. The deployment of additional troops in Baghdad is only 60 percent complete, and a major concern shared by U.S. military leaders is whether al-Maliki's government is capable of solidifying gains in security as well as making the crucial political compromises needed to achieve peace.
<ref> http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/NEWS/70422011</ref>

In an interview of Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak Al-Rubaie aired May 10, 2007, Mr. Rubaie stated, "This is an ideological war. This is a -- a long-term war. This is a war on a global scale. This is a war, if it gets out of control, it will spill over to Europe and America in no time. And it will disturb the oil flow in the Gulf. What happened in Iraq is not something minor and simple, like a coup d'etat or a revolution. What happened is a hurricane. What happened is a huge, major shift, from the old order of 1,000 years of persecution, of dictatorship, of religious supremacy, of prosecuting minorities, to a completely new order, which is called democracy, human rights, accountability, and transparency, and all this. This paradigm shift needs some time. You cannot -- it needs strategic patience. And it needs time. You cannot fit this major shift and the strategic objectives in the election cycle of Washington. You cannot do that."

He went on to note progress and plead for patience, "I think we made a remarkable progress over the last three years. In June 2004, we had only one battalion in the Iraqi army. Now we have 11 divisions. And, in June 2004, we did not have policemen. We did not have national police, local police, an intelligence service. We didn't have anything. Now we have Iraqi security forces, several hundreds of thousands of them. And what we need, we need some refinements, some tuning. We need some training. And we need some equipment and logistical support. We need to build the system within the Iraqi security forces. In a very short period of time, we're going to be self-reliant."

"Take, for example, in Baghdad. Last year, Baghdad was under the command of an American general called General Thurman. And now Baghdad is under the command-and- control of general -- an Iraqi general called General Abboud. And he is commanding and leading and controlling 2.5 Iraqi army division and 11 or 13 Iraqi police, national police, brigades. -- we needed the upsurge, and we need the upsurge to clear some areas of these neighborhoods and to hold them and to build them. When we have this upsurge, let's the best use of it. And let's clear these areas and hold it and build it." <ref> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/10/acd.01.html </ref>

May 12, 2007, "Iraq's top Shi'ite party changes platform" gave the stunning news that "Iraq's biggest Shi'ite party, The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), pledged its allegiance to the country's top Shi'ite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, in a move that would distance it from Shi'ite Iran where it was formed. They said the party had been close to Sistani for some time, but a two-day conference formalised relations with the influential cleric. Officials said the party, which was formed in Iran in the 1980s to oppose Saddam, had previously taken its guidance from the religious establishment of Welayat al Faqih, led by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran. The party then pledged to follow the guidance of the Shi'ite establishment and also said it had introduced significant policy changes and changed its name to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) -- dropping the word "Revolution". <ref> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/tm_headline=iraq-s-top-shi-ite-party-changes-platform&method=full&objectid=19092898&siteid=89520-name_page.html </ref>

This was hailed in the Middle East as a very significant development, stating "The real change of direction and leadership of Iraqi Shiites to Sistani is the greatest victory of the new era of constitutionalism and civility in Iraq. The shifting of Shiite Islam to Najaf, instead of Qum, is a huge change and a direct result of Iraq's freedom that has changed the balance of power in Iraq and Iran. The New York Times-owned Boston Globe reports from Tehran that the influence of Iraqi Shiites is growing even there: "Some Iranians are intrigued by the more freewheeling experiment in Shi'ite empowerment taking place across the border in Iraq, where--Iraq's myriad problems aside--imams can say whatever they want in political Friday sermons, newspapers and satellite channels regularly slam the government, and religious observance is respected and encouraged but not required." <ref> http://www.globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2815&cid=2&sid=38 </ref>

CBS Evening News May 29, 2007 presented, "an exclusive interview, Iraq's Prime Minister tells CBS News the security crackdown is working." The network relayed how, “in his first American television interview since the U.S. troop surge began in February, Iraq's Prime Minister told CBS News today the additional forces here have prevented an even greater catastrophe.” Maliki also disclosed that there have been many victories in breaking up al Qaeda and other militant cells. <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/13073 </ref>

Then on May 31, 07, the article "US Eyes Cease-Fires End Violence in Iraq" added, quote: U.S. military commanders are talking with Iraqi militants about cease-fires and other arrangements to try to stop the violence, the No. 2 American commander Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said. He thinks 80 percent of Iraqis — including Sunni insurgents and Shia militants — can reach reconciliation with each other. "We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces. I believe there are elements that are irreconcilable, but I believe the large majority are. I believe about 80 percent are reconcilable, both Jaish al-Mahdi as well as Sunni insurgents." He said the increased effort by commanders to reach out to militants goes hand in hand with reconciliation efforts by the Iraqi government. Odierno noted that efforts to engage tribal leaders in Anbar province — who have been turning against al-Qaida there — has helped draw people to serve in the Iraqi security forces in record numbers and has helped reduce attacks there. For example, the attacks in Anbar in May 2006 totaled 811, while this May they were just barely over 400. Since the beginning of 2007, over 12,000 Iraqi citizens have volunteered for Iraqi security forces in Anbar. In all of 2006, only 1,000 had volunteered. <ref> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/national/w114445D86.DTL </ref>

Even Newsweek's June 4 edition on page 33, has a story by Melinda Liu on actual progress in Iraq, headlined: "Gathering the Tribes: U.S. field commanders are finally beginning to tap the traditional networks that helped Saddam stay in power." Liu reported from Ramadi that "Marines and Iraqi tribesmen and police are sitting together, swapping jokes and stories. Some of these Iraqis were probably shooting at Americans less than a year ago. Now they and the Marines are fighting side by side against Al Qaeda." The story also carried a large, bolded quote: 'Last year the Americans were our biggest enemies,' says one cop. 'Now they're how we get what we need.' The captions on the pictures read: PEACE SIGNS: Tribal recruits man a check-point in Ramadi (above); children and others now freely interact with Americans (right). <ref> http://newsbusters.org/node/13080 </ref>

And on May 31 a report "Sunnis Revolt Against al-Qaida in Iraq" confirmed the trend stating, "U.S. troops battled al-Qaida in west Baghdad on Thursday after Sunni Arab residents challenged the militants and called for American help to end furious gunfire that kept students from final exams and forced people in the neighborhood to huddle indoors. Backed by helicopter gunships, U.S. troops joined the two-day battle in the Amariyah district, according to residents of the Sunni district. Lt. Col. Dale C. Kuehl, commander of 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, who is responsible for the Amariyah area of the capital, confirmed the U.S. military's role in the fighting in the Sunni district. "The events of the past two days are promising developments. Sunni citizens of Amariyah that have been previously terrorized by al-Qaida are now resisting and want them gone. They're tired of the intimidation that included the murder of women," Kuehl said. Casualty figures were not immediately available. But the district councilman said Haji Hameed, the al-Qaida leader in Amariyah, was killed and 45 other fighters were detained. <ref>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/31/international/i154309D51.DTL </ref>

Meanwhile, U.S. forces handed over responsibility for security in Iraq's three northern provinces to the Kurdish regional government. Seven Iraqi provinces, including Najaf, Muthanna, Dhi Qar and Maysan, now have responsibility for their own security – a third of the total. The United States hopes to add more as Iraqi forces grow in capability. <ref> http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=74626 </ref>

March 2008 - 62% of Iraqis now say they want the US troops to stay in their country.. and a full 55% say their lives are going well. 

Marking the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, ABC's anchor Charles Gibson on World News Monday March 18, 2008 explained “we have polled inside Iraq and there is some good news.” Specifically, “today, 55 percent of Iraqi say their lives are going well. Last summer that number was 39 percent.” From Iraq, Terry McCarthy reported, "As our poll takers spread across the country they found that for the first time in three years, people were more worried about economic and social problems than violence. And almost half think their country will be better off in a year -- double the number six months ago. In Dora, in southern Baghdad, we found these kids playing on the street. A year ago, they would haven't dared to come outside.... McCarthy also noted in a telling reality check, only 38 percent want U.S. troops to leave now, afraid that the gains in security might be reversed.” This obviously means that 62 percent of the Iraqis polled want US troops to stay in their country until they are certain the gains in security and stability will not be reversed. “Even Fallujah has turned around,” McCarthy learned, “as the local population has largely abandoned the insurgency and now they're focusing on rebuilding the city from the ruins of war,” though tough tasks remain with most complaining about electrical shortages and poor health care services. <ref> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/03/18/abc-finds-optimistic-iraqis-kids-playing-safely-street </ref>

==Results of the Surge on casualties and terrorist attacks==

The surge has resulted in a 60% reduction in terrorist attacks and causalities since June of 2007 to the present.<ref>http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48515</ref> Indeed, the year 2008 saw a decline in soldier deaths to 309 from 906 the year before.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/30/iraq.main/index.html</ref>

==Iraq Strategy in Relation to the Global War on Terrorism==

As reported in the State Department's annual Country Reports on Terrorism <ref>http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/</ref> released April 30, 2007, there are steep declines in terrorist attacks and murders in many regions of the globe. Though terrorism has increased markedly in Iraq, aside from the Middle East (which does not include Afghanistan according to State), the number of terrorist attacks worldwide is down from a year ago by over 300 incidents. In other words, the Bush administration's idea that making Iraq the "central front in the war on terror" seems to be working. According to the State report, terrorism in South Asia is down by 10 percent from a year ago. In Europe, it's down 18 percent. In Central and South America, terrorism-related deaths are down 54 percent. <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/12431 </ref>

==Weapons of Mass Destruction==

Although no large physical stock piles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the search is not over, and has yielded some results so far. Only about one-third of 36 million captured pages have been examined by a linguist and a summary gist of the document prepared.<ref>[http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html Comprehensive Report of the Special Adviser to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Many believe the physical WMDs that had been produced prior to the invasion were smuggled out of the country, possibly to [[Syria]], before the onset of the war. But recently in July 2008, <ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5314609 The USA Military found 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium in Iraq]</ref> The USA Military found 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium and parts to make nuclear weapons in Tuwaitha 12 miles south of Baghdad, as proof that George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and the CIA were right about Saddam owning yellow cake uranium.

Saddam's General says they had WMD - As FrontPageMagazine.com reported in its article "Symposium: Iraq, WMDs and Troubling Revelations" on May 29th 2006 - "Just recently, Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the coordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref> However, there is no way to obtain hard physical evidence to back up their assertions due to the fact that Syria will not allow such intrusive inspection and searching in their country. Intelligence sources do, however, say that General Al-Tikriti is a credible witness as is the pilot who also testified that he flew such missions.

According to the Duelfer Report, Saddam used the Iraq Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MHESR) through its universities and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by United Nations Security Council sanctions.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 10 (pdf)</ref>

Additionally, concerning the 36 million captured pages of documentation, when it was put on the net for public translation, it was removed after they found quote, "detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb." As The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a nuclear weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref>

Additionally, tapes with Saddam speaking on them also surfaced and certain sinister remarks Saddam made on the tapes were translated which showed that he threatened to use WMD on Washington, DC. In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref>

Concerning additional tapes uncovered where Saddam is being briefed by his Son-in-law, Lieutenant General Hussein, ABC News reports his words to Saddam Hussein: "Sir, I would not be speaking so openly if it were not for your excellency's and Mr. Tariq's clarification and statement that we produced biological weapons. We did not reveal all that we have. Secondly, they don't know about our work in the domain of missiles. With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, ... In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. We have undeclared problems in nuclear as well, and I believe that they know. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref>

Another of the documents show that Saddam ordered suicide attacks on the US, which then, within a year, could have become nuclear. In the article "Saddam Ordered Suicide Attacks on U.S. Targets" dated April 6th 2006, it states, "A newly translated document from Saddam Hussein's intelligence files indicates that the Iraqi dictator ordered suicide attacks against U.S. targets six months before the 9/11 attacks." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/6/230437.shtml?s=lh </ref>

Also, there was another document discovered proving that Saddam was intending to attack London in this article "Saddam was training terrorists for attacks in London" dated March 27th 2006 - "Among the documents released last week was a translation of a three-page Iraqi Intelligence memo regarding a wave of attacks to be conducted by the Saddam Fedayeen.According to those orders, the Fedayeen Saddam was "to start planning from now on to perform special operations (assassinations/bombings) for the centers and the traitor symbols in the fields of (London/Iran/self-ruled areas) and for coordination with the Intelligence service to secure deliveries, accommodations, and target guidance."" <ref> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp </ref>

The UK government Feb 18, 2008 released an early draft of its controversial dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, after losing a bid to keep it secret. The government has always maintained Williams' paper was not relevant as the final dossier was the work of its intelligence agencies. The dossier, quote: "concentrates on allegations that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's regime had acquired uranium, retained the ability to manufacture chemical and biological weapons and was developing long-range missiles." Even the UK's opposition Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Edward Davey conceded that, "The core analysis of the threat allegedly posed by Iraq is the same in both documents." <ref> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/080218/world/britain_iraq_war_dossier_politics_intelligence_1 </ref>

These allegations are not in dispute, as the quoted detractors in the article make clear when it says of them, "Campaigners have been pushing for it to be made public, claiming it could show that the final dossier -- in which it was claimed Iraq could launch WMD within 45 minutes -- was the work of government "spin doctors"."

Apart from whether Iraq could have launched WMD in that time frame, the core analysis shows ample reason and justification for beginning Operation Iraqi Freedom - including weapons grade uranium, the ability to launch long-range missiles at Western allies and the ability to manufacture at will chemical and biological weapons. Saddam was a WMD threat with malicious intent and although how close to launching such attacks he was remains in question, the fact he was one year from aquiring the bomb and was calling for attacks and agents to be in place (in the West) while developing missiles to deliver these weapons against allied Western targets, figured strongly in the case for war.

CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. Then in June, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) released declassified portions of an intelligence report that they said confirmed Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction, including mustard gas. The report indicated that 500 such weapons had been destroyed by the U.S.-led coalition since 2003 and that the U.S. and its allies were racing against terrorist groups in trying to control the remaining weapons in Iraq. "It is essential for the American people to understand that these weapons are in Iraq," Santorum said during the news conference.<ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

How many WMD means Saddam had some? - Fox News reported on May 17th, 2004 that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent was confirmed to have exploded near a U.S. military convoy, but the incident was downplayed along with the note that mustard gas had also been found. Quote, "The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad. "The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device) which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy." Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas was also recently discovered. <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html </ref>

Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."

ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq" which stated, "Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. Another dozen were found later in June. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> This finding was updated 2 days later as testing found that all sixteen rockets had initially showed traces of sarin, but were now "all empty and tested negative for any type of chemicals." <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html</ref> The article went on to state, "In January 2003, U.N. inspectors discovered a dozen old 122-millimeter rockets that chief inspector Hans Blix described at the time as "designed to carry chemical weapons." Iraq later turned up several more, and all were destroyed. Blix later said he was not sure whether Iraq mentioned them in the 12,000-page weapons declaration it submitted in December 2002.

As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had. That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>

===Saddam's Links to Al Qaeda===

BEFORE the United States went to war to depose the threat of Saddam to its Homeland, in March 2002 and February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified that Iraq had clear ties to Al Qaeda. Coupled with the above statement by the NY Times article that they were only one year from a nuclear bomb and the sinister statements by the translator Tierney, along with the article about Saddam ordering preparation for suicide attacks on US targets before 911, the case for invading Iraq to secure the US from further destruction was both logical and justified.

In February 2003, CIA Director George Tenet Testified That Iraq Had Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "Iraq is harboring senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a close associate of al Qaeda. ... Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates. One of these associates characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful. ... I know that part of this - and part of this Zarqawi network in Baghdad are two dozen Egyptian Islamic jihad which is indistinguishable from al Qaeda - operatives who are aiding the Zarqawi network, and two senior planners who have been in Baghdad since last May.

Now, whether there is a base or whether there is not a base, they are operating freely, supporting the Zarqawi network that is supporting the poisons network in Europe and around the world. So these people have been operating there. And, as you know - I don't want to recount everything that Secretary Powell said, but as you know a foreign service went to the Iraqis twice to talk to them about Zarqawi and were rebuffed. So there is a presence in Baghdad that is beyond Zarqawi." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

Tenet Testified That Iraq Was Providing Safe Haven To Al Qaeda. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "Would you say, Mr. Tenet, that the Zarqawi terrorist network is under the control or sponsorship of the Iraqi government?" TENET: "I don't know that, sir, but I know that there's a safe haven that's been provided to this network in Baghdad." LEVIN: "So you're not - well, you're saying that you don't know if they're under the support - that they are under the control or direction?" TENET: "Yes, sir. We have said - what we've said is Zarqawi and this large number of operatives are in Baghdad. They say the environment is good. And it is inconceivable to us that the Iraqi intelligence service doesn't know that they live there or what they're doing." (George Tenet, Select Committee On Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 2/11/03)

In March 2002, Tenet Testified On Iraq's Links To Al Qaeda. TENET: "We continue to watch Iraq's involvement in terrorists' activities. Baghdad has a long history of supporting terrorism, altering its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It is also had contacts with Al Qaeda." (George Tenet, Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 3/19/02)<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-4.html </ref>

As mentioned above, CNSNews.com reported that an Oct. 4, 2004, report by Cybercast News Service included 42 pages of Iraqi Intelligence Service memos that revealed Saddam's purchase of mustard gas and anthrax as recently as the summer of 2000 and his extensive ties to al Qaeda. <ref> http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200607/NAT20060725a.html </ref>

In the article The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden dated 27/04/2003 The Telegraph claimed to have found Iraqi intelligence documents in Baghdad which "provided evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime." It went on to state, "Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted." The article ends, "The file contradicts the that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda." <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml </ref> Additional citations of the documentation are given by The Telegraph in their article titled, "'We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back" which is a quote from the documentation itself.<ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3NQI3V5KB2T53QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml </ref> The intelligence documents are again cited by a Canadian eyewitness source in "Saddam, bin Laden link found: Canadian reporter" <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/04/26/saddam_osama030426.html </ref>

It is noteworthy that under President Clinton, reported in February of 1999, the article (still available to view on the net) titled, "Saddam link to Bin Laden" - Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq? The article states, "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use." US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received. In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures... Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence offered Mr bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets." <ref> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html </ref>

Bin Laden was a threat to the United States at the time Saddam was in power and his efforts have been ongoing in terrorism since Saddam's regime was toppled. His plots have included targeting the United States as disclosed May 22, 2007 in the article "White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots" where it cites newly declassified intelligence which states, "Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target. Townsend said that in the spring of 2005 bin Laden also told Hamza Rabia, then al Qaeda's top operations man, to brief Zarqawi on the group's "external operations planning, including homeland plots (targeting the United States)." <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/23/white_house_says_bin_laden_ordered_iraq_plots/ </ref>

SEE: The Saddam Connection To Osama by ABC News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWFWCg1BdRg

Foxnews reported March 23, 2008 that "Saddam Hussein’s Son Plotted London Assassination Attack", stating that "Saddam Hussein's son Uday planned to carry out an attack in London, England to assassinate the leader of an Iraqi opposition group in April 2000." Based on seized documents, Uday Hussein's elite paramilitary group — the Fedayeen — were given orders "to carry out assassinations and bombings in London, the Times reported."

Further, "While the study showed no link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda, it does detail the former Iraq dictator's support for Middle Eastern terror groups, including those linked to Al Qaeda. Also in the report are memos showing Uday ordered officials to “start planning special operations in the centres of the traitors’ symbols in the fields of London / Iran / self-ruled areas [Kurdish northern Iraq]”, it was reported." <ref> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,340745,00.html </ref>
The Ba'athist party was a terror organization. Seeking additional support for terror in the region, Saddam was paying Palestine families $25,000 in U.S. dollars, if their sons blew themselves up in Israel<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html , Sydney Morning Herald Saddam stokes war with suicide bomber cash, March 26,2002</ref>

===Summary update on WMD and Iraq/terrorist/Al Qaeda connections NOT being falsified===

The Los Angeles Times article, "Bush never lied to us about Iraq - The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception." By James Kirchick, June 16, 2008, a great deal of summary about these two previous sections on WMD and links to the Al Qaeda are given. The article states that, "Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of the charge.. that the Bush administration deceived the American people. Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods." <ref> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story </ref>

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." 

Even concerning the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, 2008, quote, "what did this report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program."

The article contends that if Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA. It then asserts, "This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers." <ref> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,4808346.story </ref>

Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt also brought out what Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee found in their June 5, 2008 report, saying, quote:
<ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html </ref>

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into [Sen. Jay] Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." 

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence."

Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." 

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

Hiatt then noted what the Republican part of the report said, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence." 

<ref> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/06/09/bush-lied-argument-doesnt-match-facts-democrats-say </ref>

==The Duelfer Report==

In 2004, the [[Iraq Survey Group]], ISG, whose intelligence analysts are managed by Charles Duelfer, a former State Department official and deputy chief of the U.N.-led arms-inspection teams, released what has been called the [[Duelfer Report]]. <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html </ref> The ISG found "hundreds of cases of activities that were prohibited" under U.N. Security Council resolutions, a senior administration official was quoted as saying. <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 </ref> Both Duelfer and his predecessor, David Kay, reported to Congress that the evidence they had found on the ground in Iraq showed Saddam's regime was in "material violation" of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the last of 17 resolutions that promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not make a complete disclosure of its weapons programs and dismantle them in a verifiable manner. The United States cited Iraq's refusal to comply with these demands as one justification for going to war.

When former weapons inspector Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found "no stockpiles" of forbidden weapons in Iraq, his conclusions made front-page news, as did Duelfer's similarly worded conclusion in his report. But when Kay detailed what the ISG had found in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, few took notice.

Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. "We thought it was a big deal," a senior administration official said. "But it has been written off [by the press] as a sort of 'starter set.'" They found equipment for "uranium-enrichment centrifuges" whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program. In all these cases, "Iraqi scientists had been told before the war not to declare their activities to the U.N. inspectors," the official said.

In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents. The ISG also found a previously undeclared program to build a "high-speed rail gun," a device apparently designed for testing nuclear-weapons materials. That came in addition to 500 tons of natural uranium stockpiled at Iraq's main declared nuclear site south of Baghdad.

How did this happen? According to the Duelfer Report, half of the picture rests with entities outside Iraq. Saddam was trying to end the UN sanctions to pursue his conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs. In Saddam’s efforts to influence United Nations Security Council members - namely Russia, France, and China - to end sanctions, Saddam’s ordered the Iraq Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) to formulate and implement a strategy aimed at these Security Council members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions by diplomatic and economic means. Saddam also made use of “Protocols” or government-to-government economic trade agreements to generate a large amount of revenue outside the purview of the UN. His success emboldened Saddam to pursue his reconstitution efforts of conventional, dual-use, and WMD-related programs starting in 1997.<ref>Duelfer Report, Vol. 1, Regime Finance and Procurement, p. 9 (pdf)</ref> Quote: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support," the (Duelfer) report said. <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref>

The Regime’s authorities devised front companies that had close relationships with foreign government officials who worked to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or dual-use goods programs. Saddam used the ''Mukhabarat'', or Iraqi Intelligence Servise (IIS) to facilitate importation of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods through Syria, Jordan, Belarus, Turkey and others. Numerous foreign trade intermediaries disguised illicit items, hid the identity of the end user, and/or changed the final destination of the item to move it to the region. For a cut of the profits they smuggled prohibited items to entry points along the Iraqi border. Companies in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen assisted Saddam with the acquisition of prohibited items through deceptive trade practices. In the case of Syria and Yemen, this included support from agencies or personnel within the government itself.

===Regime Intent===

The Iraqi Survey Group in interrogations of Ba'athist officials from the leadership of the intelligence and security services, and Qusay’s inner circle, undertook interviews of Ba'athists in custody. Some detainees’ statements were made to minimize their culpability leading to potential prosecution. Detainees were very concerned about their fate and were not willing to implicate themselves in sensitive matters of interest such as WMD, in light of looming prosecutions. Debriefers noted the tendency to place blame or knowledge with individuals who were not in a position to contradict the detainee’s statements, such as deceased individuals or individuals who were not in custody or who had fled the country, or providing debriefers with previously known information. Some former high ranking officials, such as ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid Al Tikriti (Chemical ‘Ali), never gave substantial information, despite speaking colorfully and at length. Some obstructed all attempts to elicit information on WMD and illicit activities of the former Regime. Others, however, were keen to help clarify every issue, sometimes to the point of self-incrimination.

The ISG's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. Saddam and many Iraqis regarded chemical weapons as a proven weapon against an enemy’s superior numerical strength, a weapon that had saved the nation at least once already—during the [[Iran-Iraq war]]— and contributed to deterring the Coalition in 1991 from advancing to Baghdad. After 1991, Saddam did express his intent to retain the intellectual capital, or the know-how that was developed during the Iraqi Nuclear Program. Saddam indicated that he would develop the weapons necessary to counter any Iranian threat. Starting around 1992, in a bid to retain the intellectual core of the former weapons program workers with know-how, Baghdad transferred many nuclear scientists to related jobs in the Military Industrial Commission (MIC). The work undertaken by these scientists at the MIC helped them maintain their weapons knowledge base. The Regime prevented scientists from the former nuclear weapons program from leaving either their jobs or Iraq. Moreover, in the late 1990s, personnel from both MIC and the IAEC received significant pay raises in a bid to retain them, and the Regime undertook new investments in university research in a bid to ensure that Iraq retained technical knowledge.

The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf war and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq implemented a rigorous and formalized system of nationwide research and production of chemicals. The Regime employed a cadre of trained and experienced researchers, production managers, and weaponization experts from the former CW program. Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure.

ISG judged, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months. A former nerve agent expert indicated that Iraq retained the capability to produce nerve agent in significant quantities within two years, given the import of required phosphorous precursors. However, we have no credible indications that Iraq acquired or attempted to acquire large quantities of these chemicals through its existing procurement networks for sanctioned items. In addition to new investment in its industry, Iraq was able to monitor the location and use of all existing dualuse process equipment. This provided Iraq the ability to rapidly reallocate key equipment for proscribed activities, if required by the Regime.

Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for filling with CW agent.

Saddam’s Leadership Defense Plan consisted of a tactical doctrine taught to all Iraqi officers and included the concept of a “red-line” or last line of defense. Uday — head of the Fedayeen Saddam — attempted to obtain chemical weapons for use during OIF. ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations. The existence, function, and purpose of the laboratories of which were never declared to the UN. The IIS program included the use of human subjects for testing purposes.

The IIS provided the BW program with security and participated in biological research, probably for its own purposes, from the beginning of Iraq’s BW effort in the early 1970s until the final days of Saddam Husayn’s Regime. In 1991, Saddam Husayn regarded BW as an integral element of his arsenal of WMD weapons, and would have used it if the need arose. At a meeting of the Iraqi leadership immediately prior to the Gulf war in 1991, Saddam Husayn personally authorized the use of BW weapons against Israel, Saudi Arabia and US forces. Saddam envisaged all-out use. For example, all Israeli cities were to be struck and all the BW weapons at his disposal were to be used. Saddam specified that the “many years” agents, presumably anthrax spores, were to be employed against his foes. ISG judged that Iraq’s actions between 1991 and 1996 demonstrate that the state intended to preserve its BW capability and return to a steady, methodical progress toward a mature BW program when and if the opportunity arose.

===Misreporting the Duelfer Report===

As The Washington Times reported in their editorial titled "Misreporting the Duelfer Report" <ref> http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm </ref> the day following its release, October 08, 2004, quote: ""Gotcha, Mr. President." This was the consensus of the headlines from nearly every daily newspaper yesterday responding to the CIA's Iraq Survey Group report on Iraq's prewar weapons programs. Yes, the report found no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the war began in March 2003. But were these the findings that the report highlighted in the first line of its Key Findings summary? No. "Saddam [Hussein] so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone," the summary begins. "He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted." This hardly sounds as if the Iraq Survey Group, headed by Charles A. Duelfer, thought Saddam was cooperating with the international community.

The article goes on to explain that Saddam was attempting to get the sanctions lifted, targeting the three members of the Security Council - France, China and Russia - and then he intended to use the Oil for Food program "to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development." Then notes, "While the United Nations turned a blind eye, Saddam cheated and committed mass murder in an effort to achieve his goals. To suggest that "containment" could have been sustained without dire results verges on the delusional. There is a very pertinent lesson in the Duelfer report; too bad no one told the headline writers."

===Threat Level Concern===

It is worth noting the following concerning a current controversy about the level of threat Saddam posed. If you consider the terrorists as various minority factions all working toward the same goal, as stated by Mr. Kraft on this page when he says, "there is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so." It doesn't matter which of these factions would have been used to specifically target the civilized world in a nuclear or biological/chemical attack. Although recently the extent of Saddam's ties to one specific group (the Al-Qaeda terrorists) has been questioned and a recent article stated that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, the same article goes on to say concerning Al-Qaeda that "it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups." <ref> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html </ref> Therefore, it is known that Saddam had forged long term relationships with known terrorist GROUPS (plural) and so it was not that there was no threat from any terrorists groups, just that the threat would have come from those OTHER terrorists as the threat to the collective security of the civilized world if the US hadn't taken out Saddam.

It also remains to be seen if the ties with Al-Qaeda would have remained "limited" if that group had stepped up and volunteered to take the completed nuclear weapons from Saddam (which he would have had within a year according to The New York Times - see the WMD section, this page) into Washington and detonate them using sophisticated and existing sleeper cell suicide bombers as Saddam was contemplating. It appears likely that Saddam would have listened and handed them his stocks of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons by his statements (see Mr. Tierney's translation on this page). From his past actions, Saddam was an equal opportunity employer for all the terrorist groups.. including those they admit in this report with whom he had "long-term relationships." As Mr. Kraft observes, it is many "barbarians" at our gates with sophisticated weapons of mass destruction for the first time, not only one group (Al-Qaeda.) It is global in scope, hence the reason for calling this a "Global War on Terror" not a "War on Terror in Iraq." As such, it is a fight for world supremacy, and the civilized world would do well not to ignore or minimize what the civilized world is fighting over.

===Accusations of Cover-Ups===

While both parties continue to squabble over the above documents and claims, quote, "Both Republicans and Democrats charged the other side was trying using the release of more information for its political purposes," <ref> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51952 </ref> there were others who claimed there were cover-ups happening to stop further evidence becoming public. A NYsun article states, "A former special investigator for the Pentagon during the Iraq war said he found four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq that he is sure contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons. But when he asked American weapons inspectors to check out the sites, he was rebuffed. Between March and July 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was taken by (his) sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. But because the facilities were sealed off with concrete walls, in some cases up to 5 feet thick, he did not get inside. He filed reports with photographs, exact grid coordinates, and testimony from multiple sources. And then he waited for the Iraq Survey Group to come to the sites. "I have no doubts the sites were never exploited by ISG. We agents begged and begged for weeks and months to get ISG to respond to the sites with the proper equipment," Mr. Gaubatz said in a telephone interview. "An adequate search would have required heavy equipment to uncover the concrete, and additional equipment to drain the water." Mr. Gaubatz would not disclose the names of his Iraqi sources, but he said they were "highly credible" by his supervisors. <ref> http://www.nysun.com/article/27183?access=890075 </ref>

In the exhaustive search for WMDs in Iraq, CNN has left all stones unturned - or have they? These are the words right out of the mouth of CNN reporter Jane Arraf <ref> http://www.cjr.org/iraq/chapt1.html </ref>, quote: "And if you had a bureau there, like we did, and it was a known bureau and a known company like CNN was, it was a beacon for everybody. It was a beacon for Iraqis who believed they had stories. Iraqis would show up, there would be Iraqis lined up outside the door. There... would be the Iraqis who told you they had nuclear documents in their basement and would you like to come and look [laughter]. You know, there was almost that pang when you turned somebody away, [you were] thinking, “Damn, maybe this guy really does have nuclear weapons in his basement, but I don’t have time.” So you never really knew."

==Costs==

''(Needs more statistics)''
Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied. However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref> The National Priorities Project, though, indicates that the war costs some $195,000 '''per minute''', according to numbers based on Congressional appropriations, and the tally had reached $412.8 billion as of 3/30/2007.<ref>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182</ref> A 2008 study estimated that the Iraq War cost the United States $12 billion a month.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080310/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_war_costs;_ylt=ApGg20eC4zcjyEaIxwc8CC6s0NUE Studies: Iraq costs US $12 billion per month]</ref> This makes the Iraq war the most expensive endeavor in U.S. history.

==Casualties==
[[Image:Iraq War Memorial Lafayette CA.JPEG|thumb|Iraq War Memorial Lafayette CA.]]
Former U.S. Attorney General in the [[Johnson Administration]], [[Ramsey Clark]], wrote the UN Security Council on 29 July 29 2002 claiming UN sanctions , "are the direct cause of the very cruel deaths of more than a million people" <ref>[http://www.radioislam.org/bush/act.htm Letter from Ramsey Clark to the U.N. Security Council members], 29 July 29 2002.</ref> A 1999 [[UNICEF]] Report stated that there were, at that time, 500,000 deaths of children under the age of five probably attributable to the U.N. sanctions. <ref>[http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm Iraq Surveys Show Humanitarian Emergency], (August 12, 1999).</ref>

===Coalition Troops===

According to the US Department of Defense, over 4,200 U.S. and 300 troops from coalition countries have died in the war. Over 30,000 U.S. troops have been wounded in combat.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense]</ref> Despite a dramatic decrease in violence in the latter half of the year, 2007 was the worst year in Iraq in terms of U.S. casualties. Over 900 American troops died or went [[missing in action]] during the year.<ref>[www.icasualties.org Iraq War casualties]</ref>

===Enemy Casualties===

in March, 2007, Larry Schweikart, Professor of History at the University of Dayton, a military historian, calculated that, "a low estimate is that we have removed from the order of battle about 210,000 on the low end to 360,000 on the high end. This is an entire generation of jihadists, and will, if nothing else, significantly feminize Muslim society." <ref> http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7673_0_1_0_M </ref>

===Civilian Casualties===

Estimates of civilian casualties vary. According to Fox News, March 20, 2007, over 54,000 civilians have been killed in the war. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259875,00.html</ref> However, due to suicide bombings and other such activity, the fatalities caused by US/Coalition forces in action was only 31 percent of the total number given according to CNN's report October 2006, <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/ </ref> down from 32 percent quoted by this Boston Globe report <ref> http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-jackson191205.htm </ref> dated December 19, 2005. In the Fox News study, that would mean 16,740 of the 54,000 casualties.
On November 11, 2006, Iraqi Health Minister Ali al-Shamari estimated that between 100,000 and 150,000 civilians had been killed during the war.<ref>[http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/11/11/2003335773 Iraq death toll may go as high as 150,000]</ref> A 2008 estimate by the [[World Health Organization]] placed the civilian death toll at 151,000.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080110/wl_nm/iraq_deaths_survey_dc 151,000 Iraqis killed since U.S.-led invasion: WHO]</ref>

==Summary of Justifications for the Iraq War Taken From This Entry==

If President Bush had not removed Saddam Hussein we now know that, QUOTE: The New York Times confirmed in their issue November 3, 2006, Saddam had complete plans for a nuclear weapon and was in the process of procuring parts when the US removed him. Quote: "nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away." <ref> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ei=5094&en=1511d6b3da302d4f&hp&ex=1162530000&partner=homepage </ref> (end quote)

And we know that Saddam was discussing using WMD on Washington, DC (remember/keep-in-mind his soon nuclear capability from the last paragraph), QUOTE: In the article , "Saddam Translator: ABC Reinterpreted Tapes" dated Feb. 17th 2006, the FBI translator who supplied the 12 hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments. In the "Nightline" version of the 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C., would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack. Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity. In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming. ... In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?" <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml </ref> (end quote)

President Bush's decision to depose Saddam Hussein meant that this plan Saddam was discussing in these tapes here - or with the atomic nuclear capacity he was to possess within a year - never came into execution. It is credible that literally MILLIONS of Americans are alive today because Saddam was stopped before he had the ability to put his plans into action. We know he had ties to terrorists, including, QUOTE:

In the article "The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden" dated 27/04/2003 The Telegraph claimed to have found Iraqi intelligence documents in Baghdad which "provided evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime." It went on to state, "Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998. The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad. Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted." The article ends, "The file contradicts the that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda." <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml </ref> Additional citations of the documentation are given by The Telegraph in their article titled, "'We'll pay all expenses to gain the knowledge from bin Laden and convey a message back" which is a quote from the documentation itself. <ref> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3NQI3V5KB2T53QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq127.xml </ref> The intelligence documents are again cited by a Canadian eyewitness source in "Saddam, bin Laden link found: Canadian reporter" <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/04/26/saddam_osama030426.html </ref>

It is noteworthy that under President Clinton, reported in February of 1999, the article (still available to view on the net) titled, "Saddam link to Bin Laden" - Terror chief 'offered asylum' in Iraq?" The article states, "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Kandahar in late December. News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use." US embassies around the world are on heightened alert as a result of threats believed to emanate from followers of Bin Laden, who has been indicted by a US court for orchestrating the bombing last August of embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, in which 259 people died. US delegations in Africa and the Gulf have been shut down in recent weeks after credible threats were received. In this year's budget, President Clinton called for an additional $2 billion to spend on counter-terrorist measures... Ahmed Allawi, a senior member of the opposition Iraqi National Congress (INC), based in London, said he had heard reports of the December meeting which he believed to be accurate. "There is a long history of contacts between Mukhabarat [Iraqi secret service] and Osama bin Laden," he said. Mr Hijazi, formerly director of external operations for Iraqi intelligence offered Mr Bin Laden asylum in Iraq, most likely in return for co-operation in launching attacks on US and Saudi targets." <ref> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html </ref> (end quote)

To say that the US should never have deposed Saddam when he posed such a threat is irresponsible. The detractors from the Iraq War today would presently be decrying the dead and dying in America and saying President Bush should have gone to war to prevent such devastating losses, had he refrained from engaging in the Iraq War. We know that since then Bin Laden has worked toward attacking the US on his own, without the assistance of Saddam. QUOTE:

Bin Laden was a threat to the United States at the time Saddam was in power and his efforts have been ongoing in terrorism since Saddam's regime was toppled. His plots have included targeting the United States as disclosed May 22, 2007 in the article "White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots" where it cites newly declassified intelligence which states, "Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target. Townsend said that in the spring of 2005 bin Laden also told Hamza Rabia, then al Qaeda's top operations man, to brief Zarqawi on the group's "external operations planning, including homeland plots (targeting the United States)." <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/23/white_house_says_bin_laden_ordered_iraq_plots/ </ref> (end quote)

The act of war on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein was justified to protect the Homeland of America from Saddam's planned and certain future catastrophic attack. The red herring <ref> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html </ref> of not finding the WMD in Saddam's backyard does not diminish the threat to the Homeland of America because Saddam had proven his willingness to use such WMD on the Kurdish people in Iraq <ref> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article351987.ece
</ref> and he would have had the atom bomb within a year by expert opinion. To expect that he would not have put into execution his stated aims against America is to act like an ostrich and put one's head in the sand.

If the atomic threat is not sufficient, under "regime intent", above, the Iraqi Survey Group's key findings stated that Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a chemical weapons effort when sanctions were lifted. The section on The Duelfer Report points out that there were reference strains of biological agents which were found and evidence of the ability to quickly start chemical and biological warfare production, QUOTE: Both Duelfer and Kay found Iraq had "a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing its prohibited chemical- and biological-weapons [BW] programs," the official said. "They found a prison laboratory where we suspect they tested biological weapons on human subjects." "Reference strains" of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents were found beneath the sink in the home of a prominent Iraqi BW scientist. In testimony before Congress on March 30, Duelfer revealed the ISG had found evidence of a "crash program" to construct new plants capable of making chemical- and biological-warfare agents (end quote)

Saddam's son in law tells Saddam, quote: In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological. Not the type of the weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They don't know any of this. We did not reveal the volume of the chemical weapons that we had produced. We did not reveal the type of the chemical weapons. We did not reveal the truth about the volume of the imported materials. In the nuclear, sir, in the biological, we also disagree with them. As for the nuclear, we say we have disclosed everything but no. There are teams working with no one knowing about some of them. I go back to the question of whether we should reveal everything or continue to be silent... I would say it is in our interest not to reveal. Not just out of fear of disclosing the technology we achieved, or to hide it for future work... <ref> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1 </ref> (end quote)
Also, there is credible testimony that Saddam had the weapons and moved them, quote: Saddam Hussein's former southern regional commander, Gen. Al-Tikriti, gave the first videotaped testimony confirming that Iraq had WMDs up to the American invasion in 2003 and that Russia helped remove them prior to the war. His testimony confirms numerous other sources that have pointed to Russia's secret alliance with Iraq and the co-ordinated moving of WMDs before the American liberation." <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22645 </ref> (end quote)

There are those who think that attacks upon America must actually happen in order to prove that these things exist or pose an imminent threat. The Iraq War was a preventative war and as such its merit relies on the mental ability of the public to perceive future threats and act in keeping with that threat and not ignore it - just as a person must swerve their car in the face of oncoming traffic in order to avoid an accident. As with this example, it does little good to discuss the merits of whether there would have been a crash or not after the fact since the evidence of past destruction which was avoided will never be obtainable.

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

==External links==
*[http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm Iraq Weekly Status Report] U.S. Department of State.
*[http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom2/default.aspx CENTCOM] Home page.

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category: United States of America]]

User talk:Learn together

2008-12-31T00:11:51Z

Learn together: /* Star Trek */

Talk:Virginity pledge

2008-12-30T23:09:15Z

Learn together:

User talk:Learn together

2008-12-30T22:05:28Z

Learn together:

Sulu

2008-12-30T21:28:31Z

Learn together: Not a movie or television; just a StarTrek character

Lieutenant '''Sulu''' was the chief helmsman of the U.S.S. ''Enterprise'' in the TV show [[Star Trek]]. An Asian, he was part of a diversified cast, and along with [[Chekov]] and Uhura, he was one of the secondary characters. As such, his character wasn't as developed as [[Captain Kirk]], [[Spock]], or [[Dr. McCoy]], although his character is frequently shown as having a wide variety of outside hobbies, including fencing, botany, and firearms. One of his more prominent roles was actually as the evil Sulu in the counter [[universe]] episode, ''Mirror, Mirror'', in which his character attempted to assassinate Kirk and Spock, which would have left him in command of the ''Enterprise''.

By the time of the movie '''Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country''', Sulu had been promoted to captain and was in command of the USS ''Excelsior''. He appeared in this capacity in an episode of Star Trek: Voyager (via flashback).

He had one daughter, who also joined Starfleet.

Sulu was played by openly homosexual<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AScqvJb9UsQ George Takei on homophobia] (YouTube), [http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/17/george-takai-and-bra.html George Takei and Brad Altman first to get marriage license in West Hollywood]</ref> actor [[George Takei]].

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

[[category:Star Trek]]

Talk:Virginity pledge

2008-12-30T20:56:55Z

Learn together:

Talk:Virginity pledge

2008-12-30T19:41:07Z

Learn together:

Sexual orientation theory

2008-12-30T18:30:17Z

Learn together:

The '''sexual orientation theory''' asserts that a person's sexual preferences are immutable and should therefore be accepted by society, <ref> [http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/sevensteps/Chapter3/index.html Seven Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child] </ref> as theorized by some developmental psychologists and advocated by many social advocates and partisans.

Many social advocates assert that unknown biological factors are responsible for sexual orientation. Thus, they argue that is by no means a matter of [[Homosexuality and Choice|choice]], and that it is pointless to try to change one's orientation. Some go so far as to say that the attempt would cause harm, so mental health professionals must not offer assistance even if asked.

In contrast, sexual preference refers to a person's preferred mode of sexual activity, fantasy or desire.

Advocates of [[homosexuality]] frequently argue that sexual orientation is fixed at birth, i.e. one is "born that way". This forms the basis of an argument that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, and thus should not be criticized. One may as well criticize a person for having blond hair, or dark brown skin.

As a response to the claim that homosexual activities are "unnatural" or "do not occur in nature," many groups cite scientific studies that indicate homosexual practices in many species (such as apes, monkeys, or penguins).

Some homosexuality advocates make an intermediate claim, i.e., that sexual orientation is caused by a number of factors but does not become unchangeable until early childhood or even as late as adolescence. Likewise, this forms the basis of the argument that no one can be held morally responsible for being homosexual.

There is no scientific consensus on when sexual orientation is fixed, or whether it is fixed at all. All attempts to find a "[[gay gene]]" have failed.

Many people generally disagree with the premises of these homosexuality arguments.
*A person "born" with a strong craving for alcoholic drinks would still be held responsible if he got drunk and injured someone in a car accident.
*A person with an "inherent" hatred of blacks would still be considered a [[racist]] (and in violation of the rule, "Love your neighbor as yourself").
However, in both of these instances, it could as well be argued that these are the result of personal experience and development: for instance alcoholism is seldom found in infants but develops as individuals gain experience of alcohol and see it as a solution to their problems or a route to happiness.

Some [[Bible]] passages suggest that the normal, God-given ''orientation'' for human beings is [[heterosexuality]]. In the [[New Testament]] [[Jesus]] taught,

*"Did you not read that He made them at the beginning of creation, male and female, did He not?
*"And it said, because of this a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife and they become both one flesh.
*"From then on they are not two, except one body. What God has thus united, a human being does not separate." (Matt. 19:4-6)

Nonetheless, no explicit condemnation of homosexuality is ever ascribed to the Jesus: all explicit condemnations are found in the [[Old Testament]] and the [[Epistle]]s.

[[category:sociology]]

Talk:Virginity pledge

2008-12-30T18:24:42Z

Learn together:

Virginity pledge

2008-12-30T18:22:47Z

Learn together: Incorrect -- Author compared only to those who were virgins, not the age group in general, and therefore came up with the skewed results

Financial Crisis of 2008

2008-12-23T16:52:36Z

Learn together: BTW, we should keep reference to the definition of a recession as it has been accepted

{{move|Recession of 2008}}
The '''Financial Crisis of 2008''' is an ongoing worldwide financial crisis that many observers believe is the worst the world has seen since 1933 with the [[Great Depression]]. The National Bureau of Economic Research, a private organization that follows its own standards as set by eminent economists such as [[Milton Friedman]], has declared that the peak of the last expansion took place in December 2007, and the overall economy has been in decline ever since.<ref>See "Text of the NBER's statement on the recession and FAQ's" [http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-12-01-recession-nber-statement_N.htm ''USA Today'' Dec 1, 2008]. "The U.S. economy entered a recession in December 2007, a committee of economists at the private National Bureau of Economic Research said," at [http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/US-recession-began-December-2007/story.aspx?guid={7DCF90E4-D61A-4014-83CE-45E938CD632C} Rex Nutting] - MarketWatch</ref> It is believed the economic difficulties will meet the definition of a [[recession]] when the next quarterly data is released and a second quarter of negative growth will be seen. The first two quarters of the year showed positive growth, with the second quarter registering at 2.8% increase in GDP, but the third quarter saw a drop of -0.5% and it is widely believed that the fourth quarter will show a larger negative drop.

Negative economic news has spread outward from financial institutions to depress housing, construction, automobiles, retail sales, state and local government, and other sectors. In recent months governments across the world have spent huge sums of money to reverse the crisis, but thus far the results have been inconclusive and the declines continue. The U.S. government provided cash bailouts of several hundred billion dollars and long-term loan guarantees of over $7 trillion dollars (compared to a GDP of $15 trillion a year in the U.S.). Conservatives have been as dismayed and baffled by the crisis as everyone else.

Unlike crises in the mid 1970s and early 1980s, this one began in the financial sector with devastating effects on many very large financial companies worldwide. The negative effects by October began spreading to all other sectors of the economy, and forecasts for the next year show little likely of a quick recovery anywhere.

[[Image:CRASH08.JPG|thumb|300px|Oct 11, 2008 editorial; cartoon by Horsey stresses the global collapse]]

The crisis originated in the United States and Western Europe, and has impacted every country in the world. Banks and financial companies have reported losses of over one trillion dollars; investors have suffered [[paper loss|"paper losses"]] of many trillions. U.S. stocks are down 50% from their peak in 2007.<ref> For most people the loss is a "paper" loss because they still own the stock and it might go up, or down. If they bought stock in 2003 for $1000, watched it go to $1500 in 2008, then drop to $1000 again in 2008, their "paper loss" is $500 but their real loss is zero since they are back where they started. People who bought at $800 still have made a $200 paper profit. People who bought at $1200, say, have a paper loss of $200. The paper loss or gain becomes real when they finally sell the stock. See [[Paper loss]] for more details</ref> Paper losses for owners of stock in major financial institution have been over 70%, and owners of some have lost 99% as major [[bank]]s closed down. The [[stock market]] has declined 50-70% in major countries and [[pension]] funds have large paper losses. Paper losses in real estate have been in the trillions; the average price of American houses fell 20%, with 30% and higher declines in California and Florida. However, thus far ordinary depositors with cash in the bank have suffered no losses. Owners of stocks in the 5000 largest U.S. corporations have paper losses of $10 trillion dollars in 2008, dropping to $10 trillion in October from $20 trillion in late 2007.

In late September the crisis focused on liquidity--financial companies owned hundreds of billions of dollars of "toxic" securities, mostly based on U.S. [[mortgage]]s; they could not sell the toxic securities because no one knew how much they were worth, and large scale loans between major institutions stopped flowing as the system lost liquidity and froze up. A $800 billion rescue plan became law in the U.S. October 3, but its impact will not be clear for a while. Meanwhile Europe's economic crisis continues to deteriorate, as trillions of dollars in losses accumulate there and in Russia, China and India and in many smaller countries. International agencies such as the International Monetary Fund are arranging emergency bailouts for medium-sized countries, like Pakistan and Ukraine. All around the world people are sending their money to the U.S. and Japan because the banks there are safer than their own banks. The price of oil, which reached $145 a barrel in the summer, plunged to under $50. That plunge eased the gasoline crisis, helped commuters, and helped the airline industry.

[[Image:BRIDGE.JPG|thumb|400px|Tom Toles cartoon lampoons Federal bailout efforts as a badly designed bridge to nowhere, Dec. 1, 2008]]

Both parties have expressed anger at the crisis, and have promised extensive new regulations of the financial industry. However the Republicans have blocked additional bailout aid to General Motors, which is on the verge of bankruptcy.<ref> Treasury Secretary Paulson told Congress on Nov. 18 that the Bush administration remains "firmly opposed" to using any of the $700 billion financial bailout fund to help rescue Detroit's Big Three, "no matter how badly they need the help." [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/18/paulson-rejects-bailout-money-automakers-senate-considers-legislation/ Fox news report] </ref> Democratic Congressional leaders and President-elect [[Barack Obama]] have pushed for a bailout of the auto industry and are expected to move it forward in January, 2009.

The Bush administration undertook a "bailout" program in which it took control of several of the largest financial institutions (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG insurance), forced the mergers of others, purchased $125 billion of ownership in the 9 largest banks in the U.S., and bailed out the largest bank, Citigroup.

Until October the crisis had little impact on the non-financial sectors of the world economy, but then negative impacts started appearing. Companies could not borrow money for expansion or in some cases for routine operations, and had to cut back. Consumer spending fell and unemployment started to rise sharply. By November pessimistic reports were coming in daily from practically every sector of the American economy. There were no bright spots, and with tax revenues down, state governments began large-scale cutbacks, especially in New York and California.

By late October it appeared the financial crisis was slowing down the economies of all countries of the world, leading perhaps to a serious recession with widespread unemployment and loss of business. The major countries have been taking aggressive steps to dissolve the liquidity freeze and get money flowing again, and to stimulate economies that are headed downward.

==Causes==
In 2000 [[Howard Husock]] warned that the [[Community Reinvestment Act]] of 1977 and the expansion in 1995 would prove expensive; President Bush strongly endorsed the program. Despite widespread misunderstanding they did not cause the great crisis since CRA loans comprised only about 6% of the toxic mortgages. <ref>[http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities], Howard Husock, ''City Journal'', Winter 2000; Governor Randall S. Kroszner, "The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis," (December 3, 2008) [http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm online]</ref>

As hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the U.S. from abroad, financiers looked for imaginative ways to make a profit. They turned to [[real estate]], with the philosophy "Buy high--sell higher!" The higher price paid for a house the more profit would be made when it was resold ("flipped") in six or 12 months; prices were certain to keep going up and up. Salesmen made big money by phoning prospective buyers, promising to get them Bog Money Quick. People who owned a house whose value had doubled could and did refinance their mortgage for the higher amount, and keep the difference. In the early 2000s, U.S. interest rates were low and demand for housing was high, as housing prices soared, especially in California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona. Mortgage companies and banks were very eager to lend, especially to people with mediocre [[credit]] who would not previously have been eligible for mortgages and to speculators. Speculators were ordinary people who already had a house and who were hoping to make a large profit on the purchase and quick resale ("flip") of another house or condominium, which no one ever lived in.<ref> The only money the speculators had at risk was a down payment; sometimes the construction company paid for the down payment and closing costs, so the risk to the speculator was zero. Mortgages in the U.S. are "non-recourse" which means that borrowers cannot be sued for stopping payments.</ref> The expectation was that continuously rising house prices would cover the mortgage payments through refinancing. Many of the mortgages involved very low down payments and low monthly payments for the first year or two, after which the payments would start soaring. Sometimes the monthly payment at first was zero.

Americans owed some $10 trillion on their mortgages, most of which were sound with payments made on time. However financiers bundled the mortgages into very complicated packages called "'''collateralized debt obligations''''<ref> That is, homeowners were obligated to pay the debts and the collateral behind them was the physical house.</ref> or CDOs. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of CDO's were sold to banks, pension funds and financiers in the U.S. and Europe. Generally they borrowed cash to buy the CDOs. The risk was that if the CDO's declines in value, they would not be able to repay those loans. To minimize the risk, companies sold insurance called "credit default swaps" ('''CDS''') to guarantee payment of the CDOs. The largest seller was [[American International Group]] ('''AIG'''), the world's largest insurance company. The CDOs and CDS were especially attractive because they were not regulated by the government; experts are not sure how many trillions of dollars are involved.

Many mortgages were held by mortgage companies like [[Countrywide]] and [[Washington Mutual]], as well as investment banks such as [[Bear Stearns]], [[Merrill Lynch]], [[Lehman Brothers]], [[Morgan Stanley]] and [[Goldman Sachs]], as well as commercial banking chains like [[Wachovia]] and [[Bank of America]], which have thousands of local offices.

==Bubble bursts==
The housing "bubble" burst in 2006-07, as prices plunged downward in the Sunbelt. Many speculators and homeowners could not meet their payments, especially those who had "[[sub-prime]]" mortgages because their income was too low to support the eventual monthly payments, or who had adjustable rate mortgages where the monthly payments started small then escalated. [[Foreclosure]]s skyrocketed. With housing prices falling few people risked buying a new house (because it would soon be worth less than they paid for it). Construction firms had built millions of new houses that could not be sold but which glutted the market. By late 2008 half the home sales in the U.S. were by banks selling houses they had foreclosed on at low prices.

The problem was that no one could figure out what CDOs were now worth, so very few were willing to buy them. One major investment bank, Merrill Lynch, sold its CDOs for 22 cents on the dollar--a "[[fire sale]]" price that was less than they were worth in the long run, because in the long run the great majority of people will make their scheduled mortgage payments.

==2008 crises==
Multiple crises started pulling down major financial players. Countrywide, which originated 20% of all American mortgages in 2006, collapsed and was bought up by Bank of America. Bear Stearns, a large investment bank, went under; the government arranged a sale to JPMorgan Chase; stock holders lost about 90% of their investment, and the confidence in other banks was undermined.

On September 7, 2008, the government took control of the two largest mortgage holders, "[[Fannie Mae]]"<ref> Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)</ref> and "[[Freddie Mac]]"<ref>Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) </ref>. The two had lost $15 billion on the $5.4 trillion in mortgages they owned, and their notes were widely held in [[China]] and many other countries. The fear was that if the Treasury did not act the world's confidence in the US financial system would collapse. However the rest of the world was in trouble too. The stock markets in China and [[Russia]] plunged 50%, and the [[United Kingdom|British]] Treasury had to take over its largest mortgage company, [[Northern Rock]]. Vast sums of money flowed into the US because it was safer there than anywhere else.

[[Image:PANIC08.jpg|thumb|300px|Panic in Wall Street, Sept. 2008; the "bull" is the symbol of optimism on Wall Street and the "bear" is the symbol of pessimism. Here the bull panics.]]

By September the major banks were no longer lending money and most reported huge losses as they wrote down the value of the CDOs and other assets. Short sellers sold large amounts of stock in threatened companies, causing further panic and driving down share prices.<ref>The short sellers did not own the shares; the practice was stopped on Sept. 19, 2008, by the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] because it destabilized markets.</ref> [[Lehman Brothers]], one of the oldest and largest banks in New York, went bankrupt on Sept. 15 with no one to rescue it. The collapse of Lehman with its $639 billion in assets had a multiplier effect worldwide, severely weakening other big banks and sharply increasing the level of fear and distrust inside the system that caused bankers to sharply reduce their lending. Many large firms and hedge funds had borrowed billions of dollars from lenders and had pledged assets they owned as collateral. When the value of their collateral plummeted, the lenders demanded more collateral to make up the difference, so the borrowers had to sell assets to raise emergency cash. The price of the assets they sold was falling, and large additional sales further depressed prices, creating a downward spiral.

Merrill Lynch was sold to Bank of America for $50 billion, about half its value a few months before. Investors realized that AIG could no longer honor the insurance policies it wrote. It lost $13 billion in the first half of 2008 and its shares fell 95% in value. AIG was "too big" to be allowed to fail, so it was given an $85 billion loan from the government; in return the government received 80% of its stock. The government had to add another $38 billion to the AIG rescue in October.<ref> Barry Meier and Mary Williams Walsh, "A.I.G. to get Additional $37.8 Billion," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09insure.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin ''New York Times,'' Oct. 8, 2008] </ref> In effect AIG, along with GSE (government-sponsored enterprises) Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were nationalized. The Federal Reserve, with $800 billion in assets, was assisted by the Treasury, which gave it more funds.<ref> See [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/business/02crisis.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1222952525-cWL0bOgQjxNvxNo+OH1qAw Joe Nocera, "36 Hours of Alarm and Action as Crisis Spiraled," ''New York Times'' (Oct. 1, 2008)]</ref>

===European crises===
Heavy borrowing by European banks meant the crisis immediately affected Britain and other countries as well, as the British housing bubble burst about the same time as the U.S. The British government had to take over major mortgage lenders, including Northern Rock in February, 2008. Northern Rock's loans (£25 billion) and guarantees (£30 billion) extended by the Bank of England, together with the value of the company's mortgages (£55 billion), or £100 billion in all, were added to the British national debt. Bradford & Bingley, half the size of Northern Rock, held £40 billion in toxic mortgages, and was nationalized in late September.
====Fortis====
In late September, the Fortis bank, the world's 20th largest business, was partially nationalized by three governments who injected $16 billion in emergency funds. In 2007 Fortis borrowed heavily for its $100 billion takeover of rival bank ABN Amro; the deal came at the market’s peak, and Fortis now cannot pay its debts. The [[Belgium|Belgian]], [[Netherlands|Dutch]] and [[Luxembourg]] governments tried to inject capital but as consumer confidence plunged, Netherlands nationalized the Dutch wing of the company and the rest was sold in early October to the French bank BNP Paribas for €14.5 billion euros ($19 billion dollars).
====Germany====
In [[Germany]] Hypo Real Estate was given €50 billion euros ($68 billion dollars) bailout by the government. The government of [[Iceland]] took over its large banks, as the entire island economy verged on bankruptcy because it depended so much on large foreign loans. Most of the European countries hurriedly announced guarantees of personal bank deposits to avert further drop in consumer confidence and runs on the banks. Stock markets around the world continue to decline as pessimism worsens.
====Central banks====
The European Central Bank aggressively lent money to banks trying to ensure that banks would have adequate cash. The moves have not reassured savers or investors, and European stock markets have fallen even further than the American stock markets, as have the stock markets in China and Russia.

On October 13, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Austria committed €1.3 trillion euros ($1.8 trillion dollars) to guarantee bank loans and take stakes in banks, in an emergency effort to head off the collapse of their financial systems. <ref>Carter Dougherty, Nelson Schwartz and Floyd Norris, "Financial Crises Spread in Europe," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06markets.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin ''New York Times,'' Oct 6, 2008]; Gregory Viscusi, [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azerJ573HcbI&refer=home "EU Nations Commit 1.3 Trillion Euros to Bank Bailouts," ''Bloomberg.com'' Oct. 13. 2008]</ref>
====Britain====
Britain on October 8 announced a gigantic £400 billion ($680 billion) rescue plan for its banks; the government would partially own them. Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]] said banks would still be run by their old managers, but that the government would have to be "satisfied" on matters of salaries, [[dividend]]s and lending activities. The money involved is about a third of Britain's annual [[Gross Domestic Product|GDP]] (comparable to $5 trillion in the U.S. economy.)

On October 13, Britain announced it would spend £50 billion ($85 billion) to nationalize two of the five largest banks, HBOS (Halifax Bank of Scotland) and RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland), while taking partial ownership of a third, Lloyds TSB. A fourth, Barclays will remain private if it can raise an additional £7 billion. The fifth, HSBC is based in Hong Kong and will remain private.<ref>"Financial crisis: HBOS and RBS 'to be nationalised' in £50 billion state intervention," [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3185120/Financial-crisis-HBOS-and-RBS-to-be-nationalised-in-50-billion-state-intervention.html?source=EMC-new_12102008 London ''Telegraph'' Oct 13, 2008] The existing stockholders were not bought out. They will continue to hold shares in the banks, but they will be outvoted by the new stock owned by the government.</ref>
====Switzerland====
In October 2008, the Swiss central bank and the big UBS bank reached an agreement to transfer as much as $60 billion of troubled securities and other assets from UBS’s to a separate entity. UBS will put up $6 billion in equity. The Swiss central bank will control the new entity and loan it $54 billion.

===Asia===
The crisis swept across the Middle East and Asia as well, with South Korea especially hard hit. China, which had been the world's major growth machine in recent years, seemed to slow down. In November China's government announced it would spend 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) through the end of 2010 to stimulate its economy. It specifically targeted people's livelihood in an effort to offset the impact of slowing global demand for its exports and unlock the spending power of its vast population.

==$700 billion bailout ==
"We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis," [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] warned the nation on Sept. 25, 2008.:
{{QuoteBox|Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending. Credit markets have frozen. And families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money....without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold: More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.<ref>see [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080924-10.html Bush speech online]</ref>}}
On September 19, 2008, the Treasury and Federal Reserve proposed a major rescue plan--the largest government intervention in the economy since [[World War II]]. The plan was for the Treasury to purchase $700 billion of the CDOs. The bailout was needed, Bush said, to avert a major disaster for the economy. Most (but not all) Democrats signed on to the bailout plan, adding provisions for Congressional oversight and caps on CEO compensation; but at the last moment on Sept 25, 2008 House Republicans said no, and GOP presidential nominee [[John McCain]] held off endorsement.

Conservatives were split on what to do. Many agreed with Bush that the bailout proposed by Treasury Secretary [[Henry M. Paulson]] was urgently needed. Large banks and corporations strongly endorsed the bailout. The [[American Bankers Association]] and the [[Mortgage Bankers Association]] are fighting against any amendment that would reduce mortgage obligations for people in bankruptcy, while directing all the government funds to the banking industry.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, normally an outspoken advocate of big corporate interests, instead stressed the crisis's impact on small and midsize businesses. "We're looking at an economy that was slipping toward recession even before this crisis culminated in a market lockup last week," said Chamber economist Martin Regalia. The debate in Congress, he said, "is costing every American taxpayer money, directly."<ref>Elizabeth Williamson, "Big Business Wants Deal, Setbacks and All," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238988380577457.html ''Wall Street Journal'' Sept. 26, 2008]</ref> Democratic nominee Senator [[Barack Obama]] endorsed the plan, as amended by Congressional Democrats. On the other hand, ordinary taxpayers and "Main Street", that is businessmen who operated at the local level, were highly suspicious of [[Wall Street]]. McCain, blaming the crisis on "the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system", rejected the bailout as a favor for Wall Street and little help to Main Street. Believers in the market economy insisted that the market should run its course, and opposed the bailout.<ref> See comments from a range of economists at [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26assess.html?ref=business Peter S. Goodman, "Credit Enters a Lockdown," ''New York Times'' Sept. 25, 2008]</ref>

A compromise bailout was agreed to by leaders of both parties but the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" (EESA) was voted down in the House on Sept. 29. Democrats favored the Bush bill 60%-40%, but Republicans voted no by 65-35%. The stock market lost a trillion dollars in value in one day as uncertainty reigned. Finally a large majority passed an expanded bailout bill, that added $100 billion in new subsidies to the original $700 billion, plus tax breaks and a rise in FDIC insurance to $250,000 from $100,000, designed to reassure ordinary depositors. Both Obama and McCain voted for this version of the bill.

The Treasury TARP program proved erratic and had to be radically modified several times. The Treasury dropped the original plan to buy toxic securities and instead has used $250 billion to prop up major banks. In October Paulson and Bernanke used their new powers to take an ownership stake in the nine largest U.S. banks, of $7 to $25 billion each. These banks are now partly owned and controlled by the government. However those banks are keeping the money and not lending it out. The Bush administration has refused to allow the money to be used to help the [[automobile]] industry. The price of bank stocks has fallen sharply since the bailout passed. The world's largest bank, Citigroup, was on the verge of collapse in late November and received a second bailout of $20 billion (in addition to $25 billion in October), and a federal guarantee to cover most of its toxic investments.

By mid-November the market had lost confidence in Treasury Secretary Paulson, who indicated he was baffled and would let the incoming Obama administration handle the unspent $450 billion. The stock market jumped 6% on the news that Obama had picked New York banker Timothy Geithner to replace Paulson.<ref>Theo Francis, "Obama to Nominate New York Fed Chief Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary," [http://www.businessweek.com/election/2008/blog/archives/2008/11/obama_to_nomina.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story ''Business Week'' Nov. 21, 2008]</ref> In late November the Federal Reserve announced it will buy up to $600 billion in mortgage-related assets from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, hoping to restart the housing and credit markets. Under the new "Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility", or '''TALF''', the Federal Reserve will loan up to $200 billion to financial companies that hold securities backed by consumer and small-business loans.

Hedge funds are private investment companies with $1.7 trillion in assets. They have lost $180 billion since July and some are near collapse. Investors are demanding their money back, and Wall Street in late October is bracing for a shake-out in the industry.<ref> Louise Story, "Citadel Chief denies rumors of trouble" [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/business/25hedge.html?ref=business ''New York Times,'' Oct 24, 2008]</ref>

In late November the government announced an $800 billion plan to boost consumer credit and the market for mortgage-related securities. Plans call for the Federal Reserve in early 2009 to extend up to $200 billion in non-recourse loans to holders of asset-backed securities backed by highly-rated consumer and small business loans.<ref> "Non-recourse" loans means that if they are not paid back the borrowers cannot be sued for their other assets. Mortgages fall in this category, so that if people default they just walk away from the debt and never have to repay it. However it damages their credit rating.</ref> Treasury will contribute $20 billion in funds through its Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The Federal Reserve also announced it will purchase up to $100 billion in GSE (government-sponsored enterprises, especially Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac) debt through a series of competitive auctions starting in December, 2008. The Federal Reserve starting in December will purchase up to $500 billion in mortgage-backed securities backed by GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Fed is preparing to launch new liquidity programs to support the economy in addition to further slashing interests rates. The total commitments by the government in bailouts and loan guarantees exceeded $7 trillion dollars, but the economy nevertheless continued to slip downward.<ref>Maya Jackson Randall, "Paulson Says Treasury Actively Mulling New Rescue Programs," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122816189458369851.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy ''Wall Street Journal'' Dec. 1, 2008]</ref>
===Deepening recession===
By early December the entire economy was heading downward with no bright spots. The recession that began in Dec. 2007 intensified, as retail sales plunged. In November 2008 Americans, their confidence shaken, saved their money and sharply reduced their credit card purchases. Auto sales were down 37% in November (compared to Nov. 2007) to the lowest rate in 26 years. GM sales fell 41% Ford fell 31% and the foreign cars were down just as much, with Toyota down 34%, Nissan down 42% and Honda down 32%.<ref> Stephanie Rosenbloom, "In November, Shoppers Cut Spending Even More," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/economy/03shop.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Dec. 2, 2008]; Nick Bunkley, "Another Month of Miserable Auto Sales," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/03sales.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Dec. 2, 2008].</ref> Retailers rang up the lowest November sales in more than 30 years, as holiday shopping not only failed to lift the economy but showed that the crisis is further distressing everyday consumers. Thirty major companies -- including Macy's, Sears, Abercrombie & Fitch and Target -- posted sales declines; Wal-Mart, anchoring the bottom of the price chain, sawincreased sales. Retail sales in November fell 2.7 percent compared with the same month last year.<ref> Ylan Q. Mui, "Retailers Report a Crisis in All Aisles: November Sales Slump as Shoppers Stow Credit Cards," [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/04/AR2008120404347.html?hpid=topnews ''Washington Post'' Dec. 5, 2008]</ref>
[[Image:Jobloss.jpg|thumb|300px]]

The Federal Reserve reported on Dec. 3, 2008, that every region reported sales declines, drops in manufacturing activity, weakening real estate markets, tighter lending, and deteriorating labor marketsThose sectors that had been strong until recently -- especially as agriculture and energy -- also softened as commodity prices declined. November saw 533,000 jobs disappear in the worst one-month decline in 34 years.

==Collapse of #6 and #4 largest banks, rescue of #1==
===Washington Mutual collapses===
On Sept. 25, Washington Mutual, the 6th largest bank in the US with $310 billion in assets, went [[bankrupt]] after a run in which depositors withdrew $17 billion in a few days. Its stockholders lost all their money, the US government took it over (through the [[FDIC]], which insures ordinary bank deposits), and resold it the same day to the biggest New York bank, JPMorgan Chase. It was the largest commercial bank failure in American history, by far.<ref>In the [[Great Depression]], only one major bank failed (New York's Bank of United States, in late 1930), although over 6000 small neighborhood and rural banks went under; depositors eventually received on average 85% of their deposits.</ref>
===Wachovia collapses===
Meanwhile the #4 U.S. bank, Wachovia, burdened by $120 billion in toxic securities,<ref> At the height of the bubble in 2006 Wachovia purchased Golden West Financial, a California lender specializing in "pay-option" mortgages that enabled speculators to buy houses and pay very little a month for a year or two (at which time they expected to sell it for a profit). [http://www.brokeroutpost.com/reference/22657.htm explanation of pay-option loans]</ref> was bought out by Citigroup on Sept. 29 in a deal engineered by the FDIC. However Wachovia then broke its deal and merged into Wells Fargo. The result is that four major banks now dominate the American economy (Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo), along with dozens of regional chains and thousands of small local banks.
===Bank of America renegotiates mortgages===
In early October, Bank of America, the new owner of Countrywide, reached a settlement with 11 states that sued it over fraudulent practices. The state of Illinois accused Countrywide of relaxing underwriting standards, structuring loans with risky features, and misleading consumers with hidden fees and fake marketing claims, like a false promise of a "no closing costs loan." Countrywide gave special incentives to its brokers for selling impossible loans by paying higher commissions on them. In reviewing one Illinois mortgage broker’s sales, the Illinois complaint said the "vast majority of the loans had inflated income, almost all without the borrower’s knowledge." Bank of America did not deny the charges and instead agreed to pay out $8.4 billion to 400,000 Countrywide customers. Countrywide will reduce principal balances for some people and cut interest rates for others. Rates for some people could decline to as low as 2.5% and remain at that level for five years. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and IndyMac, now all owned by the federal government, have begun their own programs to modify mortgage terms for some hard-pressed borrowers.
<ref> Gretchen Morgenson, "Countrywide to Set Aside $8.4 Billion in Loan Aid," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06countrywide.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Oct. 6, 2008]</ref>
===Largest bank rescued===
Citigroup, the world's largest bank was tottering in late November despite its receipt of $25 billion in TARP bailout money. Its value on the stock market plunged to $21 billion, down from $244 billion two years ago. Round after round of layoffs have ended 75,000 jobs in 2008 out of 375,000 employees a year ago. Very heavy exposure to toxic mortgages is the main culprit. The government stepped in with the largest bailout yet, including $20 billion in new cash, and guarantees of toxic assets by the Treasury, FDIC and Federal Reserve.

At all times Citigroup used elaborate mathematical risk models that looked at mortgages in particular geographical areas, but never included the possibility of a national housing downturn, or the prospect that millions of mortgage holders would default on their mortgages. The prevailing approach at Citigroup and the other big banks was to make money as fast as possible (generating annual bonuses of $10 to $30 million for senior executives), which assigning zero to the risk of a system-wide downturn. Such a downturn came with disastrous consequences for Citigroup and its rivals on Wall Street. Even after Bear Stearns ran into serious trouble in summer 2007, Citigroup decided the possibility of trouble with its CDO’s was so tiny (less than 1/100 of 1%) that they excluded them from their risk analysis.

Despite two federal bailouts Citigroup is still wobbly. It holds $20 billion of mortgage-linked securities that have been marked down to between 21 cents and 41 cents on the dollar. It has billions of dollars of giant buyout and corporate loans of dubious value. And it also faces a potential massive losses on auto, mortgage and credit card loans as the economy worsens.<ref>Eric Dash and Julie Creswell, "Citigroup Pays for a Rush to Risk," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23citi.html?ref=business&pagewanted=all ''New York'' Times,’’ Nov. 22, 2008]</ref>

==Crisis in Auto industry==
In 2008 a series of damaging blows drove the "Big Three" (GM, Ford and Chrysler) to the verge of bankruptcy. Part of the cause was very high labor costs (much higher than the foreign plants in the U.S.), which prevents lower prices. The Big Three had in recent years stressed expensive, fuel-guzzling SUVs and large pickups. They were much more profitable than smaller, fuel-efficient cars. When gasoline prices shot past $4 in 2008, Americans stopped buying the big cars, and the Big Three saw their sales plummet. The Financial Crisis played a role as no one was willing to loan GM the money to buy Chrysler. Consumer credit has tightened and it became much harder for people with average or poor credit to obtain a bank loan to buy a car, so sales fell further. Stock prices plummeted as shareholders worried about bankruptcy; GM's shares fell to 1946 levels. Intense debate is underway about a massive bailout, that would be in addition to a $25 billion loan Congress passed in September 2008 to assist in increasing fuel efficiency. President Bush has proposed changing the terms of that loan so it could be used to cover daily operating expenses, but Congress rejected that. Republicans in Congress in mid-November blocked Democratic proposals to underwrite a new bailout of the auto industry, as industry leaders made an unconvincing case before Congress. President elect Obama and Democrats in Congress have demanded the Big Three come up with a highly specific plan with some chance of long-term viability, with the expectation that Congress will address the issue again in January 2009.

In addition to the Big Three hundreds of large suppliers of parts are in financial crisis as well; most would go under if the Big Three go bankrupt.

Intense debate in December 2008 focused on allowing bankruptcy or injecting billions more of federal aid in a massive bailout; it would be in addition to a $25 billion loan Congress passed in September 2008 to assist in increasing fuel efficiency. The Democrats in Congress supported president Bush's proposal to sue the fuel-efficiency loans to help with the immediate problem. It passed the Hosue but Senate Republicans brioke with Bush and it failed. The opponents called for a bankruptcy that would allow GM to get out of its contracts to pay union members high wages, as well as generous pensionsand medical benefits to retired workers. Bush then acted unilaterally and decided to use [[Financial Crisis of 2008|TARP money]] to bail out GM and Chrysler, on December 19. GM and Chrysler will get $13.4 billions in loans they can use to pay their suppliers.<ref> GM and Chrysler will receive $4 billion each when they sign the loan agreements with the Treasury. GM will have access to an addition $5.4 billion on Jan. 16 and another $4 billion on Feb. 17 provided that Congress has released the remaining $350 billion for the Treasury’s TARP rescue program. </ref> GM can receive another $4 billion in February, but by then the Obama adminsitration will be in charge, and it is emphasizing the need for a long-range solution.<ref>David E. Sanger, David M. Herszenhorn and Bill Vlasic, “Bush Aids Detroit, but Hard Choices Wait for Obama,” [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html?hp ''NewYork Times'' Dec. 19, 2008]</ref>

===Bankruptcy scenario===
Bankruptcy of the Big Three would be very expensive to the economy as a whole and the federal government. It would mean loss of 240,000 very high paying jobs at the Big Three, a loss of 980,000 high-paying jobs at the suppliers and local dealers, and 1.7 million additional jobs throughout the economy. It would cause a decline in personal income of $151 billion the first year, and $398 billion over three years. The federal, state and local governments would lose tax revenue and spend on welfare programs a total of $156 billion over three years.<ref>CAR Research Memorandum. "The Impact of the U.S. Economy of a Major Contraction of the Detroit Three Automakers" (Nov 2008) [http://www.cargroup.org/documents/FINALDetroitThreeContractionImpact_3__000.pdf online edition]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Henry M. Paulson]]
*[[Paper loss]]

====References====
<references/>

[[Category:Finance]]
[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Economic history]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Financial Crisis of 2008

2008-12-23T16:46:26Z

Learn together: It's unclear that this is the worst since 1933; most countries are going through slowdowns rather than outright negative growth

{{move|Recession of 2008}}
The '''Financial Crisis of 2008''' is an ongoing worldwide financial crisis that many observers believe is the worst the world has seen since 1933 with the [[Great Depression]]. The National Bureau of Economic Research, a private organization that follows its own standards as set by eminent economists such as [[Milton Friedman]], has declared that the peak of the last expansion took place in December 2007, and the overall economy has been in decline ever since.<ref>See "Text of the NBER's statement on the recession and FAQ's" [http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-12-01-recession-nber-statement_N.htm ''USA Today'' Dec 1, 2008]. "The U.S. economy entered a recession in December 2007, a committee of economists at the private National Bureau of Economic Research said," at [http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/US-recession-began-December-2007/story.aspx?guid={7DCF90E4-D61A-4014-83CE-45E938CD632C} Rex Nutting] - MarketWatch</ref> The economic difficulties will probably be officially classified as a [[recession]] when the next quarterly data is released as it is believed that there will have been another quarter of negative growth.

Negative economic news has spread outward from financial institutions to depress housing, construction, automobiles, retail sales, state and local government, and other sectors. In recent months governments across the world have spent huge sums of money to reverse the crisis, but thus far the results have been inconclusive and the declines continue. The U.S. government provided cash bailouts of several hundred billion dollars and long-term loan guarantees of over $7 trillion dollars (compared to a GDP of $15 trillion a year in the U.S.). Conservatives have been as dismayed and baffled by the crisis as everyone else.

Unlike crises in the mid 1970s and early 1980s, this one began in the financial sector with devastating effects on many very large financial companies worldwide. The negative effects by October began spreading to all other sectors of the economy, and forecasts for the next year show little likely of a quick recovery anywhere.

[[Image:CRASH08.JPG|thumb|300px|Oct 11, 2008 editorial; cartoon by Horsey stresses the global collapse]]

The crisis originated in the United States and Western Europe, and has impacted every country in the world. Banks and financial companies have reported losses of over one trillion dollars; investors have suffered [[paper loss|"paper losses"]] of many trillions. U.S. stocks are down 50% from their peak in 2007.<ref> For most people the loss is a "paper" loss because they still own the stock and it might go up, or down. If they bought stock in 2003 for $1000, watched it go to $1500 in 2008, then drop to $1000 again in 2008, their "paper loss" is $500 but their real loss is zero since they are back where they started. People who bought at $800 still have made a $200 paper profit. People who bought at $1200, say, have a paper loss of $200. The paper loss or gain becomes real when they finally sell the stock. See [[Paper loss]] for more details</ref> Paper losses for owners of stock in major financial institution have been over 70%, and owners of some have lost 99% as major [[bank]]s closed down. The [[stock market]] has declined 50-70% in major countries and [[pension]] funds have large paper losses. Paper losses in real estate have been in the trillions; the average price of American houses fell 20%, with 30% and higher declines in California and Florida. However, thus far ordinary depositors with cash in the bank have suffered no losses. Owners of stocks in the 5000 largest U.S. corporations have paper losses of $10 trillion dollars in 2008, dropping to $10 trillion in October from $20 trillion in late 2007.

In late September the crisis focused on liquidity--financial companies owned hundreds of billions of dollars of "toxic" securities, mostly based on U.S. [[mortgage]]s; they could not sell the toxic securities because no one knew how much they were worth, and large scale loans between major institutions stopped flowing as the system lost liquidity and froze up. A $800 billion rescue plan became law in the U.S. October 3, but its impact will not be clear for a while. Meanwhile Europe's economic crisis continues to deteriorate, as trillions of dollars in losses accumulate there and in Russia, China and India and in many smaller countries. International agencies such as the International Monetary Fund are arranging emergency bailouts for medium-sized countries, like Pakistan and Ukraine. All around the world people are sending their money to the U.S. and Japan because the banks there are safer than their own banks. The price of oil, which reached $145 a barrel in the summer, plunged to under $50. That plunge eased the gasoline crisis, helped commuters, and helped the airline industry.

[[Image:BRIDGE.JPG|thumb|400px|Tom Toles cartoon lampoons Federal bailout efforts as a badly designed bridge to nowhere, Dec. 1, 2008]]

Both parties have expressed anger at the crisis, and have promised extensive new regulations of the financial industry. However the Republicans have blocked additional bailout aid to General Motors, which is on the verge of bankruptcy.<ref> Treasury Secretary Paulson told Congress on Nov. 18 that the Bush administration remains "firmly opposed" to using any of the $700 billion financial bailout fund to help rescue Detroit's Big Three, "no matter how badly they need the help." [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/18/paulson-rejects-bailout-money-automakers-senate-considers-legislation/ Fox news report] </ref> Democratic Congressional leaders and President-elect [[Barack Obama]] have pushed for a bailout of the auto industry and are expected to move it forward in January, 2009.

The Bush administration undertook a "bailout" program in which it took control of several of the largest financial institutions (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG insurance), forced the mergers of others, purchased $125 billion of ownership in the 9 largest banks in the U.S., and bailed out the largest bank, Citigroup.

Until October the crisis had little impact on the non-financial sectors of the world economy, but then negative impacts started appearing. Companies could not borrow money for expansion or in some cases for routine operations, and had to cut back. Consumer spending fell and unemployment started to rise sharply. By November pessimistic reports were coming in daily from practically every sector of the American economy. There were no bright spots, and with tax revenues down, state governments began large-scale cutbacks, especially in New York and California.

By late October it appeared the financial crisis was slowing down the economies of all countries of the world, leading perhaps to a serious recession with widespread unemployment and loss of business. The major countries have been taking aggressive steps to dissolve the liquidity freeze and get money flowing again, and to stimulate economies that are headed downward.

==Causes==
In 2000 [[Howard Husock]] warned that the [[Community Reinvestment Act]] of 1977 and the expansion in 1995 would prove expensive; President Bush strongly endorsed the program. Despite widespread misunderstanding they did not cause the great crisis since CRA loans comprised only about 6% of the toxic mortgages. <ref>[http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities], Howard Husock, ''City Journal'', Winter 2000; Governor Randall S. Kroszner, "The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis," (December 3, 2008) [http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm online]</ref>

As hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the U.S. from abroad, financiers looked for imaginative ways to make a profit. They turned to [[real estate]], with the philosophy "Buy high--sell higher!" The higher price paid for a house the more profit would be made when it was resold ("flipped") in six or 12 months; prices were certain to keep going up and up. Salesmen made big money by phoning prospective buyers, promising to get them Bog Money Quick. People who owned a house whose value had doubled could and did refinance their mortgage for the higher amount, and keep the difference. In the early 2000s, U.S. interest rates were low and demand for housing was high, as housing prices soared, especially in California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona. Mortgage companies and banks were very eager to lend, especially to people with mediocre [[credit]] who would not previously have been eligible for mortgages and to speculators. Speculators were ordinary people who already had a house and who were hoping to make a large profit on the purchase and quick resale ("flip") of another house or condominium, which no one ever lived in.<ref> The only money the speculators had at risk was a down payment; sometimes the construction company paid for the down payment and closing costs, so the risk to the speculator was zero. Mortgages in the U.S. are "non-recourse" which means that borrowers cannot be sued for stopping payments.</ref> The expectation was that continuously rising house prices would cover the mortgage payments through refinancing. Many of the mortgages involved very low down payments and low monthly payments for the first year or two, after which the payments would start soaring. Sometimes the monthly payment at first was zero.

Americans owed some $10 trillion on their mortgages, most of which were sound with payments made on time. However financiers bundled the mortgages into very complicated packages called "'''collateralized debt obligations''''<ref> That is, homeowners were obligated to pay the debts and the collateral behind them was the physical house.</ref> or CDOs. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of CDO's were sold to banks, pension funds and financiers in the U.S. and Europe. Generally they borrowed cash to buy the CDOs. The risk was that if the CDO's declines in value, they would not be able to repay those loans. To minimize the risk, companies sold insurance called "credit default swaps" ('''CDS''') to guarantee payment of the CDOs. The largest seller was [[American International Group]] ('''AIG'''), the world's largest insurance company. The CDOs and CDS were especially attractive because they were not regulated by the government; experts are not sure how many trillions of dollars are involved.

Many mortgages were held by mortgage companies like [[Countrywide]] and [[Washington Mutual]], as well as investment banks such as [[Bear Stearns]], [[Merrill Lynch]], [[Lehman Brothers]], [[Morgan Stanley]] and [[Goldman Sachs]], as well as commercial banking chains like [[Wachovia]] and [[Bank of America]], which have thousands of local offices.

==Bubble bursts==
The housing "bubble" burst in 2006-07, as prices plunged downward in the Sunbelt. Many speculators and homeowners could not meet their payments, especially those who had "[[sub-prime]]" mortgages because their income was too low to support the eventual monthly payments, or who had adjustable rate mortgages where the monthly payments started small then escalated. [[Foreclosure]]s skyrocketed. With housing prices falling few people risked buying a new house (because it would soon be worth less than they paid for it). Construction firms had built millions of new houses that could not be sold but which glutted the market. By late 2008 half the home sales in the U.S. were by banks selling houses they had foreclosed on at low prices.

The problem was that no one could figure out what CDOs were now worth, so very few were willing to buy them. One major investment bank, Merrill Lynch, sold its CDOs for 22 cents on the dollar--a "[[fire sale]]" price that was less than they were worth in the long run, because in the long run the great majority of people will make their scheduled mortgage payments.

==2008 crises==
Multiple crises started pulling down major financial players. Countrywide, which originated 20% of all American mortgages in 2006, collapsed and was bought up by Bank of America. Bear Stearns, a large investment bank, went under; the government arranged a sale to JPMorgan Chase; stock holders lost about 90% of their investment, and the confidence in other banks was undermined.

On September 7, 2008, the government took control of the two largest mortgage holders, "[[Fannie Mae]]"<ref> Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)</ref> and "[[Freddie Mac]]"<ref>Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) </ref>. The two had lost $15 billion on the $5.4 trillion in mortgages they owned, and their notes were widely held in [[China]] and many other countries. The fear was that if the Treasury did not act the world's confidence in the US financial system would collapse. However the rest of the world was in trouble too. The stock markets in China and [[Russia]] plunged 50%, and the [[United Kingdom|British]] Treasury had to take over its largest mortgage company, [[Northern Rock]]. Vast sums of money flowed into the US because it was safer there than anywhere else.

[[Image:PANIC08.jpg|thumb|300px|Panic in Wall Street, Sept. 2008; the "bull" is the symbol of optimism on Wall Street and the "bear" is the symbol of pessimism. Here the bull panics.]]

By September the major banks were no longer lending money and most reported huge losses as they wrote down the value of the CDOs and other assets. Short sellers sold large amounts of stock in threatened companies, causing further panic and driving down share prices.<ref>The short sellers did not own the shares; the practice was stopped on Sept. 19, 2008, by the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] because it destabilized markets.</ref> [[Lehman Brothers]], one of the oldest and largest banks in New York, went bankrupt on Sept. 15 with no one to rescue it. The collapse of Lehman with its $639 billion in assets had a multiplier effect worldwide, severely weakening other big banks and sharply increasing the level of fear and distrust inside the system that caused bankers to sharply reduce their lending. Many large firms and hedge funds had borrowed billions of dollars from lenders and had pledged assets they owned as collateral. When the value of their collateral plummeted, the lenders demanded more collateral to make up the difference, so the borrowers had to sell assets to raise emergency cash. The price of the assets they sold was falling, and large additional sales further depressed prices, creating a downward spiral.

Merrill Lynch was sold to Bank of America for $50 billion, about half its value a few months before. Investors realized that AIG could no longer honor the insurance policies it wrote. It lost $13 billion in the first half of 2008 and its shares fell 95% in value. AIG was "too big" to be allowed to fail, so it was given an $85 billion loan from the government; in return the government received 80% of its stock. The government had to add another $38 billion to the AIG rescue in October.<ref> Barry Meier and Mary Williams Walsh, "A.I.G. to get Additional $37.8 Billion," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09insure.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin ''New York Times,'' Oct. 8, 2008] </ref> In effect AIG, along with GSE (government-sponsored enterprises) Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were nationalized. The Federal Reserve, with $800 billion in assets, was assisted by the Treasury, which gave it more funds.<ref> See [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/business/02crisis.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1222952525-cWL0bOgQjxNvxNo+OH1qAw Joe Nocera, "36 Hours of Alarm and Action as Crisis Spiraled," ''New York Times'' (Oct. 1, 2008)]</ref>

===European crises===
Heavy borrowing by European banks meant the crisis immediately affected Britain and other countries as well, as the British housing bubble burst about the same time as the U.S. The British government had to take over major mortgage lenders, including Northern Rock in February, 2008. Northern Rock's loans (£25 billion) and guarantees (£30 billion) extended by the Bank of England, together with the value of the company's mortgages (£55 billion), or £100 billion in all, were added to the British national debt. Bradford & Bingley, half the size of Northern Rock, held £40 billion in toxic mortgages, and was nationalized in late September.
====Fortis====
In late September, the Fortis bank, the world's 20th largest business, was partially nationalized by three governments who injected $16 billion in emergency funds. In 2007 Fortis borrowed heavily for its $100 billion takeover of rival bank ABN Amro; the deal came at the market’s peak, and Fortis now cannot pay its debts. The [[Belgium|Belgian]], [[Netherlands|Dutch]] and [[Luxembourg]] governments tried to inject capital but as consumer confidence plunged, Netherlands nationalized the Dutch wing of the company and the rest was sold in early October to the French bank BNP Paribas for €14.5 billion euros ($19 billion dollars).
====Germany====
In [[Germany]] Hypo Real Estate was given €50 billion euros ($68 billion dollars) bailout by the government. The government of [[Iceland]] took over its large banks, as the entire island economy verged on bankruptcy because it depended so much on large foreign loans. Most of the European countries hurriedly announced guarantees of personal bank deposits to avert further drop in consumer confidence and runs on the banks. Stock markets around the world continue to decline as pessimism worsens.
====Central banks====
The European Central Bank aggressively lent money to banks trying to ensure that banks would have adequate cash. The moves have not reassured savers or investors, and European stock markets have fallen even further than the American stock markets, as have the stock markets in China and Russia.

On October 13, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Austria committed €1.3 trillion euros ($1.8 trillion dollars) to guarantee bank loans and take stakes in banks, in an emergency effort to head off the collapse of their financial systems. <ref>Carter Dougherty, Nelson Schwartz and Floyd Norris, "Financial Crises Spread in Europe," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06markets.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin ''New York Times,'' Oct 6, 2008]; Gregory Viscusi, [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azerJ573HcbI&refer=home "EU Nations Commit 1.3 Trillion Euros to Bank Bailouts," ''Bloomberg.com'' Oct. 13. 2008]</ref>
====Britain====
Britain on October 8 announced a gigantic £400 billion ($680 billion) rescue plan for its banks; the government would partially own them. Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]] said banks would still be run by their old managers, but that the government would have to be "satisfied" on matters of salaries, [[dividend]]s and lending activities. The money involved is about a third of Britain's annual [[Gross Domestic Product|GDP]] (comparable to $5 trillion in the U.S. economy.)

On October 13, Britain announced it would spend £50 billion ($85 billion) to nationalize two of the five largest banks, HBOS (Halifax Bank of Scotland) and RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland), while taking partial ownership of a third, Lloyds TSB. A fourth, Barclays will remain private if it can raise an additional £7 billion. The fifth, HSBC is based in Hong Kong and will remain private.<ref>"Financial crisis: HBOS and RBS 'to be nationalised' in £50 billion state intervention," [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3185120/Financial-crisis-HBOS-and-RBS-to-be-nationalised-in-50-billion-state-intervention.html?source=EMC-new_12102008 London ''Telegraph'' Oct 13, 2008] The existing stockholders were not bought out. They will continue to hold shares in the banks, but they will be outvoted by the new stock owned by the government.</ref>
====Switzerland====
In October 2008, the Swiss central bank and the big UBS bank reached an agreement to transfer as much as $60 billion of troubled securities and other assets from UBS’s to a separate entity. UBS will put up $6 billion in equity. The Swiss central bank will control the new entity and loan it $54 billion.

===Asia===
The crisis swept across the Middle East and Asia as well, with South Korea especially hard hit. China, which had been the world's major growth machine in recent years, seemed to slow down. In November China's government announced it would spend 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) through the end of 2010 to stimulate its economy. It specifically targeted people's livelihood in an effort to offset the impact of slowing global demand for its exports and unlock the spending power of its vast population.

==$700 billion bailout ==
"We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis," [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] warned the nation on Sept. 25, 2008.:
{{QuoteBox|Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending. Credit markets have frozen. And families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money....without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold: More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.<ref>see [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080924-10.html Bush speech online]</ref>}}
On September 19, 2008, the Treasury and Federal Reserve proposed a major rescue plan--the largest government intervention in the economy since [[World War II]]. The plan was for the Treasury to purchase $700 billion of the CDOs. The bailout was needed, Bush said, to avert a major disaster for the economy. Most (but not all) Democrats signed on to the bailout plan, adding provisions for Congressional oversight and caps on CEO compensation; but at the last moment on Sept 25, 2008 House Republicans said no, and GOP presidential nominee [[John McCain]] held off endorsement.

Conservatives were split on what to do. Many agreed with Bush that the bailout proposed by Treasury Secretary [[Henry M. Paulson]] was urgently needed. Large banks and corporations strongly endorsed the bailout. The [[American Bankers Association]] and the [[Mortgage Bankers Association]] are fighting against any amendment that would reduce mortgage obligations for people in bankruptcy, while directing all the government funds to the banking industry.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, normally an outspoken advocate of big corporate interests, instead stressed the crisis's impact on small and midsize businesses. "We're looking at an economy that was slipping toward recession even before this crisis culminated in a market lockup last week," said Chamber economist Martin Regalia. The debate in Congress, he said, "is costing every American taxpayer money, directly."<ref>Elizabeth Williamson, "Big Business Wants Deal, Setbacks and All," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238988380577457.html ''Wall Street Journal'' Sept. 26, 2008]</ref> Democratic nominee Senator [[Barack Obama]] endorsed the plan, as amended by Congressional Democrats. On the other hand, ordinary taxpayers and "Main Street", that is businessmen who operated at the local level, were highly suspicious of [[Wall Street]]. McCain, blaming the crisis on "the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system", rejected the bailout as a favor for Wall Street and little help to Main Street. Believers in the market economy insisted that the market should run its course, and opposed the bailout.<ref> See comments from a range of economists at [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26assess.html?ref=business Peter S. Goodman, "Credit Enters a Lockdown," ''New York Times'' Sept. 25, 2008]</ref>

A compromise bailout was agreed to by leaders of both parties but the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" (EESA) was voted down in the House on Sept. 29. Democrats favored the Bush bill 60%-40%, but Republicans voted no by 65-35%. The stock market lost a trillion dollars in value in one day as uncertainty reigned. Finally a large majority passed an expanded bailout bill, that added $100 billion in new subsidies to the original $700 billion, plus tax breaks and a rise in FDIC insurance to $250,000 from $100,000, designed to reassure ordinary depositors. Both Obama and McCain voted for this version of the bill.

The Treasury TARP program proved erratic and had to be radically modified several times. The Treasury dropped the original plan to buy toxic securities and instead has used $250 billion to prop up major banks. In October Paulson and Bernanke used their new powers to take an ownership stake in the nine largest U.S. banks, of $7 to $25 billion each. These banks are now partly owned and controlled by the government. However those banks are keeping the money and not lending it out. The Bush administration has refused to allow the money to be used to help the [[automobile]] industry. The price of bank stocks has fallen sharply since the bailout passed. The world's largest bank, Citigroup, was on the verge of collapse in late November and received a second bailout of $20 billion (in addition to $25 billion in October), and a federal guarantee to cover most of its toxic investments.

By mid-November the market had lost confidence in Treasury Secretary Paulson, who indicated he was baffled and would let the incoming Obama administration handle the unspent $450 billion. The stock market jumped 6% on the news that Obama had picked New York banker Timothy Geithner to replace Paulson.<ref>Theo Francis, "Obama to Nominate New York Fed Chief Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary," [http://www.businessweek.com/election/2008/blog/archives/2008/11/obama_to_nomina.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story ''Business Week'' Nov. 21, 2008]</ref> In late November the Federal Reserve announced it will buy up to $600 billion in mortgage-related assets from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, hoping to restart the housing and credit markets. Under the new "Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility", or '''TALF''', the Federal Reserve will loan up to $200 billion to financial companies that hold securities backed by consumer and small-business loans.

Hedge funds are private investment companies with $1.7 trillion in assets. They have lost $180 billion since July and some are near collapse. Investors are demanding their money back, and Wall Street in late October is bracing for a shake-out in the industry.<ref> Louise Story, "Citadel Chief denies rumors of trouble" [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/business/25hedge.html?ref=business ''New York Times,'' Oct 24, 2008]</ref>

In late November the government announced an $800 billion plan to boost consumer credit and the market for mortgage-related securities. Plans call for the Federal Reserve in early 2009 to extend up to $200 billion in non-recourse loans to holders of asset-backed securities backed by highly-rated consumer and small business loans.<ref> "Non-recourse" loans means that if they are not paid back the borrowers cannot be sued for their other assets. Mortgages fall in this category, so that if people default they just walk away from the debt and never have to repay it. However it damages their credit rating.</ref> Treasury will contribute $20 billion in funds through its Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The Federal Reserve also announced it will purchase up to $100 billion in GSE (government-sponsored enterprises, especially Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac) debt through a series of competitive auctions starting in December, 2008. The Federal Reserve starting in December will purchase up to $500 billion in mortgage-backed securities backed by GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Fed is preparing to launch new liquidity programs to support the economy in addition to further slashing interests rates. The total commitments by the government in bailouts and loan guarantees exceeded $7 trillion dollars, but the economy nevertheless continued to slip downward.<ref>Maya Jackson Randall, "Paulson Says Treasury Actively Mulling New Rescue Programs," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122816189458369851.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy ''Wall Street Journal'' Dec. 1, 2008]</ref>
===Deepening recession===
By early December the entire economy was heading downward with no bright spots. The recession that began in Dec. 2007 intensified, as retail sales plunged. In November 2008 Americans, their confidence shaken, saved their money and sharply reduced their credit card purchases. Auto sales were down 37% in November (compared to Nov. 2007) to the lowest rate in 26 years. GM sales fell 41% Ford fell 31% and the foreign cars were down just as much, with Toyota down 34%, Nissan down 42% and Honda down 32%.<ref> Stephanie Rosenbloom, "In November, Shoppers Cut Spending Even More," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/economy/03shop.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Dec. 2, 2008]; Nick Bunkley, "Another Month of Miserable Auto Sales," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/03sales.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Dec. 2, 2008].</ref> Retailers rang up the lowest November sales in more than 30 years, as holiday shopping not only failed to lift the economy but showed that the crisis is further distressing everyday consumers. Thirty major companies -- including Macy's, Sears, Abercrombie & Fitch and Target -- posted sales declines; Wal-Mart, anchoring the bottom of the price chain, sawincreased sales. Retail sales in November fell 2.7 percent compared with the same month last year.<ref> Ylan Q. Mui, "Retailers Report a Crisis in All Aisles: November Sales Slump as Shoppers Stow Credit Cards," [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/04/AR2008120404347.html?hpid=topnews ''Washington Post'' Dec. 5, 2008]</ref>
[[Image:Jobloss.jpg|thumb|300px]]

The Federal Reserve reported on Dec. 3, 2008, that every region reported sales declines, drops in manufacturing activity, weakening real estate markets, tighter lending, and deteriorating labor marketsThose sectors that had been strong until recently -- especially as agriculture and energy -- also softened as commodity prices declined. November saw 533,000 jobs disappear in the worst one-month decline in 34 years.

==Collapse of #6 and #4 largest banks, rescue of #1==
===Washington Mutual collapses===
On Sept. 25, Washington Mutual, the 6th largest bank in the US with $310 billion in assets, went [[bankrupt]] after a run in which depositors withdrew $17 billion in a few days. Its stockholders lost all their money, the US government took it over (through the [[FDIC]], which insures ordinary bank deposits), and resold it the same day to the biggest New York bank, JPMorgan Chase. It was the largest commercial bank failure in American history, by far.<ref>In the [[Great Depression]], only one major bank failed (New York's Bank of United States, in late 1930), although over 6000 small neighborhood and rural banks went under; depositors eventually received on average 85% of their deposits.</ref>
===Wachovia collapses===
Meanwhile the #4 U.S. bank, Wachovia, burdened by $120 billion in toxic securities,<ref> At the height of the bubble in 2006 Wachovia purchased Golden West Financial, a California lender specializing in "pay-option" mortgages that enabled speculators to buy houses and pay very little a month for a year or two (at which time they expected to sell it for a profit). [http://www.brokeroutpost.com/reference/22657.htm explanation of pay-option loans]</ref> was bought out by Citigroup on Sept. 29 in a deal engineered by the FDIC. However Wachovia then broke its deal and merged into Wells Fargo. The result is that four major banks now dominate the American economy (Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo), along with dozens of regional chains and thousands of small local banks.
===Bank of America renegotiates mortgages===
In early October, Bank of America, the new owner of Countrywide, reached a settlement with 11 states that sued it over fraudulent practices. The state of Illinois accused Countrywide of relaxing underwriting standards, structuring loans with risky features, and misleading consumers with hidden fees and fake marketing claims, like a false promise of a "no closing costs loan." Countrywide gave special incentives to its brokers for selling impossible loans by paying higher commissions on them. In reviewing one Illinois mortgage broker’s sales, the Illinois complaint said the "vast majority of the loans had inflated income, almost all without the borrower’s knowledge." Bank of America did not deny the charges and instead agreed to pay out $8.4 billion to 400,000 Countrywide customers. Countrywide will reduce principal balances for some people and cut interest rates for others. Rates for some people could decline to as low as 2.5% and remain at that level for five years. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and IndyMac, now all owned by the federal government, have begun their own programs to modify mortgage terms for some hard-pressed borrowers.
<ref> Gretchen Morgenson, "Countrywide to Set Aside $8.4 Billion in Loan Aid," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06countrywide.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Oct. 6, 2008]</ref>
===Largest bank rescued===
Citigroup, the world's largest bank was tottering in late November despite its receipt of $25 billion in TARP bailout money. Its value on the stock market plunged to $21 billion, down from $244 billion two years ago. Round after round of layoffs have ended 75,000 jobs in 2008 out of 375,000 employees a year ago. Very heavy exposure to toxic mortgages is the main culprit. The government stepped in with the largest bailout yet, including $20 billion in new cash, and guarantees of toxic assets by the Treasury, FDIC and Federal Reserve.

At all times Citigroup used elaborate mathematical risk models that looked at mortgages in particular geographical areas, but never included the possibility of a national housing downturn, or the prospect that millions of mortgage holders would default on their mortgages. The prevailing approach at Citigroup and the other big banks was to make money as fast as possible (generating annual bonuses of $10 to $30 million for senior executives), which assigning zero to the risk of a system-wide downturn. Such a downturn came with disastrous consequences for Citigroup and its rivals on Wall Street. Even after Bear Stearns ran into serious trouble in summer 2007, Citigroup decided the possibility of trouble with its CDO’s was so tiny (less than 1/100 of 1%) that they excluded them from their risk analysis.

Despite two federal bailouts Citigroup is still wobbly. It holds $20 billion of mortgage-linked securities that have been marked down to between 21 cents and 41 cents on the dollar. It has billions of dollars of giant buyout and corporate loans of dubious value. And it also faces a potential massive losses on auto, mortgage and credit card loans as the economy worsens.<ref>Eric Dash and Julie Creswell, "Citigroup Pays for a Rush to Risk," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23citi.html?ref=business&pagewanted=all ''New York'' Times,’’ Nov. 22, 2008]</ref>

==Crisis in Auto industry==
In 2008 a series of damaging blows drove the "Big Three" (GM, Ford and Chrysler) to the verge of bankruptcy. Part of the cause was very high labor costs (much higher than the foreign plants in the U.S.), which prevents lower prices. The Big Three had in recent years stressed expensive, fuel-guzzling SUVs and large pickups. They were much more profitable than smaller, fuel-efficient cars. When gasoline prices shot past $4 in 2008, Americans stopped buying the big cars, and the Big Three saw their sales plummet. The Financial Crisis played a role as no one was willing to loan GM the money to buy Chrysler. Consumer credit has tightened and it became much harder for people with average or poor credit to obtain a bank loan to buy a car, so sales fell further. Stock prices plummeted as shareholders worried about bankruptcy; GM's shares fell to 1946 levels. Intense debate is underway about a massive bailout, that would be in addition to a $25 billion loan Congress passed in September 2008 to assist in increasing fuel efficiency. President Bush has proposed changing the terms of that loan so it could be used to cover daily operating expenses, but Congress rejected that. Republicans in Congress in mid-November blocked Democratic proposals to underwrite a new bailout of the auto industry, as industry leaders made an unconvincing case before Congress. President elect Obama and Democrats in Congress have demanded the Big Three come up with a highly specific plan with some chance of long-term viability, with the expectation that Congress will address the issue again in January 2009.

In addition to the Big Three hundreds of large suppliers of parts are in financial crisis as well; most would go under if the Big Three go bankrupt.

Intense debate in December 2008 focused on allowing bankruptcy or injecting billions more of federal aid in a massive bailout; it would be in addition to a $25 billion loan Congress passed in September 2008 to assist in increasing fuel efficiency. The Democrats in Congress supported president Bush's proposal to sue the fuel-efficiency loans to help with the immediate problem. It passed the Hosue but Senate Republicans brioke with Bush and it failed. The opponents called for a bankruptcy that would allow GM to get out of its contracts to pay union members high wages, as well as generous pensionsand medical benefits to retired workers. Bush then acted unilaterally and decided to use [[Financial Crisis of 2008|TARP money]] to bail out GM and Chrysler, on December 19. GM and Chrysler will get $13.4 billions in loans they can use to pay their suppliers.<ref> GM and Chrysler will receive $4 billion each when they sign the loan agreements with the Treasury. GM will have access to an addition $5.4 billion on Jan. 16 and another $4 billion on Feb. 17 provided that Congress has released the remaining $350 billion for the Treasury’s TARP rescue program. </ref> GM can receive another $4 billion in February, but by then the Obama adminsitration will be in charge, and it is emphasizing the need for a long-range solution.<ref>David E. Sanger, David M. Herszenhorn and Bill Vlasic, “Bush Aids Detroit, but Hard Choices Wait for Obama,” [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html?hp ''NewYork Times'' Dec. 19, 2008]</ref>

===Bankruptcy scenario===
Bankruptcy of the Big Three would be very expensive to the economy as a whole and the federal government. It would mean loss of 240,000 very high paying jobs at the Big Three, a loss of 980,000 high-paying jobs at the suppliers and local dealers, and 1.7 million additional jobs throughout the economy. It would cause a decline in personal income of $151 billion the first year, and $398 billion over three years. The federal, state and local governments would lose tax revenue and spend on welfare programs a total of $156 billion over three years.<ref>CAR Research Memorandum. "The Impact of the U.S. Economy of a Major Contraction of the Detroit Three Automakers" (Nov 2008) [http://www.cargroup.org/documents/FINALDetroitThreeContractionImpact_3__000.pdf online edition]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Henry M. Paulson]]
*[[Paper loss]]

====References====
<references/>

[[Category:Finance]]
[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Economic history]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Financial Crisis of 2008

2008-12-23T10:30:19Z

Learn together:

{{move|Recession of 2008}}
The '''Financial Crisis of 2008''' is an ongoing worldwide financial crisis that some believe is the worst the world has seen since 1933 with the [[Great Depression]]. The economic difficulties will probably be officially classified as a [[recession]] when the next quarterly data is released as it is believed that there will have been another quarter of negative growth. The National Bureau of Economic Research, a private organization that follows its own standards, has declared that the end of the last expansion took place in December 2007, and the overall economy has been in decline ever since.<ref> The U.S. economy entered a recession in December 2007, a committee of economists at the private National Bureau of Economic Research said. [http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/US-recession-began-December-2007/story.aspx?guid={7DCF90E4-D61A-4014-83CE-45E938CD632C} Rex Nutting] - MarketWatch</ref> Negative economic news has spread outward from financial institutions to depress housing, construction, automobiles, retail sales, state and local government, and other sectors. In recent months governments across the world have spent huge sums of money to reverse the crisis, to the short-term results have been inconclusive. The U.S. government provided cash bailouts of several hundred billion dollars and long-term loan guarantees of over $7 trillion dollars (compared to a GDP of $15 trillion a year). Conservatives have been as dismayed and baffled by the crisis as everyone else.

Unlike crises in the mid 1970s and early 1980s, this one began in the financial sector with devastating effects on many very large financial companies worldwide. The negative effects by October began spreading to all other sectors of the economy, and forecasts for the next year show little likely of a quick recovery anywhere.

[[Image:CRASH08.JPG|thumb|300px|Oct 11, 2008 editorial; cartoon by Horsey stresses the global collapse]]

The crisis originated in the United States and Western Europe, and has impacted every country in the world. Banks and financial companies have reported losses of over one trillion dollars; investors have suffered [[paper loss|"paper losses"]] of many trillions. U.S. stocks are down 50% from their peak in 2007.<ref> For most people the loss is a "paper" loss because they still own the stock and it might go up, or down. If they bought stock in 2003 for $1000, watched it go to $1500 in 2008, then drop to $1000 again in 2008, their "paper loss" is $500 but their real loss is zero since they are back where they started. People who bought at $800 still have made a $200 paper profit. People who bought at $1200, say, have a paper loss of $200. The paper loss or gain becomes real when they finally sell the stock. See [[Paper loss]] for more details</ref> Paper losses for owners of stock in major financial institution have been over 70%, and owners of some have lost 99% as major [[bank]]s closed down. The [[stock market]] has declined 50-70% in major countries and [[pension]] funds have large paper losses. Paper losses in real estate have been in the trillions; the average price of American houses fell 20%, with 30% and higher declines in California and Florida. However, thus far ordinary depositors with cash in the bank have suffered no losses. Owners of stocks in the 5000 largest U.S. corporations have paper losses of $10 trillion dollars in 2008, dropping to $10 trillion in October from $20 trillion in late 2007.

In late September the crisis focused on liquidity--financial companies owned hundreds of billions of dollars of "toxic" securities, mostly based on U.S. [[mortgage]]s; they could not sell the toxic securities because no one knew how much they were worth, and large scale loans between major institutions stopped flowing as the system lost liquidity and froze up. A $800 billion rescue plan became law in the U.S. October 3, but its impact will not be clear for a while. Meanwhile Europe's economic crisis continues to deteriorate, as trillions of dollars in losses accumulate there and in Russia, China and India and in many smaller countries. International agencies such as the International Monetary Fund are arranging emergency bailouts for medium-sized countries, like Pakistan and Ukraine. All around the world people are sending their money to the U.S. and Japan because the banks there are safer than their own banks. The price of oil, which reached $145 a barrel in the summer, plunged to under $50. That plunge eased the gasoline crisis, helped commuters, and helped the airline industry.

[[Image:BRIDGE.JPG|thumb|400px|Tom Toles cartoon lampoons Federal bailout efforts as a badly designed bridge to nowhere, Dec. 1, 2008]]

Both parties have expressed anger at the crisis, and have promised extensive new regulations of the financial industry. However the Republicans have blocked additional bailout aid to General Motors, which is on the verge of bankruptcy.<ref> Treasury Secretary Paulson told Congress on Nov. 18 that the Bush administration remains "firmly opposed" to using any of the $700 billion financial bailout fund to help rescue Detroit's Big Three, "no matter how badly they need the help." [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/18/paulson-rejects-bailout-money-automakers-senate-considers-legislation/ Fox news report] </ref> Democratic Congressional leaders and President-elect [[Barack Obama]] have pushed for a bailout of the auto industry and are expected to move it forward in January, 2009.

The Bush administration undertook a "bailout" program in which it took control of several of the largest financial institutions (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG insurance), forced the mergers of others, purchased $125 billion of ownership in the 9 largest banks in the U.S., and bailed out the largest bank, Citigroup.

Until October the crisis had little impact on the non-financial sectors of the world economy, but then negative impacts started appearing. Companies could not borrow money for expansion or in some cases for routine operations, and had to cut back. Consumer spending fell and unemployment started to rise sharply. By November pessimistic reports were coming in daily from practically every sector of the American economy. There were no bright spots, and with tax revenues down, state governments began large-scale cutbacks, especially in New York and California.

By late October it appeared the financial crisis was slowing down the economies of all countries of the world, leading perhaps to a serious recession with widespread unemployment and loss of business. The major countries have been taking aggressive steps to dissolve the liquidity freeze and get money flowing again, and to stimulate economies that are headed downward.

==Causes==
In 2000 [[Howard Husock]] warned that the [[Community Reinvestment Act]] of 1977 and the expansion in 1995 would prove expensive; President Bush strongly endorsed the program. Despite widespread misunderstanding they did not cause the great crisis since CRA loans comprised only about 6% of the toxic mortgages. <ref>[http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities], Howard Husock, ''City Journal'', Winter 2000; Governor Randall S. Kroszner, "The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis," (December 3, 2008) [http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm online]</ref>

As hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the U.S. from abroad, financiers looked for imaginative ways to make a profit. They turned to [[real estate]], with the philosophy "Buy high--sell higher!" The higher price paid for a house the more profit would be made when it was resold ("flipped") in six or 12 months; prices were certain to keep going up and up. Salesmen made big money by phoning prospective buyers, promising to get them Bog Money Quick. People who owned a house whose value had doubled could and did refinance their mortgage for the higher amount, and keep the difference. In the early 2000s, U.S. interest rates were low and demand for housing was high, as housing prices soared, especially in California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona. Mortgage companies and banks were very eager to lend, especially to people with mediocre [[credit]] who would not previously have been eligible for mortgages and to speculators. Speculators were ordinary people who already had a house and who were hoping to make a large profit on the purchase and quick resale ("flip") of another house or condominium, which no one ever lived in.<ref> The only money the speculators had at risk was a down payment; sometimes the construction company paid for the down payment and closing costs, so the risk to the speculator was zero. Mortgages in the U.S. are "non-recourse" which means that borrowers cannot be sued for stopping payments.</ref> The expectation was that continuously rising house prices would cover the mortgage payments through refinancing. Many of the mortgages involved very low down payments and low monthly payments for the first year or two, after which the payments would start soaring. Sometimes the monthly payment at first was zero.

Americans owed some $10 trillion on their mortgages, most of which were sound with payments made on time. However financiers bundled the mortgages into very complicated packages called "'''collateralized debt obligations''''<ref> That is, homeowners were obligated to pay the debts and the collateral behind them was the physical house.</ref> or CDOs. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of CDO's were sold to banks, pension funds and financiers in the U.S. and Europe. Generally they borrowed cash to buy the CDOs. The risk was that if the CDO's declines in value, they would not be able to repay those loans. To minimize the risk, companies sold insurance called "credit default swaps" ('''CDS''') to guarantee payment of the CDOs. The largest seller was [[American International Group]] ('''AIG'''), the world's largest insurance company. The CDOs and CDS were especially attractive because they were not regulated by the government; experts are not sure how many trillions of dollars are involved.

Many mortgages were held by mortgage companies like [[Countrywide]] and [[Washington Mutual]], as well as investment banks such as [[Bear Stearns]], [[Merrill Lynch]], [[Lehman Brothers]], [[Morgan Stanley]] and [[Goldman Sachs]], as well as commercial banking chains like [[Wachovia]] and [[Bank of America]], which have thousands of local offices.

==Bubble bursts==
The housing "bubble" burst in 2006-07, as prices plunged downward in the Sunbelt. Many speculators and homeowners could not meet their payments, especially those who had "[[sub-prime]]" mortgages because their income was too low to support the eventual monthly payments, or who had adjustable rate mortgages where the monthly payments started small then escalated. [[Foreclosure]]s skyrocketed. With housing prices falling few people risked buying a new house (because it would soon be worth less than they paid for it). Construction firms had built millions of new houses that could not be sold but which glutted the market. By late 2008 half the home sales in the U.S. were by banks selling houses they had foreclosed on at low prices.

The problem was that no one could figure out what CDOs were now worth, so very few were willing to buy them. One major investment bank, Merrill Lynch, sold its CDOs for 22 cents on the dollar--a "[[fire sale]]" price that was less than they were worth in the long run, because in the long run the great majority of people will make their scheduled mortgage payments.

==2008 crises==
Multiple crises started pulling down major financial players. Countrywide, which originated 20% of all American mortgages in 2006, collapsed and was bought up by Bank of America. Bear Stearns, a large investment bank, went under; the government arranged a sale to JPMorgan Chase; stock holders lost about 90% of their investment, and the confidence in other banks was undermined.

On September 7, 2008, the government took control of the two largest mortgage holders, "[[Fannie Mae]]"<ref> Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)</ref> and "[[Freddie Mac]]"<ref>Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) </ref>. The two had lost $15 billion on the $5.4 trillion in mortgages they owned, and their notes were widely held in [[China]] and many other countries. The fear was that if the Treasury did not act the world's confidence in the US financial system would collapse. However the rest of the world was in trouble too. The stock markets in China and [[Russia]] plunged 50%, and the [[United Kingdom|British]] Treasury had to take over its largest mortgage company, [[Northern Rock]]. Vast sums of money flowed into the US because it was safer there than anywhere else.

[[Image:PANIC08.jpg|thumb|300px|Panic in Wall Street, Sept. 2008; the "bull" is the symbol of optimism on Wall Street and the "bear" is the symbol of pessimism. Here the bull panics.]]

By September the major banks were no longer lending money and most reported huge losses as they wrote down the value of the CDOs and other assets. Short sellers sold large amounts of stock in threatened companies, causing further panic and driving down share prices.<ref>The short sellers did not own the shares; the practice was stopped on Sept. 19, 2008, by the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] because it destabilized markets.</ref> [[Lehman Brothers]], one of the oldest and largest banks in New York, went bankrupt on Sept. 15 with no one to rescue it. The collapse of Lehman with its $639 billion in assets had a multiplier effect worldwide, severely weakening other big banks and sharply increasing the level of fear and distrust inside the system that caused bankers to sharply reduce their lending. Many large firms and hedge funds had borrowed billions of dollars from lenders and had pledged assets they owned as collateral. When the value of their collateral plummeted, the lenders demanded more collateral to make up the difference, so the borrowers had to sell assets to raise emergency cash. The price of the assets they sold was falling, and large additional sales further depressed prices, creating a downward spiral.

Merrill Lynch was sold to Bank of America for $50 billion, about half its value a few months before. Investors realized that AIG could no longer honor the insurance policies it wrote. It lost $13 billion in the first half of 2008 and its shares fell 95% in value. AIG was "too big" to be allowed to fail, so it was given an $85 billion loan from the government; in return the government received 80% of its stock. The government had to add another $38 billion to the AIG rescue in October.<ref> Barry Meier and Mary Williams Walsh, "A.I.G. to get Additional $37.8 Billion," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09insure.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin ''New York Times,'' Oct. 8, 2008] </ref> In effect AIG, along with GSE (government-sponsored enterprises) Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were nationalized. The Federal Reserve, with $800 billion in assets, was assisted by the Treasury, which gave it more funds.<ref> See [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/business/02crisis.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1222952525-cWL0bOgQjxNvxNo+OH1qAw Joe Nocera, "36 Hours of Alarm and Action as Crisis Spiraled," ''New York Times'' (Oct. 1, 2008)]</ref>

===European crises===
Heavy borrowing by European banks meant the crisis immediately affected Britain and other countries as well, as the British housing bubble burst about the same time as the U.S. The British government had to take over major mortgage lenders, including Northern Rock in February, 2008. Northern Rock's loans (£25 billion) and guarantees (£30 billion) extended by the Bank of England, together with the value of the company's mortgages (£55 billion), or £100 billion in all, were added to the British national debt. Bradford & Bingley, half the size of Northern Rock, held £40 billion in toxic mortgages, and was nationalized in late September.
====Fortis====
In late September, the Fortis bank, the world's 20th largest business, was partially nationalized by three governments who injected $16 billion in emergency funds. In 2007 Fortis borrowed heavily for its $100 billion takeover of rival bank ABN Amro; the deal came at the market’s peak, and Fortis now cannot pay its debts. The [[Belgium|Belgian]], [[Netherlands|Dutch]] and [[Luxembourg]] governments tried to inject capital but as consumer confidence plunged, Netherlands nationalized the Dutch wing of the company and the rest was sold in early October to the French bank BNP Paribas for €14.5 billion euros ($19 billion dollars).
====Germany====
In [[Germany]] Hypo Real Estate was given €50 billion euros ($68 billion dollars) bailout by the government. The government of [[Iceland]] took over its large banks, as the entire island economy verged on bankruptcy because it depended so much on large foreign loans. Most of the European countries hurriedly announced guarantees of personal bank deposits to avert further drop in consumer confidence and runs on the banks. Stock markets around the world continue to decline as pessimism worsens.
====Central banks====
The European Central Bank aggressively lent money to banks trying to ensure that banks would have adequate cash. The moves have not reassured savers or investors, and European stock markets have fallen even further than the American stock markets, as have the stock markets in China and Russia.

On October 13, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Austria committed €1.3 trillion euros ($1.8 trillion dollars) to guarantee bank loans and take stakes in banks, in an emergency effort to head off the collapse of their financial systems. <ref>Carter Dougherty, Nelson Schwartz and Floyd Norris, "Financial Crises Spread in Europe," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06markets.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin ''New York Times,'' Oct 6, 2008]; Gregory Viscusi, [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azerJ573HcbI&refer=home "EU Nations Commit 1.3 Trillion Euros to Bank Bailouts," ''Bloomberg.com'' Oct. 13. 2008]</ref>
====Britain====
Britain on October 8 announced a gigantic £400 billion ($680 billion) rescue plan for its banks; the government would partially own them. Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]] said banks would still be run by their old managers, but that the government would have to be "satisfied" on matters of salaries, [[dividend]]s and lending activities. The money involved is about a third of Britain's annual [[Gross Domestic Product|GDP]] (comparable to $5 trillion in the U.S. economy.)

On October 13, Britain announced it would spend £50 billion ($85 billion) to nationalize two of the five largest banks, HBOS (Halifax Bank of Scotland) and RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland), while taking partial ownership of a third, Lloyds TSB. A fourth, Barclays will remain private if it can raise an additional £7 billion. The fifth, HSBC is based in Hong Kong and will remain private.<ref>"Financial crisis: HBOS and RBS 'to be nationalised' in £50 billion state intervention," [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3185120/Financial-crisis-HBOS-and-RBS-to-be-nationalised-in-50-billion-state-intervention.html?source=EMC-new_12102008 London ''Telegraph'' Oct 13, 2008] The existing stockholders were not bought out. They will continue to hold shares in the banks, but they will be outvoted by the new stock owned by the government.</ref>
====Switzerland====
In October 2008, the Swiss central bank and the big UBS bank reached an agreement to transfer as much as $60 billion of troubled securities and other assets from UBS’s to a separate entity. UBS will put up $6 billion in equity. The Swiss central bank will control the new entity and loan it $54 billion.

===Asia===
The crisis swept across the Middle East and Asia as well, with South Korea especially hard hit. China, which had been the world's major growth machine in recent years, seemed to slow down. In November China's government announced it would spend 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) through the end of 2010 to stimulate its economy. It specifically targeted people's livelihood in an effort to offset the impact of slowing global demand for its exports and unlock the spending power of its vast population.

==$700 billion bailout ==
"We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis," [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] warned the nation on Sept. 25, 2008.:
{{QuoteBox|Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending. Credit markets have frozen. And families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money....without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold: More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.<ref>see [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080924-10.html Bush speech online]</ref>}}
On September 19, 2008, the Treasury and Federal Reserve proposed a major rescue plan--the largest government intervention in the economy since [[World War II]]. The plan was for the Treasury to purchase $700 billion of the CDOs. The bailout was needed, Bush said, to avert a major disaster for the economy. Most (but not all) Democrats signed on to the bailout plan, adding provisions for Congressional oversight and caps on CEO compensation; but at the last moment on Sept 25, 2008 House Republicans said no, and GOP presidential nominee [[John McCain]] held off endorsement.

Conservatives were split on what to do. Many agreed with Bush that the bailout proposed by Treasury Secretary [[Henry M. Paulson]] was urgently needed. Large banks and corporations strongly endorsed the bailout. The [[American Bankers Association]] and the [[Mortgage Bankers Association]] are fighting against any amendment that would reduce mortgage obligations for people in bankruptcy, while directing all the government funds to the banking industry.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, normally an outspoken advocate of big corporate interests, instead stressed the crisis's impact on small and midsize businesses. "We're looking at an economy that was slipping toward recession even before this crisis culminated in a market lockup last week," said Chamber economist Martin Regalia. The debate in Congress, he said, "is costing every American taxpayer money, directly."<ref>Elizabeth Williamson, "Big Business Wants Deal, Setbacks and All," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238988380577457.html ''Wall Street Journal'' Sept. 26, 2008]</ref> Democratic nominee Senator [[Barack Obama]] endorsed the plan, as amended by Congressional Democrats. On the other hand, ordinary taxpayers and "Main Street", that is businessmen who operated at the local level, were highly suspicious of [[Wall Street]]. McCain, blaming the crisis on "the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system", rejected the bailout as a favor for Wall Street and little help to Main Street. Believers in the market economy insisted that the market should run its course, and opposed the bailout.<ref> See comments from a range of economists at [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26assess.html?ref=business Peter S. Goodman, "Credit Enters a Lockdown," ''New York Times'' Sept. 25, 2008]</ref>

A compromise bailout was agreed to by leaders of both parties but the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" (EESA) was voted down in the House on Sept. 29. Democrats favored the Bush bill 60%-40%, but Republicans voted no by 65-35%. The stock market lost a trillion dollars in value in one day as uncertainty reigned. Finally a large majority passed an expanded bailout bill, that added $100 billion in new subsidies to the original $700 billion, plus tax breaks and a rise in FDIC insurance to $250,000 from $100,000, designed to reassure ordinary depositors. Both Obama and McCain voted for this version of the bill.

The Treasury TARP program proved erratic and had to be radically modified several times. The Treasury dropped the original plan to buy toxic securities and instead has used $250 billion to prop up major banks. In October Paulson and Bernanke used their new powers to take an ownership stake in the nine largest U.S. banks, of $7 to $25 billion each. These banks are now partly owned and controlled by the government. However those banks are keeping the money and not lending it out. The Bush administration has refused to allow the money to be used to help the [[automobile]] industry. The price of bank stocks has fallen sharply since the bailout passed. The world's largest bank, Citigroup, was on the verge of collapse in late November and received a second bailout of $20 billion (in addition to $25 billion in October), and a federal guarantee to cover most of its toxic investments.

By mid-November the market had lost confidence in Treasury Secretary Paulson, who indicated he was baffled and would let the incoming Obama administration handle the unspent $450 billion. The stock market jumped 6% on the news that Obama had picked New York banker Timothy Geithner to replace Paulson.<ref>Theo Francis, "Obama to Nominate New York Fed Chief Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary," [http://www.businessweek.com/election/2008/blog/archives/2008/11/obama_to_nomina.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story ''Business Week'' Nov. 21, 2008]</ref> In late November the Federal Reserve announced it will buy up to $600 billion in mortgage-related assets from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, hoping to restart the housing and credit markets. Under the new "Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility", or '''TALF''', the Federal Reserve will loan up to $200 billion to financial companies that hold securities backed by consumer and small-business loans.

Hedge funds are private investment companies with $1.7 trillion in assets. They have lost $180 billion since July and some are near collapse. Investors are demanding their money back, and Wall Street in late October is bracing for a shake-out in the industry.<ref> Louise Story, "Citadel Chief denies rumors of trouble" [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/business/25hedge.html?ref=business ''New York Times,'' Oct 24, 2008]</ref>

In late November the government announced an $800 billion plan to boost consumer credit and the market for mortgage-related securities. Plans call for the Federal Reserve in early 2009 to extend up to $200 billion in non-recourse loans to holders of asset-backed securities backed by highly-rated consumer and small business loans.<ref> "Non-recourse" loans means that if they are not paid back the borrowers cannot be sued for their other assets. Mortgages fall in this category, so that if people default they just walk away from the debt and never have to repay it. However it damages their credit rating.</ref> Treasury will contribute $20 billion in funds through its Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The Federal Reserve also announced it will purchase up to $100 billion in GSE (government-sponsored enterprises, especially Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac) debt through a series of competitive auctions starting in December, 2008. The Federal Reserve starting in December will purchase up to $500 billion in mortgage-backed securities backed by GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Fed is preparing to launch new liquidity programs to support the economy in addition to further slashing interests rates. The total commitments by the government in bailouts and loan guarantees exceeded $7 trillion dollars, but the economy nevertheless continued to slip downward.<ref>Maya Jackson Randall, "Paulson Says Treasury Actively Mulling New Rescue Programs," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122816189458369851.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy ''Wall Street Journal'' Dec. 1, 2008]</ref>
===Deepening recession===
By early December the entire economy was heading downward with no bright spots. The recession that began in Dec. 2007 intensified, as retail sales plunged. In November 2008 Americans, their confidence shaken, saved their money and sharply reduced their credit card purchases. Auto sales were down 37% in November (compared to Nov. 2007) to the lowest rate in 26 years. GM sales fell 41% Ford fell 31% and the foreign cars were down just as much, with Toyota down 34%, Nissan down 42% and Honda down 32%.<ref> Stephanie Rosenbloom, "In November, Shoppers Cut Spending Even More," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/economy/03shop.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Dec. 2, 2008]; Nick Bunkley, "Another Month of Miserable Auto Sales," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/03sales.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Dec. 2, 2008].</ref> Retailers rang up the lowest November sales in more than 30 years, as holiday shopping not only failed to lift the economy but showed that the crisis is further distressing everyday consumers. Thirty major companies -- including Macy's, Sears, Abercrombie & Fitch and Target -- posted sales declines; Wal-Mart, anchoring the bottom of the price chain, sawincreased sales. Retail sales in November fell 2.7 percent compared with the same month last year.<ref> Ylan Q. Mui, "Retailers Report a Crisis in All Aisles: November Sales Slump as Shoppers Stow Credit Cards," [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/04/AR2008120404347.html?hpid=topnews ''Washington Post'' Dec. 5, 2008]</ref>
[[Image:Jobloss.jpg|thumb|300px]]

The Federal Reserve reported on Dec. 3, 2008, that every region reported sales declines, drops in manufacturing activity, weakening real estate markets, tighter lending, and deteriorating labor marketsThose sectors that had been strong until recently -- especially as agriculture and energy -- also softened as commodity prices declined. November saw 533,000 jobs disappear in the worst one-month decline in 34 years.

==Collapse of #6 and #4 largest banks, rescue of #1==
===Washington Mutual collapses===
On Sept. 25, Washington Mutual, the 6th largest bank in the US with $310 billion in assets, went [[bankrupt]] after a run in which depositors withdrew $17 billion in a few days. Its stockholders lost all their money, the US government took it over (through the [[FDIC]], which insures ordinary bank deposits), and resold it the same day to the biggest New York bank, JPMorgan Chase. It was the largest commercial bank failure in American history, by far.<ref>In the [[Great Depression]], only one major bank failed (New York's Bank of United States, in late 1930), although over 6000 small neighborhood and rural banks went under; depositors eventually received on average 85% of their deposits.</ref>
===Wachovia collapses===
Meanwhile the #4 U.S. bank, Wachovia, burdened by $120 billion in toxic securities,<ref> At the height of the bubble in 2006 Wachovia purchased Golden West Financial, a California lender specializing in "pay-option" mortgages that enabled speculators to buy houses and pay very little a month for a year or two (at which time they expected to sell it for a profit). [http://www.brokeroutpost.com/reference/22657.htm explanation of pay-option loans]</ref> was bought out by Citigroup on Sept. 29 in a deal engineered by the FDIC. However Wachovia then broke its deal and merged into Wells Fargo. The result is that four major banks now dominate the American economy (Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo), along with dozens of regional chains and thousands of small local banks.
===Bank of America renegotiates mortgages===
In early October, Bank of America, the new owner of Countrywide, reached a settlement with 11 states that sued it over fraudulent practices. The state of Illinois accused Countrywide of relaxing underwriting standards, structuring loans with risky features, and misleading consumers with hidden fees and fake marketing claims, like a false promise of a "no closing costs loan." Countrywide gave special incentives to its brokers for selling impossible loans by paying higher commissions on them. In reviewing one Illinois mortgage broker’s sales, the Illinois complaint said the "vast majority of the loans had inflated income, almost all without the borrower’s knowledge." Bank of America did not deny the charges and instead agreed to pay out $8.4 billion to 400,000 Countrywide customers. Countrywide will reduce principal balances for some people and cut interest rates for others. Rates for some people could decline to as low as 2.5% and remain at that level for five years. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and IndyMac, now all owned by the federal government, have begun their own programs to modify mortgage terms for some hard-pressed borrowers.
<ref> Gretchen Morgenson, "Countrywide to Set Aside $8.4 Billion in Loan Aid," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06countrywide.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Oct. 6, 2008]</ref>
===Largest bank rescued===
Citigroup, the world's largest bank was tottering in late November despite its receipt of $25 billion in TARP bailout money. Its value on the stock market plunged to $21 billion, down from $244 billion two years ago. Round after round of layoffs have ended 75,000 jobs in 2008 out of 375,000 employees a year ago. Very heavy exposure to toxic mortgages is the main culprit. The government stepped in with the largest bailout yet, including $20 billion in new cash, and guarantees of toxic assets by the Treasury, FDIC and Federal Reserve.

At all times Citigroup used elaborate mathematical risk models that looked at mortgages in particular geographical areas, but never included the possibility of a national housing downturn, or the prospect that millions of mortgage holders would default on their mortgages. The prevailing approach at Citigroup and the other big banks was to make money as fast as possible (generating annual bonuses of $10 to $30 million for senior executives), which assigning zero to the risk of a system-wide downturn. Such a downturn came with disastrous consequences for Citigroup and its rivals on Wall Street. Even after Bear Stearns ran into serious trouble in summer 2007, Citigroup decided the possibility of trouble with its CDO’s was so tiny (less than 1/100 of 1%) that they excluded them from their risk analysis.

Despite two federal bailouts Citigroup is still wobbly. It holds $20 billion of mortgage-linked securities that have been marked down to between 21 cents and 41 cents on the dollar. It has billions of dollars of giant buyout and corporate loans of dubious value. And it also faces a potential massive losses on auto, mortgage and credit card loans as the economy worsens.<ref>Eric Dash and Julie Creswell, "Citigroup Pays for a Rush to Risk," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23citi.html?ref=business&pagewanted=all ''New York'' Times,’’ Nov. 22, 2008]</ref>

==Crisis in Auto industry==
In 2008 a series of damaging blows drove the "Big Three" (GM, Ford and Chrysler) to the verge of bankruptcy. Part of the cause was very high labor costs (much higher than the foreign plants in the U.S.), which prevents lower prices. The Big Three had in recent years stressed expensive, fuel-guzzling SUVs and large pickups. They were much more profitable than smaller, fuel-efficient cars. When gasoline prices shot past $4 in 2008, Americans stopped buying the big cars, and the Big Three saw their sales plummet. The Financial Crisis played a role as no one was willing to loan GM the money to buy Chrysler. Consumer credit has tightened and it became much harder for people with average or poor credit to obtain a bank loan to buy a car, so sales fell further. Stock prices plummeted as shareholders worried about bankruptcy; GM's shares fell to 1946 levels. Intense debate is underway about a massive bailout, that would be in addition to a $25 billion loan Congress passed in September 2008 to assist in increasing fuel efficiency. President Bush has proposed changing the terms of that loan so it could be used to cover daily operating expenses, but Congress rejected that. Republicans in Congress in mid-November blocked Democratic proposals to underwrite a new bailout of the auto industry, as industry leaders made an unconvincing case before Congress. President elect Obama and Democrats in Congress have demanded the Big Three come up with a highly specific plan with some chance of long-term viability, with the expectation that Congress will address the issue again in January 2009.

In addition to the Big Three hundreds of large suppliers of parts are in financial crisis as well; most would go under if the Big Three go bankrupt.

Intense debate in December 2008 focused on allowing bankruptcy or injecting billions more of federal aid in a massive bailout; it would be in addition to a $25 billion loan Congress passed in September 2008 to assist in increasing fuel efficiency. The Democrats in Congress supported president Bush's proposal to sue the fuel-efficiency loans to help with the immediate problem. It passed the Hosue but Senate Republicans brioke with Bush and it failed. The opponents called for a bankruptcy that would allow GM to get out of its contracts to pay union members high wages, as well as generous pensionsand medical benefits to retired workers. Bush then acted unilaterally and decided to use [[Financial Crisis of 2008|TARP money]] to bail out GM and Chrysler, on December 19. GM and Chrysler will get $13.4 billions in loans they can use to pay their suppliers.<ref> GM and Chrysler will receive $4 billion each when they sign the loan agreements with the Treasury. GM will have access to an addition $5.4 billion on Jan. 16 and another $4 billion on Feb. 17 provided that Congress has released the remaining $350 billion for the Treasury’s TARP rescue program. </ref> GM can receive another $4 billion in February, but by then the Obama adminsitration will be in charge, and it is emphasizing the need for a long-range solution.<ref>David E. Sanger, David M. Herszenhorn and Bill Vlasic, “Bush Aids Detroit, but Hard Choices Wait for Obama,” [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html?hp ''NewYork Times'' Dec. 19, 2008]</ref>

===Bankruptcy scenario===
Bankruptcy of the Big Three would be very expensive to the economy as a whole and the federal government. It would mean loss of 240,000 very high paying jobs at the Big Three, a loss of 980,000 high-paying jobs at the suppliers and local dealers, and 1.7 million additional jobs throughout the economy. It would cause a decline in personal income of $151 billion the first year, and $398 billion over three years. The federal, state and local governments would lose tax revenue and spend on welfare programs a total of $156 billion over three years.<ref>CAR Research Memorandum. "The Impact of the U.S. Economy of a Major Contraction of the Detroit Three Automakers" (Nov 2008) [http://www.cargroup.org/documents/FINALDetroitThreeContractionImpact_3__000.pdf online edition]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Henry M. Paulson]]
*[[Paper loss]]

====References====
<references/>

[[Category:Finance]]
[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Economic history]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:Financial Crisis of 2008

2008-12-23T10:27:25Z

Learn together: /* definition of recession */

== Is it that bad? ==

Thank you for all of your hard work. I would have to question though the starting premise that it is the worst financial disaster since the [[Great Depression]]. I realize that commentators are saying such, but they have a tendency to interject hyperbole to make things sound more grandoise than they should. Do we really feel, at this point, that the current crisis is worse than the downturn in the early/mid 70's or the hard hit in the early part of Reagan's first term after the Carter Presidency? Inflation is not 18%, unemployment is not 10%, and the GDP last quarter contracted at -0.3%, which I somehow doubt ranks as high in the list of calamities, especially when you consider that it was induced mostly by fear and a drop in consumer spending. If consumer spending had stayed the same quarter to quarter than the GDP would have grown 1.9% last quarter instead of the -0.3 that we recorded. And that certainly would not be a 'sky is falling' scenario. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:53, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::well we've just plunged into this mess and nobody knows where it will bottom out. Yes, I think that so far it it worse than the others mentioned in several ways: 1) this is worldwide 2) there have been spectacular bankruptcies and collapses of huge companies--something we never saw before; that includes some of the biggest banks in the world, the #1 insurance company (AIG) and--on the verge--General Motors and Chrysler and maybe Ford too (in Reagan's day it was the much smaller Chrysler that was in trouble); add in the housing crisis and the fall in retirement funds that hit most people with retirement accounts and stock market investments....[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:27, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::I do have some more thoughts. Most US recessions are world-wide to some degree because we're the big kid on the block. When we fall everyone feels it. The Arab Oil Embargo after the Yom Kippur War grounded the economies of all of the West (if I remember correctly -- it certainly did here). When the stock market first broke 1000 it went back under that level the next day -- and wouldn't come back for 10 years. After the 2000 election the Nasdaq was at 3500, after Gore's run to take the Presidency it had dropped to 2700 and after 9/11 it was 1300 -- so we've had worse financial hits market wise as well. Personally I don't like this downturn as I am invested in the market, but I don't think it does justice to the downturns that we have weathered in this nation. And as for the big companies going out of business, is that because the economic situation was so untenable or because they just weren't that smart? Look at the contract GM has with its union. The workers get paid whether they're laid off or not. Wasn't that a recipe for disaster during any downturn? Did anyone twist the arms of the financial institutions to lend money like they did? Was that an extremely unfortunate series of economic events that caused institutions to fold or circumstances that were half self-made and didn't require a deep recession to occur? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:58, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::how smart was it of the banks and hedge funds etc to play the games they played? very dumb and they lost $$$$$. But the collapse of multiple very big firms in US and Europe is something the world has never seen before, so I'm pretty pessimistic myself. I see a 50-50 chance that both GM and Chrysler will close down in the next 6 months, along with many of their suppliers and dealers; the article has some scary estimates of how much that will cost the econony, on top of the trillions that have already been lost.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 14:25, 15 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not sure the numbers are as dire as predicted. The auto sector makes up less of a percentage of the U.S. workforce than it did during the Chrysler bailout, and that only cost 1.2 billion. Many of the jobs would 'shift'. For instance Americans would still buy cars, so car salesmen wouldn't go out of business, they would merely be selling Toyota or Honda or some other non-US model instead. Many of the car plants that would close down enmasse would be bought by competitors who would be itching to make the sales that the American car manufacturers previously made in the world's largest economy. There would be some hard times during the transition, but the overall volume of product and how it is delivered wouldn't change much. Foreign car companies already have plants in the U.S. They would just turn up with a lot more of them. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:15, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::::I am very pessimistic. I predict if GM goes down the transplants will not make up the gap for several years; instead they will cut back production because they can't get parts (many parts companies will go under and the transplants depend on them). (It takes years and billions of dillars to build one new auto plant--we will need 20+ new plants and where is the money coming from?) US auto sales will plunge, prices will soar --like the Prius. People will pay $40k for a car that now costs $25k, and will have to wait 6 to 12 months (like in 1945-47). Americans will be very unhappy. Most GM dealers will close--they are major factories in every Main Street in the USA and are in trouble right now. The closing costs will be hundreds of billions, and a million or two well paid people (like salesmen) will be badly hurt. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:33, 22 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I definitely see a period of adjustment, but it's not like there are no other car companies in the world, and they are still very competitive among themselves and would try hard to get the open market of the largest car buying nation in the world. I do agree the waves could last for years as it takes time to adjust plants to other manufacturers as well. The biggest problem with the bailout right now is will it work? Unions have contracts that workers have to be paid even if they are laid off, and their pensions and medical plans are untouchable. The car companies are bleeding heavily and putting more blood into open wounds won't solve the problem. Costs are so high that the first slowdown would kill the industry -- and the upcoming slowdown looks to be as bad or worse than what they are going through presently. With the way books are kept its hard to tell how much money they really lost, but on paper it was almost 20 billion dollars in the last quarter among the three. With losses like that, apart from helping them to live a bit longer, how is any economic stimulus package going to help them? Chrysler had a plan when they needed help 30 years ago, and they implemented it to turn themselves around. Where it the plan among the automakers now other than a call for help? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 22 November 2008 (EST)
::I fear too much attention is given to 100,000 overpaid UAW workers -- there are 1 million OTHER workers who will lose their jobs--at 3600 local dealerships for Chevy, Buick, Pontiac etc. If GM shuts down car sales (including US-made and imports) will fall in half for several years, you will wait 6- 12 months to buy an imported new car, and it will cost 50% more than today. (It will take years for Japan to build new factories to service the USA, and they will charge us 50% more.) Americans will not tolerate that. (and indeed it happened in 1945-47). Furthermore the adjustment costs will be far higher than the bailout costs. The government will have to pay all the pensions of retured GM workers, for example (that's a law signed by Jerry Ford in 1976).[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:40, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I heard the thoughts of an expert the other day. (You can dismiss this if you wish, as second-hand information from an anonymous source. If I was you I would, but them I'm me and I heard it first-hand.) His predictions were so gloomy that all I could hope was that he was dead wrong. I couldn't tell you now much detail of what he said, but he indicated that it would be as bad as in the 1930s, world-wide, and would last 25 years! I got the impression that it would be beyond the capacity of governments to solve (i.e. they wouldn't have enough money to spend their way out of it), and even though Australia (where he lives) is financially very healthy, and our main banks amongst the healthiest in the world, those banks would be in trouble and we would be affected nearly as badly as everyone else. If you have debts, you will be in trouble. If you have assets (shares or property), they will drop in value so much it won't be funny. If you have cash (and presumably not in a bank!), you should be okay.

Have a nice day!

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:11, 6 December 2008 (EST)

== Recent Edit ==

I think part of Geo's concern is the lack of a source and the veracity of the claim. The Bush administration can not stop funding to General Motors except through a veto -- something which has not come up. Congress has the authority to grant whatever money it sees fit. I seem to recall the Democratic Congress asked for more information before going forward. General Motors themselves has claimed that bankruptcy is not an option, so saying that they are on the verge of bankruptcy may not be accurate either. I haven't made any alterations to your work, but I also hope you take the information given here in helping you to frame the scope and overall presentation of the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:20, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::It takes 60 votes to pass major legislation through the Senate--the Democrats have 51 votes now, (and will have 58 or so starting in Jabuary). The Bush administration said it would oppose a bailout, meaning a veto, and the GOP in the Senate has been strongly opposed. That's how things are blocked. Geo's insults (calling a very well researchedarticle "garbage") ruin his credibility in the matter. GM itself says it is on the verge of bankruptcy, and its board is now evaluating different bankruptcy strategies. for some evidence see [http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/13/business/13bankruptcy.php "GM's troubles stir question of bankruptcy protection vs. a bailout"]. "Democrats propose taking $25bn (£17bn) from the $700bn Wall Street bailout to fund carmakers. Barack Obama made the case for government aid in an interview... Republicans largely oppose any bailout, with Richard Shelby, the ranking member of the Senate banking committee, saying that the government would be throwing good money after bad. "It would only be postponing the inevitable," Shelby said." [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/gm-workers-plead-for-emergency-bailout-1021811.html quoted] And this from Fox News: "Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told Congress on Tuesday [Nov 18] that the administration remains firmly opposed to dipping into the government's $700 billion financial bailout fund for a $25 billion rescue package for Detroit's Big Three automakers, no matter how badly they need the help." [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/18/paulson-rejects-bailout-money-automakers-senate-considers-legislation/ Fox news report] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:51, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:::The President, and previous Presidents, have been known to say they oppose something without going to a veto. It's a way of making their position known and the wording of it is usually very important. My understanding is that the Democrats chose to not proceed immediately because of their own reservations. No one wants to be caught supporting a bill that simply requires a neverending series of bailouts for an industry that is not viable. I'm not saying that's the case, only that the Big-3 automakers had not shown Congress how they intended to make this money resolve their difficulties to the satisfaction of Congress. So far most of the proposal has been showing how they're burning money and need new money quickly, but not showing how they intend to stop burning money. Congress, both Republican and Democrat, will want some form of specifics. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:29, 2 December 2008 (EST)

==Overblown==

This is a recession, to be sure. Why call it a "crisis"? And who says it's the worst since 1932? All that happened is that a couple of bubbles have burst: the dot-com bubble

the housing downturn, which started in 2006, is a primary cause of the broader economic malaise. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:05, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:: I think most analysts say the crisis is the worst since 1932. It's a crisis because the financial system has nearly collapsed with many of the biggest financial companies either collapsed (Lehman) or taken over (AIG, Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, Bear Stearns, Wachovia, Washington Mutual) or given vast bailouts (Citigroup) to survive. That never happened before. A recent quote from Paulson: "We are going through a financial crisis more severe and unpredictable than any in our lifetimes.....our financial system seized up and severely damaged the economy." [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/opinion/18paulson.html quoted Nov 17 2008] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:16, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:::No documentation here for any of that: most are red links, and AIG has one line but no ref. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:45, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::::full documentation is already in the article's footnotes. Paulson listed the same crises. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:47, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Probably better to leave it as crisis. Technically a recession is declared based on growth, which has and/or is happening now, but in addition to that you have the credit crunch which saw the virtual drying up of inter-bank lending which in turn created massive cash-flow and liquidity problems and the collapse of banks and financial institutions. The crunch is different to the recession, although involved with it when seen from the point of view of cause and effect, so both together counts as a crisis.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 22:58, 1 December 2008 (EST)

== Separate article needed on recession ==

This Financial crisis article is primarily about the financial crisis--involving banks and related institutions around the world. It only briefly mentions the recession in the USA, which will require a sseparate article that covers issues like unemployment, income levels, growth trends, and word trade issues. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:58, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:Proceed as you see fit. Obviously you are the one who has written the bulk of the article and you should be able to break it up into subsections. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:31, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::I've dug a little into previous recessions and "panics". The common theme is greed and speculation. That is, people invest in land or companies, not because they see a potential for steady growth, but simply because they think they'll be able to sell after a short period time to someone else; who in turn has the same greedy idea - like a [[chain letter]]. The balloon is filling with the hot air of speculation; it has no substance; so it always bursts, taking with it all the profits of the last echelon of speculators.

::Am I brilliant and innovative thinker, or have I just rediscovered what economists have known for many decades now? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:50, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Ours goes even a little deeper Ed. Because an economy needs spending to grow and to continue, cutting back on spending leads to negative growth and a recession. Since about 2/3rds of spending is at the consumer level, the economic condition is very much dependent upon perception -- and therefore to press manipulation. So if the press keeps telling people we are in a recession, and people start to believe it and cut back their spending, then we will go into a recession. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you see my first comment at the top of the page, the slightly negative economic growth that we sustained in the last quarter would have actually been almost 2% growth if consumer spending had just stayed constant. But people were spooked and therefore took what would have been slow positive growth and turned it into a negative. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:58, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::Consumer confidence it at the lowest level in many years. That's reality: people are NOT buying cars even when there are great deals. They are NOT buying houses (which means they also buy less furniture, rugs, appliances etc). The stimulus last spring failed because people did not spend when they were told to spend. The banks are worse. they are hoarding their money and it is fairly hard to get a loan or credit card these days.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:13, 2 December 2008 (EST)

LT, I read the 2% growth thing earlier. I know about the [[placebo effect]] and the [[self-fulfilling prophecy]]. One reason my students have done so well is that I help them to see their potential and encourage them to fulfill my (our) [[expectation]] for them. You might even have heard of the blue eyes, brown eyes test. Economics is not a [[physical science]]. The economy does not "go" into recession. People lead other people. Each decision to buy or to save, to invest/hold/sell is a [[choice]] made by a human being with [[free will]]. (Stop me, before I start giving the [[George Bailey]] Savings and Loan speech! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:27, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::People make decisions all right, and the decisions they are making now is to be as conservative with their money as possible and avoid risk. -- most of the financial risk takers have pretty well been ruined. There is numerical data to show the trend is very dramatic this year: see [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/indexes/rasmussen_consumer_index Rasmussen index of consumer confidence] which fell from 120 (early 2007) to 64 right now. Bush told people to spend money last spring but they did not. Maybe it's a case of wise-for-me but bad-when-everyone-does-it.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::The housing problem, precipitated by Congress, in particularly Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chris Cox, ACORN and others, pressuring lenders, banks, Freddy and Fannie, to approve loans to otherwise unqualified applicants, the Real Estate and Building industries, alway greedy, encouraged buyers to believe the markets would go nowhere other than up, all are the cause. Banks overvalued homes. People treated their homes the same as they did their brokerage accounts, buying, selling, buying again, each time stepping up another 100K. All madness. That key fact, and as Jensen said, the media, invested in Bush-bashing and getting Obama elected, repeatedly saying we were in a recession, or worse, over and over again, did indeed, eventually, months later, lead people to believe their false assertion. As inevitably as day follows night, they cut their spending, put off big ticket items, and we were off to the races. Our "problem" led to an over-all lack of confidence, not only by consumers, but a lack of confidence between banks and investment brokers, retirement groups like CALPERS, which in turn started causing the same lack of confidence in the UK, and then it was a world-wide crisis. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:52, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::The GOP ran Congress and the White House so they get the blame. (the community loans were less than 3% of the problem--they do not amount to much) Note that the toxic problem is heavily concentrated in 4 states where the bubble mostly happened--Calif, Florida, Arizona, Nevada.) The bubble was real as prices doubled in 2 years. the rule was "Buy high and sell higher!" people at all income levels refinanced their homes and spent the money. About 40% the foreclosed mortgages are speculation--the houses have always been empty and the owner had a 0-down, low payment mortgage that was "certain" to produce $100,000 profit in a year. Brokers called every week begging to make BIG $$$ for you. I was in Phoenix this summer and Miami last month and you can see thousands and tens of thousands of new, empty houses and condos. I attended a history convention in Miami last month and stayed at one of those new condos, which they are renting out by the night like hotel rooms. I had a beautiful one bedroom apartment near the main hotels, with maid service, for $80 a night! (the hotels charged $250 a night). We have millions of these empty houses and condos and they are forcing down prices for everyone else. The problem is global. It's about as bad in parts of Europe and Asia. I remain very pessimistic about 2009. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 14:31, 2 December 2008 (EST)

Okay, I guess I '''will''' quote George Bailey: "Potter's not selling, he's buying!" I give it another 2 to 6 months, and then I think we'll see people start to buy those empty houses and condos - but at their actual value, and to live in, not as speculations. "Salt, that life may have savor." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:38, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::good quote. I hope your right and we don't have to rename this site '''Potterpedia''' [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:41, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::More VERY BAD economic news today: sales of electronics and appliances sank 25% (compared to Nov 2007) Luxury goods were down 24%, and specialty retail, which includes clothing and department store sales, fell 20%. Auto sales were down 37% in November to the lowest rate in 26 years. GM down 41% Ford down 31% and the foreign cars were down just as much, with Toyota down 34%, Nissan down 42% and Honda down 32%. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:08, 3 December 2008 (EST)

== Article move.... ==

Since this thing really got cooking this last quarter, and will run over into 2009, do we want to tie it to one year, or perhaps move it to '''Financial Crisis of 2008/2009''' or '''World Financial Crisis of 2008/09'''? Just an idea..... --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 07:47, 6 December 2008 (EST)
::well that;s a good question. We usually name these downturns by the first year ("Panic of 1893" "Great depression of 1929") -- we don't know how long it will last. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 07:56, 6 December 2008 (EST)

::*Well, you are a little ray of sunshine this morning, aren't you? :p Fair enough on the naming. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 07:58, 6 December 2008 (EST)
==definition of recession==
The NBER is the nonpartisan agency that declares the timing of business cycles--and it has been for 80 years. They use multiple criteria, which gives much more precision (not the simplistic one of two quarters' decline). Note that the START of a recession is actually a high point, from which the economy begins a downward trend. That happened 12 months ago. For more details see [http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-12-01-recession-nber-statement_N.htm NBER statement] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 05:00, 23 December 2008 (EST)

:Recessions are not usually considered to be movements between high and low points, but actual negative growth. If this is the official recognized agency for calling recessions, then I want hard evidence of that before this current downturn. It is odd that it hasn't been mentioned that the standard of two straight cycles of negative economic growth was actually discarded long ago -- but somehow wasn't noticed. And seeing their declaration that the last downturn began in March 2001 was laughable if they weren't serious. The GDP went on a far steeper nosedive as far as rate of crashing at the end of Clinton's term including losses of almost 15 trillion dollars in value in the stock market as the internet bubble burst and Gore tried to take the election, and yet that didn't classify as the beginning of a downturn based upon their standards? Please.

:I've given you a great deal of latitude due to the many edits you have made on this site and I believe that should be rewarded by allowing you to have a pretty free reign in how to set up the article and put in content. In my book you've earned that. But it doesn't appear you have fit any of the information that I have given you in the talk pages into the article. If it is going to start to read like a blog, then I am going to get more directly involved. And simply reverting me, including editing that went beyond what is being discussed here, is not a direction you should follow. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 05:27, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Financial Crisis of 2008

2008-12-23T09:55:17Z

Learn together: Context of what was happening in 1933

{{move|Recession of 2008}}
The '''Financial Crisis of 2008''' is an ongoing worldwide financial crisis that some believe is the worst the world has seen since 1933 with the [[Great Depression]]. The economic difficulties will probably be officially classified as a [[recession]] when the next quarterly data is released as it is believed that there will have been another quarter of negative growth. A group has tried to claim that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007,<ref> The U.S. economy entered a recession in December 2007, a committee of economists at the private National Bureau of Economic Research said. [http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/US-recession-began-December-2007/story.aspx?guid={7DCF90E4-D61A-4014-83CE-45E938CD632C} Rex Nutting] - MarketWatch</ref> and that has gotten a lot of press coverage, but that is based upon their own criteria and has not been a part of the standards used to recognize a recession, nor does the group have any authority to make that determination apart from that which they have given themselves and the press has afforded them. Negative economic news has spread outward from financial institutions to depress housing, construction, automobiles, retail sales, state and local government, and other sectors. In recent months governments across the world have spent huge sums of money to reverse the crisis, to the short-term results have been inconclusive. The U.S. government provided cash bailouts of several hundred billion dollars and long-term loan guarantees of over $7 trillion dollars (compared to a GDP of $15 trillion a year). Conservatives have been as dismayed and baffled by the crisis as everyone else.

Unlike crises in the mid 1970s and early 1980s, this one began in the financial sector with devastating effects on many very large financial companies worldwide. The negative effects by October began spreading to all other sectors of the economy, and forecasts for the next year show little likely of a quick recovery anywhere.

[[Image:CRASH08.JPG|thumb|300px|Oct 11, 2008 editorial; cartoon by Horsey stresses the global collapse]]

The crisis originated in the United States and Western Europe, and has impacted every country in the world. Banks and financial companies have reported losses of over one trillion dollars; investors have suffered [[paper loss|"paper losses"]] of many trillions. U.S. stocks are down 50% from their peak in 2007.<ref> For most people the loss is a "paper" loss because they still own the stock and it might go up, or down. If they bought stock in 2003 for $1000, watched it go to $1500 in 2008, then drop to $1000 again in 2008, their "paper loss" is $500 but their real loss is zero since they are back where they started. People who bought at $800 still have made a $200 paper profit. People who bought at $1200, say, have a paper loss of $200. The paper loss or gain becomes real when they finally sell the stock. See [[Paper loss]] for more details</ref> Paper losses for owners of stock in major financial institution have been over 70%, and owners of some have lost 99% as major [[bank]]s closed down. The [[stock market]] has declined 50-70% in major countries and [[pension]] funds have large paper losses. Paper losses in real estate have been in the trillions; the average price of American houses fell 20%, with 30% and higher declines in California and Florida. However, thus far ordinary depositors with cash in the bank have suffered no losses. Owners of stocks in the 5000 largest U.S. corporations have paper losses of $10 trillion dollars in 2008, dropping to $10 trillion in October from $20 trillion in late 2007.

In late September the crisis focused on liquidity--financial companies owned hundreds of billions of dollars of "toxic" securities, mostly based on U.S. [[mortgage]]s; they could not sell the toxic securities because no one knew how much they were worth, and large scale loans between major institutions stopped flowing as the system lost liquidity and froze up. A $800 billion rescue plan became law in the U.S. October 3, but its impact will not be clear for a while. Meanwhile Europe's economic crisis continues to deteriorate, as trillions of dollars in losses accumulate there and in Russia, China and India and in many smaller countries. International agencies such as the International Monetary Fund are arranging emergency bailouts for medium-sized countries, like Pakistan and Ukraine. All around the world people are sending their money to the U.S. and Japan because the banks there are safer than their own banks. The price of oil, which reached $145 a barrel in the summer, plunged to under $50. That plunge eased the gasoline crisis, helped commuters, and helped the airline industry.

[[Image:BRIDGE.JPG|thumb|400px|Tom Toles cartoon lampoons Federal bailout efforts as a badly designed bridge to nowhere, Dec. 1, 2008]]

Both parties have expressed anger at the crisis, and have promised extensive new regulations of the financial industry. However the Republicans have blocked additional bailout aid to General Motors, which is on the verge of bankruptcy.<ref> Treasury Secretary Paulson told Congress on Nov. 18 that the Bush administration remains "firmly opposed" to using any of the $700 billion financial bailout fund to help rescue Detroit's Big Three, "no matter how badly they need the help." [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/18/paulson-rejects-bailout-money-automakers-senate-considers-legislation/ Fox news report] </ref> Democratic Congressional leaders and President-elect [[Barack Obama]] have pushed for a bailout of the auto industry and are expected to move it forward in January, 2009.

The Bush administration undertook a "bailout" program in which it took control of several of the largest financial institutions (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG insurance), forced the mergers of others, purchased $125 billion of ownership in the 9 largest banks in the U.S., and bailed out the largest bank, Citigroup.

Until October the crisis had little impact on the non-financial sectors of the world economy, but then negative impacts started appearing. Companies could not borrow money for expansion or in some cases for routine operations, and had to cut back. Consumer spending fell and unemployment started to rise sharply. By November pessimistic reports were coming in daily from practically every sector of the American economy. There were no bright spots, and with tax revenues down, state governments began large-scale cutbacks, especially in New York and California.

By late October it appeared the financial crisis was slowing down the economies of all countries of the world, leading perhaps to a serious recession with widespread unemployment and loss of business. The major countries have been taking aggressive steps to dissolve the liquidity freeze and get money flowing again, and to stimulate economies that are headed downward.

==Causes==
In 2000 [[Howard Husock]] warned that the [[Community Reinvestment Act]] of 1977 and the expansion in 1995 would prove expensive; President Bush strongly endorsed the program. Despite widespread misunderstanding they did not cause the great crisis since CRA loans comprised only about 6% of the toxic mortgages. <ref>[http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities], Howard Husock, ''City Journal'', Winter 2000; Governor Randall S. Kroszner, "The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis," (December 3, 2008) [http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm online]</ref>

As hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the U.S. from abroad, financiers looked for imaginative ways to make a profit. They turned to [[real estate]], with the philosophy "Buy high--sell higher!" The higher price paid for a house the more profit would be made when it was resold ("flipped") in six or 12 months; prices were certain to keep going up and up. Salesmen made big money by phoning prospective buyers, promising to get them Bog Money Quick. People who owned a house whose value had doubled could and did refinance their mortgage for the higher amount, and keep the difference. In the early 2000s, U.S. interest rates were low and demand for housing was high, as housing prices soared, especially in California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona. Mortgage companies and banks were very eager to lend, especially to people with mediocre [[credit]] who would not previously have been eligible for mortgages and to speculators. Speculators were ordinary people who already had a house and who were hoping to make a large profit on the purchase and quick resale ("flip") of another house or condominium, which no one ever lived in.<ref> The only money the speculators had at risk was a down payment; sometimes the construction company paid for the down payment and closing costs, so the risk to the speculator was zero. Mortgages in the U.S. are "non-recourse" which means that borrowers cannot be sued for stopping payments.</ref> The expectation was that continuously rising house prices would cover the mortgage payments through refinancing. Many of the mortgages involved very low down payments and low monthly payments for the first year or two, after which the payments would start soaring. Sometimes the monthly payment at first was zero.

Americans owed some $10 trillion on their mortgages, most of which were sound with payments made on time. However financiers bundled the mortgages into very complicated packages called "'''collateralized debt obligations''''<ref> That is, homeowners were obligated to pay the debts and the collateral behind them was the physical house.</ref> or CDOs. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of CDO's were sold to banks, pension funds and financiers in the U.S. and Europe. Generally they borrowed cash to buy the CDOs. The risk was that if the CDO's declines in value, they would not be able to repay those loans. To minimize the risk, companies sold insurance called "credit default swaps" ('''CDS''') to guarantee payment of the CDOs. The largest seller was [[American International Group]] ('''AIG'''), the world's largest insurance company. The CDOs and CDS were especially attractive because they were not regulated by the government; experts are not sure how many trillions of dollars are involved.

Many mortgages were held by mortgage companies like [[Countrywide]] and [[Washington Mutual]], as well as investment banks such as [[Bear Stearns]], [[Merrill Lynch]], [[Lehman Brothers]], [[Morgan Stanley]] and [[Goldman Sachs]], as well as commercial banking chains like [[Wachovia]] and [[Bank of America]], which have thousands of local offices.

==Bubble bursts==
The housing "bubble" burst in 2006-07, as prices plunged downward in the Sunbelt. Many speculators and homeowners could not meet their payments, especially those who had "[[sub-prime]]" mortgages because their income was too low to support the eventual monthly payments, or who had adjustable rate mortgages where the monthly payments started small then escalated. [[Foreclosure]]s skyrocketed. With housing prices falling few people risked buying a new house (because it would soon be worth less than they paid for it). Construction firms had built millions of new houses that could not be sold but which glutted the market. By late 2008 half the home sales in the U.S. were by banks selling houses they had foreclosed on at low prices.

The problem was that no one could figure out what CDOs were now worth, so very few were willing to buy them. One major investment bank, Merrill Lynch, sold its CDOs for 22 cents on the dollar--a "[[fire sale]]" price that was less than they were worth in the long run, because in the long run the great majority of people will make their scheduled mortgage payments.

==2008 crises==
Multiple crises started pulling down major financial players. Countrywide, which originated 20% of all American mortgages in 2006, collapsed and was bought up by Bank of America. Bear Stearns, a large investment bank, went under; the government arranged a sale to JPMorgan Chase; stock holders lost about 90% of their investment, and the confidence in other banks was undermined.

On September 7, 2008, the government took control of the two largest mortgage holders, "[[Fannie Mae]]"<ref> Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)</ref> and "[[Freddie Mac]]"<ref>Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) </ref>. The two had lost $15 billion on the $5.4 trillion in mortgages they owned, and their notes were widely held in [[China]] and many other countries. The fear was that if the Treasury did not act the world's confidence in the US financial system would collapse. However the rest of the world was in trouble too. The stock markets in China and [[Russia]] plunged 50%, and the [[United Kingdom|British]] Treasury had to take over its largest mortgage company, [[Northern Rock]]. Vast sums of money flowed into the US because it was safer there than anywhere else.

[[Image:PANIC08.jpg|thumb|300px|Panic in Wall Street, Sept. 2008; the "bull" is the symbol of optimism on Wall Street and the "bear" is the symbol of pessimism. Here the bull panics.]]

By September the major banks were no longer lending money and most reported huge losses as they wrote down the value of the CDOs and other assets. Short sellers sold large amounts of stock in threatened companies, causing further panic and driving down share prices.<ref>The short sellers did not own the shares; the practice was stopped on Sept. 19, 2008, by the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] because it destabilized markets.</ref> [[Lehman Brothers]], one of the oldest and largest banks in New York, went bankrupt on Sept. 15 with no one to rescue it. The collapse of Lehman with its $639 billion in assets had a multiplier effect worldwide, severely weakening other big banks and sharply increasing the level of fear and distrust inside the system that caused bankers to sharply reduce their lending. Many large firms and hedge funds had borrowed billions of dollars from lenders and had pledged assets they owned as collateral. When the value of their collateral plummeted, the lenders demanded more collateral to make up the difference, so the borrowers had to sell assets to raise emergency cash. The price of the assets they sold was falling, and large additional sales further depressed prices, creating a downward spiral.

Merrill Lynch was sold to Bank of America for $50 billion, about half its value a few months before. Investors realized that AIG could no longer honor the insurance policies it wrote. It lost $13 billion in the first half of 2008 and its shares fell 95% in value. AIG was "too big" to be allowed to fail, so it was given an $85 billion loan from the government; in return the government received 80% of its stock. The government had to add another $38 billion to the AIG rescue in October.<ref> Barry Meier and Mary Williams Walsh, "A.I.G. to get Additional $37.8 Billion," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09insure.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin ''New York Times,'' Oct. 8, 2008] </ref> In effect AIG, along with GSE (government-sponsored enterprises) Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were nationalized. The Federal Reserve, with $800 billion in assets, was assisted by the Treasury, which gave it more funds.<ref> See [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/business/02crisis.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1222952525-cWL0bOgQjxNvxNo+OH1qAw Joe Nocera, "36 Hours of Alarm and Action as Crisis Spiraled," ''New York Times'' (Oct. 1, 2008)]</ref>

===European crises===
Heavy borrowing by European banks meant the crisis immediately affected Britain and other countries as well, as the British housing bubble burst about the same time as the U.S. The British government had to take over major mortgage lenders, including Northern Rock in February, 2008. Northern Rock's loans (£25 billion) and guarantees (£30 billion) extended by the Bank of England, together with the value of the company's mortgages (£55 billion), or £100 billion in all, were added to the British national debt. Bradford & Bingley, half the size of Northern Rock, held £40 billion in toxic mortgages, and was nationalized in late September.
====Fortis====
In late September, the Fortis bank, the world's 20th largest business, was partially nationalized by three governments who injected $16 billion in emergency funds. In 2007 Fortis borrowed heavily for its $100 billion takeover of rival bank ABN Amro; the deal came at the market’s peak, and Fortis now cannot pay its debts. The [[Belgium|Belgian]], [[Netherlands|Dutch]] and [[Luxembourg]] governments tried to inject capital but as consumer confidence plunged, Netherlands nationalized the Dutch wing of the company and the rest was sold in early October to the French bank BNP Paribas for €14.5 billion euros ($19 billion dollars).
====Germany====
In [[Germany]] Hypo Real Estate was given €50 billion euros ($68 billion dollars) bailout by the government. The government of [[Iceland]] took over its large banks, as the entire island economy verged on bankruptcy because it depended so much on large foreign loans. Most of the European countries hurriedly announced guarantees of personal bank deposits to avert further drop in consumer confidence and runs on the banks. Stock markets around the world continue to decline as pessimism worsens.
====Central banks====
The European Central Bank aggressively lent money to banks trying to ensure that banks would have adequate cash. The moves have not reassured savers or investors, and European stock markets have fallen even further than the American stock markets, as have the stock markets in China and Russia.

On October 13, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Austria committed €1.3 trillion euros ($1.8 trillion dollars) to guarantee bank loans and take stakes in banks, in an emergency effort to head off the collapse of their financial systems. <ref>Carter Dougherty, Nelson Schwartz and Floyd Norris, "Financial Crises Spread in Europe," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06markets.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin ''New York Times,'' Oct 6, 2008]; Gregory Viscusi, [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azerJ573HcbI&refer=home "EU Nations Commit 1.3 Trillion Euros to Bank Bailouts," ''Bloomberg.com'' Oct. 13. 2008]</ref>
====Britain====
Britain on October 8 announced a gigantic £400 billion ($680 billion) rescue plan for its banks; the government would partially own them. Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]] said banks would still be run by their old managers, but that the government would have to be "satisfied" on matters of salaries, [[dividend]]s and lending activities. The money involved is about a third of Britain's annual [[Gross Domestic Product|GDP]] (comparable to $5 trillion in the U.S. economy.)

On October 13, Britain announced it would spend £50 billion ($85 billion) to nationalize two of the five largest banks, HBOS (Halifax Bank of Scotland) and RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland), while taking partial ownership of a third, Lloyds TSB. A fourth, Barclays will remain private if it can raise an additional £7 billion. The fifth, HSBC is based in Hong Kong and will remain private.<ref>"Financial crisis: HBOS and RBS 'to be nationalised' in £50 billion state intervention," [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3185120/Financial-crisis-HBOS-and-RBS-to-be-nationalised-in-50-billion-state-intervention.html?source=EMC-new_12102008 London ''Telegraph'' Oct 13, 2008] The existing stockholders were not bought out. They will continue to hold shares in the banks, but they will be outvoted by the new stock owned by the government.</ref>
====Switzerland====
In October 2008, the Swiss central bank and the big UBS bank reached an agreement to transfer as much as $60 billion of troubled securities and other assets from UBS’s to a separate entity. UBS will put up $6 billion in equity. The Swiss central bank will control the new entity and loan it $54 billion.

===Asia===
The crisis swept across the Middle East and Asia as well, with South Korea especially hard hit. China, which had been the world's major growth machine in recent years, seemed to slow down. In November China's government announced it would spend 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) through the end of 2010 to stimulate its economy. It specifically targeted people's livelihood in an effort to offset the impact of slowing global demand for its exports and unlock the spending power of its vast population.

==$700 billion bailout ==
"We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis," [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] warned the nation on Sept. 25, 2008.:
{{QuoteBox|Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending. Credit markets have frozen. And families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money....without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold: More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.<ref>see [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080924-10.html Bush speech online]</ref>}}
On September 19, 2008, the Treasury and Federal Reserve proposed a major rescue plan--the largest government intervention in the economy since [[World War II]]. The plan was for the Treasury to purchase $700 billion of the CDOs. The bailout was needed, Bush said, to avert a major disaster for the economy. Most (but not all) Democrats signed on to the bailout plan, adding provisions for Congressional oversight and caps on CEO compensation; but at the last moment on Sept 25, 2008 House Republicans said no, and GOP presidential nominee [[John McCain]] held off endorsement.

Conservatives were split on what to do. Many agreed with Bush that the bailout proposed by Treasury Secretary [[Henry M. Paulson]] was urgently needed. Large banks and corporations strongly endorsed the bailout. The [[American Bankers Association]] and the [[Mortgage Bankers Association]] are fighting against any amendment that would reduce mortgage obligations for people in bankruptcy, while directing all the government funds to the banking industry.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, normally an outspoken advocate of big corporate interests, instead stressed the crisis's impact on small and midsize businesses. "We're looking at an economy that was slipping toward recession even before this crisis culminated in a market lockup last week," said Chamber economist Martin Regalia. The debate in Congress, he said, "is costing every American taxpayer money, directly."<ref>Elizabeth Williamson, "Big Business Wants Deal, Setbacks and All," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238988380577457.html ''Wall Street Journal'' Sept. 26, 2008]</ref> Democratic nominee Senator [[Barack Obama]] endorsed the plan, as amended by Congressional Democrats. On the other hand, ordinary taxpayers and "Main Street", that is businessmen who operated at the local level, were highly suspicious of [[Wall Street]]. McCain, blaming the crisis on "the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system", rejected the bailout as a favor for Wall Street and little help to Main Street. Believers in the market economy insisted that the market should run its course, and opposed the bailout.<ref> See comments from a range of economists at [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26assess.html?ref=business Peter S. Goodman, "Credit Enters a Lockdown," ''New York Times'' Sept. 25, 2008]</ref>

A compromise bailout was agreed to by leaders of both parties but the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" (EESA) was voted down in the House on Sept. 29. Democrats favored the Bush bill 60%-40%, but Republicans voted no by 65-35%. The stock market lost a trillion dollars in value in one day as uncertainty reigned. Finally a large majority passed an expanded bailout bill, that added $100 billion in new subsidies to the original $700 billion, plus tax breaks and a rise in FDIC insurance to $250,000 from $100,000, designed to reassure ordinary depositors. Both Obama and McCain voted for this version of the bill.

The Treasury TARP program proved erratic and had to be radically modified several times. The Treasury dropped the original plan to buy toxic securities and instead has used $250 billion to prop up major banks. In October Paulson and Bernanke used their new powers to take an ownership stake in the nine largest U.S. banks, of $7 to $25 billion each. These banks are now partly owned and controlled by the government. However those banks are keeping the money and not lending it out. The Bush administration has refused to allow the money to be used to help the [[automobile]] industry. The price of bank stocks has fallen sharply since the bailout passed. The world's largest bank, Citigroup, was on the verge of collapse in late November and received a second bailout of $20 billion (in addition to $25 billion in October), and a federal guarantee to cover most of its toxic investments.

By mid-November the market had lost confidence in Treasury Secretary Paulson, who indicated he was baffled and would let the incoming Obama administration handle the unspent $450 billion. The stock market jumped 6% on the news that Obama had picked New York banker Timothy Geithner to replace Paulson.<ref>Theo Francis, "Obama to Nominate New York Fed Chief Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary," [http://www.businessweek.com/election/2008/blog/archives/2008/11/obama_to_nomina.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story ''Business Week'' Nov. 21, 2008]</ref> In late November the Federal Reserve announced it will buy up to $600 billion in mortgage-related assets from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, hoping to restart the housing and credit markets. Under the new "Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility", or '''TALF''', the Federal Reserve will loan up to $200 billion to financial companies that hold securities backed by consumer and small-business loans.

Hedge funds are private investment companies with $1.7 trillion in assets. They have lost $180 billion since July and some are near collapse. Investors are demanding their money back, and Wall Street in late October is bracing for a shake-out in the industry.<ref> Louise Story, "Citadel Chief denies rumors of trouble" [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/business/25hedge.html?ref=business ''New York Times,'' Oct 24, 2008]</ref>

In late November the government announced an $800 billion plan to boost consumer credit and the market for mortgage-related securities. Plans call for the Federal Reserve in early 2009 to extend up to $200 billion in non-recourse loans to holders of asset-backed securities backed by highly-rated consumer and small business loans.<ref> "Non-recourse" loans means that if they are not paid back the borrowers cannot be sued for their other assets. Mortgages fall in this category, so that if people default they just walk away from the debt and never have to repay it. However it damages their credit rating.</ref> Treasury will contribute $20 billion in funds through its Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The Federal Reserve also announced it will purchase up to $100 billion in GSE (government-sponsored enterprises, especially Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac) debt through a series of competitive auctions starting in December, 2008. The Federal Reserve starting in December will purchase up to $500 billion in mortgage-backed securities backed by GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Fed is preparing to launch new liquidity programs to support the economy in addition to further slashing interests rates. The total commitments by the government in bailouts and loan guarantees exceeded $7 trillion dollars, but the economy nevertheless continued to slip downward.<ref>Maya Jackson Randall, "Paulson Says Treasury Actively Mulling New Rescue Programs," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122816189458369851.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy ''Wall Street Journal'' Dec. 1, 2008]</ref>
===Deepening recession===
By early December the entire economy was heading downward with no bright spots. The recession that began in Dec. 2007 intensified, as retail sales plunged. In November 2008 Americans, their confidence shaken, saved their money and sharply reduced their credit card purchases. Auto sales were down 37% in November (compared to Nov. 2007) to the lowest rate in 26 years. GM sales fell 41% Ford fell 31% and the foreign cars were down just as much, with Toyota down 34%, Nissan down 42% and Honda down 32%.<ref> Stephanie Rosenbloom, "In November, Shoppers Cut Spending Even More," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/economy/03shop.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Dec. 2, 2008]; Nick Bunkley, "Another Month of Miserable Auto Sales," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/03sales.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Dec. 2, 2008].</ref> Retailers rang up the lowest November sales in more than 30 years, as holiday shopping not only failed to lift the economy but showed that the crisis is further distressing everyday consumers. Thirty major companies -- including Macy's, Sears, Abercrombie & Fitch and Target -- posted sales declines; Wal-Mart, anchoring the bottom of the price chain, sawincreased sales. Retail sales in November fell 2.7 percent compared with the same month last year.<ref> Ylan Q. Mui, "Retailers Report a Crisis in All Aisles: November Sales Slump as Shoppers Stow Credit Cards," [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/04/AR2008120404347.html?hpid=topnews ''Washington Post'' Dec. 5, 2008]</ref>
[[Image:Jobloss.jpg|thumb|300px]]

The Federal Reserve reported on Dec. 3, 2008, that every region reported sales declines, drops in manufacturing activity, weakening real estate markets, tighter lending, and deteriorating labor marketsThose sectors that had been strong until recently -- especially as agriculture and energy -- also softened as commodity prices declined. November saw 533,000 jobs disappear in the worst one-month decline in 34 years.

==Collapse of #6 and #4 largest banks, rescue of #1==
===Washington Mutual collapses===
On Sept. 25, Washington Mutual, the 6th largest bank in the US with $310 billion in assets, went [[bankrupt]] after a run in which depositors withdrew $17 billion in a few days. Its stockholders lost all their money, the US government took it over (through the [[FDIC]], which insures ordinary bank deposits), and resold it the same day to the biggest New York bank, JPMorgan Chase. It was the largest commercial bank failure in American history, by far.<ref>In the [[Great Depression]], only one major bank failed (New York's Bank of United States, in late 1930), although over 6000 small neighborhood and rural banks went under; depositors eventually received on average 85% of their deposits.</ref>
===Wachovia collapses===
Meanwhile the #4 U.S. bank, Wachovia, burdened by $120 billion in toxic securities,<ref> At the height of the bubble in 2006 Wachovia purchased Golden West Financial, a California lender specializing in "pay-option" mortgages that enabled speculators to buy houses and pay very little a month for a year or two (at which time they expected to sell it for a profit). [http://www.brokeroutpost.com/reference/22657.htm explanation of pay-option loans]</ref> was bought out by Citigroup on Sept. 29 in a deal engineered by the FDIC. However Wachovia then broke its deal and merged into Wells Fargo. The result is that four major banks now dominate the American economy (Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo), along with dozens of regional chains and thousands of small local banks.
===Bank of America renegotiates mortgages===
In early October, Bank of America, the new owner of Countrywide, reached a settlement with 11 states that sued it over fraudulent practices. The state of Illinois accused Countrywide of relaxing underwriting standards, structuring loans with risky features, and misleading consumers with hidden fees and fake marketing claims, like a false promise of a "no closing costs loan." Countrywide gave special incentives to its brokers for selling impossible loans by paying higher commissions on them. In reviewing one Illinois mortgage broker’s sales, the Illinois complaint said the "vast majority of the loans had inflated income, almost all without the borrower’s knowledge." Bank of America did not deny the charges and instead agreed to pay out $8.4 billion to 400,000 Countrywide customers. Countrywide will reduce principal balances for some people and cut interest rates for others. Rates for some people could decline to as low as 2.5% and remain at that level for five years. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and IndyMac, now all owned by the federal government, have begun their own programs to modify mortgage terms for some hard-pressed borrowers.
<ref> Gretchen Morgenson, "Countrywide to Set Aside $8.4 Billion in Loan Aid," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06countrywide.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Oct. 6, 2008]</ref>
===Largest bank rescued===
Citigroup, the world's largest bank was tottering in late November despite its receipt of $25 billion in TARP bailout money. Its value on the stock market plunged to $21 billion, down from $244 billion two years ago. Round after round of layoffs have ended 75,000 jobs in 2008 out of 375,000 employees a year ago. Very heavy exposure to toxic mortgages is the main culprit. The government stepped in with the largest bailout yet, including $20 billion in new cash, and guarantees of toxic assets by the Treasury, FDIC and Federal Reserve.

At all times Citigroup used elaborate mathematical risk models that looked at mortgages in particular geographical areas, but never included the possibility of a national housing downturn, or the prospect that millions of mortgage holders would default on their mortgages. The prevailing approach at Citigroup and the other big banks was to make money as fast as possible (generating annual bonuses of $10 to $30 million for senior executives), which assigning zero to the risk of a system-wide downturn. Such a downturn came with disastrous consequences for Citigroup and its rivals on Wall Street. Even after Bear Stearns ran into serious trouble in summer 2007, Citigroup decided the possibility of trouble with its CDO’s was so tiny (less than 1/100 of 1%) that they excluded them from their risk analysis.

Despite two federal bailouts Citigroup is still wobbly. It holds $20 billion of mortgage-linked securities that have been marked down to between 21 cents and 41 cents on the dollar. It has billions of dollars of giant buyout and corporate loans of dubious value. And it also faces a potential massive losses on auto, mortgage and credit card loans as the economy worsens.<ref>Eric Dash and Julie Creswell, "Citigroup Pays for a Rush to Risk," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23citi.html?ref=business&pagewanted=all ''New York'' Times,’’ Nov. 22, 2008]</ref>

==Crisis in Auto industry==
In 2008 a series of damaging blows drove the "Big Three" (GM, Ford and Chrysler) to the verge of bankruptcy. Part of the cause was very high labor costs (much higher than the foreign plants in the U.S.), which prevents lower prices. The Big Three had in recent years stressed expensive, fuel-guzzling SUVs and large pickups. They were much more profitable than smaller, fuel-efficient cars. When gasoline prices shot past $4 in 2008, Americans stopped buying the big cars, and the Big Three saw their sales plummet. The Financial Crisis played a role as no one was willing to loan GM the money to buy Chrysler. Consumer credit has tightened and it became much harder for people with average or poor credit to obtain a bank loan to buy a car, so sales fell further. Stock prices plummeted as shareholders worried about bankruptcy; GM's shares fell to 1946 levels. Intense debate is underway about a massive bailout, that would be in addition to a $25 billion loan Congress passed in September 2008 to assist in increasing fuel efficiency. President Bush has proposed changing the terms of that loan so it could be used to cover daily operating expenses, but Congress rejected that. Republicans in Congress in mid-November blocked Democratic proposals to underwrite a new bailout of the auto industry, as industry leaders made an unconvincing case before Congress. President elect Obama and Democrats in Congress have demanded the Big Three come up with a highly specific plan with some chance of long-term viability, with the expectation that Congress will address the issue again in January 2009.

In addition to the Big Three hundreds of large suppliers of parts are in financial crisis as well; most would go under if the Big Three go bankrupt.

Intense debate in December 2008 focused on allowing bankruptcy or injecting billions more of federal aid in a massive bailout; it would be in addition to a $25 billion loan Congress passed in September 2008 to assist in increasing fuel efficiency. The Democrats in Congress supported president Bush's proposal to sue the fuel-efficiency loans to help with the immediate problem. It passed the Hosue but Senate Republicans brioke with Bush and it failed. The opponents called for a bankruptcy that would allow GM to get out of its contracts to pay union members high wages, as well as generous pensionsand medical benefits to retired workers. Bush then acted unilaterally and decided to use [[Financial Crisis of 2008|TARP money]] to bail out GM and Chrysler, on December 19. GM and Chrysler will get $13.4 billions in loans they can use to pay their suppliers.<ref> GM and Chrysler will receive $4 billion each when they sign the loan agreements with the Treasury. GM will have access to an addition $5.4 billion on Jan. 16 and another $4 billion on Feb. 17 provided that Congress has released the remaining $350 billion for the Treasury’s TARP rescue program. </ref> GM can receive another $4 billion in February, but by then the Obama adminsitration will be in charge, and it is emphasizing the need for a long-range solution.<ref>David E. Sanger, David M. Herszenhorn and Bill Vlasic, “Bush Aids Detroit, but Hard Choices Wait for Obama,” [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html?hp ''NewYork Times'' Dec. 19, 2008]</ref>

===Bankruptcy scenario===
Bankruptcy of the Big Three would be very expensive to the economy as a whole and the federal government. It would mean loss of 240,000 very high paying jobs at the Big Three, a loss of 980,000 high-paying jobs at the suppliers and local dealers, and 1.7 million additional jobs throughout the economy. It would cause a decline in personal income of $151 billion the first year, and $398 billion over three years. The federal, state and local governments would lose tax revenue and spend on welfare programs a total of $156 billion over three years.<ref>CAR Research Memorandum. "The Impact of the U.S. Economy of a Major Contraction of the Detroit Three Automakers" (Nov 2008) [http://www.cargroup.org/documents/FINALDetroitThreeContractionImpact_3__000.pdf online edition]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Henry M. Paulson]]
*[[Paper loss]]

====References====
<references/>

[[Category:Finance]]
[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Economic history]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Financial Crisis of 2008

2008-12-23T09:54:29Z

Learn together: Sorry, but the declaration of the recession starting in December 2007 has no historical backing based upon how recessions are determined, nor did the group have authority to make that determination

{{move|Recession of 2008}}
The '''Financial Crisis of 2008''' is an ongoing worldwide financial crisis that some believe is the worst the world has seen since 1933. The economic difficulties will probably be officially classified as a [[recession]] when the next quarterly data is released as it is believed that there will have been another quarter of negative growth. A group has tried to claim that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007,<ref> The U.S. economy entered a recession in December 2007, a committee of economists at the private National Bureau of Economic Research said. [http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/US-recession-began-December-2007/story.aspx?guid={7DCF90E4-D61A-4014-83CE-45E938CD632C} Rex Nutting] - MarketWatch</ref> and that has gotten a lot of press coverage, but that is based upon their own criteria and has not been a part of the standards used to recognize a recession, nor does the group have any authority to make that determination apart from that which they have given themselves and the press has afforded them. Negative economic news has spread outward from financial institutions to depress housing, construction, automobiles, retail sales, state and local government, and other sectors. In recent months governments across the world have spent huge sums of money to reverse the crisis, to the short-term results have been inconclusive. The U.S. government provided cash bailouts of several hundred billion dollars and long-term loan guarantees of over $7 trillion dollars (compared to a GDP of $15 trillion a year). Conservatives have been as dismayed and baffled by the crisis as everyone else.

Unlike crises in the mid 1970s and early 1980s, this one began in the financial sector with devastating effects on many very large financial companies worldwide. The negative effects by October began spreading to all other sectors of the economy, and forecasts for the next year show little likely of a quick recovery anywhere.

[[Image:CRASH08.JPG|thumb|300px|Oct 11, 2008 editorial; cartoon by Horsey stresses the global collapse]]

The crisis originated in the United States and Western Europe, and has impacted every country in the world. Banks and financial companies have reported losses of over one trillion dollars; investors have suffered [[paper loss|"paper losses"]] of many trillions. U.S. stocks are down 50% from their peak in 2007.<ref> For most people the loss is a "paper" loss because they still own the stock and it might go up, or down. If they bought stock in 2003 for $1000, watched it go to $1500 in 2008, then drop to $1000 again in 2008, their "paper loss" is $500 but their real loss is zero since they are back where they started. People who bought at $800 still have made a $200 paper profit. People who bought at $1200, say, have a paper loss of $200. The paper loss or gain becomes real when they finally sell the stock. See [[Paper loss]] for more details</ref> Paper losses for owners of stock in major financial institution have been over 70%, and owners of some have lost 99% as major [[bank]]s closed down. The [[stock market]] has declined 50-70% in major countries and [[pension]] funds have large paper losses. Paper losses in real estate have been in the trillions; the average price of American houses fell 20%, with 30% and higher declines in California and Florida. However, thus far ordinary depositors with cash in the bank have suffered no losses. Owners of stocks in the 5000 largest U.S. corporations have paper losses of $10 trillion dollars in 2008, dropping to $10 trillion in October from $20 trillion in late 2007.

In late September the crisis focused on liquidity--financial companies owned hundreds of billions of dollars of "toxic" securities, mostly based on U.S. [[mortgage]]s; they could not sell the toxic securities because no one knew how much they were worth, and large scale loans between major institutions stopped flowing as the system lost liquidity and froze up. A $800 billion rescue plan became law in the U.S. October 3, but its impact will not be clear for a while. Meanwhile Europe's economic crisis continues to deteriorate, as trillions of dollars in losses accumulate there and in Russia, China and India and in many smaller countries. International agencies such as the International Monetary Fund are arranging emergency bailouts for medium-sized countries, like Pakistan and Ukraine. All around the world people are sending their money to the U.S. and Japan because the banks there are safer than their own banks. The price of oil, which reached $145 a barrel in the summer, plunged to under $50. That plunge eased the gasoline crisis, helped commuters, and helped the airline industry.

[[Image:BRIDGE.JPG|thumb|400px|Tom Toles cartoon lampoons Federal bailout efforts as a badly designed bridge to nowhere, Dec. 1, 2008]]

Both parties have expressed anger at the crisis, and have promised extensive new regulations of the financial industry. However the Republicans have blocked additional bailout aid to General Motors, which is on the verge of bankruptcy.<ref> Treasury Secretary Paulson told Congress on Nov. 18 that the Bush administration remains "firmly opposed" to using any of the $700 billion financial bailout fund to help rescue Detroit's Big Three, "no matter how badly they need the help." [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/18/paulson-rejects-bailout-money-automakers-senate-considers-legislation/ Fox news report] </ref> Democratic Congressional leaders and President-elect [[Barack Obama]] have pushed for a bailout of the auto industry and are expected to move it forward in January, 2009.

The Bush administration undertook a "bailout" program in which it took control of several of the largest financial institutions (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG insurance), forced the mergers of others, purchased $125 billion of ownership in the 9 largest banks in the U.S., and bailed out the largest bank, Citigroup.

Until October the crisis had little impact on the non-financial sectors of the world economy, but then negative impacts started appearing. Companies could not borrow money for expansion or in some cases for routine operations, and had to cut back. Consumer spending fell and unemployment started to rise sharply. By November pessimistic reports were coming in daily from practically every sector of the American economy. There were no bright spots, and with tax revenues down, state governments began large-scale cutbacks, especially in New York and California.

By late October it appeared the financial crisis was slowing down the economies of all countries of the world, leading perhaps to a serious recession with widespread unemployment and loss of business. The major countries have been taking aggressive steps to dissolve the liquidity freeze and get money flowing again, and to stimulate economies that are headed downward.

==Causes==
In 2000 [[Howard Husock]] warned that the [[Community Reinvestment Act]] of 1977 and the expansion in 1995 would prove expensive; President Bush strongly endorsed the program. Despite widespread misunderstanding they did not cause the great crisis since CRA loans comprised only about 6% of the toxic mortgages. <ref>[http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities], Howard Husock, ''City Journal'', Winter 2000; Governor Randall S. Kroszner, "The Community Reinvestment Act and the Recent Mortgage Crisis," (December 3, 2008) [http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm online]</ref>

As hundreds of billions of dollars poured into the U.S. from abroad, financiers looked for imaginative ways to make a profit. They turned to [[real estate]], with the philosophy "Buy high--sell higher!" The higher price paid for a house the more profit would be made when it was resold ("flipped") in six or 12 months; prices were certain to keep going up and up. Salesmen made big money by phoning prospective buyers, promising to get them Bog Money Quick. People who owned a house whose value had doubled could and did refinance their mortgage for the higher amount, and keep the difference. In the early 2000s, U.S. interest rates were low and demand for housing was high, as housing prices soared, especially in California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona. Mortgage companies and banks were very eager to lend, especially to people with mediocre [[credit]] who would not previously have been eligible for mortgages and to speculators. Speculators were ordinary people who already had a house and who were hoping to make a large profit on the purchase and quick resale ("flip") of another house or condominium, which no one ever lived in.<ref> The only money the speculators had at risk was a down payment; sometimes the construction company paid for the down payment and closing costs, so the risk to the speculator was zero. Mortgages in the U.S. are "non-recourse" which means that borrowers cannot be sued for stopping payments.</ref> The expectation was that continuously rising house prices would cover the mortgage payments through refinancing. Many of the mortgages involved very low down payments and low monthly payments for the first year or two, after which the payments would start soaring. Sometimes the monthly payment at first was zero.

Americans owed some $10 trillion on their mortgages, most of which were sound with payments made on time. However financiers bundled the mortgages into very complicated packages called "'''collateralized debt obligations''''<ref> That is, homeowners were obligated to pay the debts and the collateral behind them was the physical house.</ref> or CDOs. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of CDO's were sold to banks, pension funds and financiers in the U.S. and Europe. Generally they borrowed cash to buy the CDOs. The risk was that if the CDO's declines in value, they would not be able to repay those loans. To minimize the risk, companies sold insurance called "credit default swaps" ('''CDS''') to guarantee payment of the CDOs. The largest seller was [[American International Group]] ('''AIG'''), the world's largest insurance company. The CDOs and CDS were especially attractive because they were not regulated by the government; experts are not sure how many trillions of dollars are involved.

Many mortgages were held by mortgage companies like [[Countrywide]] and [[Washington Mutual]], as well as investment banks such as [[Bear Stearns]], [[Merrill Lynch]], [[Lehman Brothers]], [[Morgan Stanley]] and [[Goldman Sachs]], as well as commercial banking chains like [[Wachovia]] and [[Bank of America]], which have thousands of local offices.

==Bubble bursts==
The housing "bubble" burst in 2006-07, as prices plunged downward in the Sunbelt. Many speculators and homeowners could not meet their payments, especially those who had "[[sub-prime]]" mortgages because their income was too low to support the eventual monthly payments, or who had adjustable rate mortgages where the monthly payments started small then escalated. [[Foreclosure]]s skyrocketed. With housing prices falling few people risked buying a new house (because it would soon be worth less than they paid for it). Construction firms had built millions of new houses that could not be sold but which glutted the market. By late 2008 half the home sales in the U.S. were by banks selling houses they had foreclosed on at low prices.

The problem was that no one could figure out what CDOs were now worth, so very few were willing to buy them. One major investment bank, Merrill Lynch, sold its CDOs for 22 cents on the dollar--a "[[fire sale]]" price that was less than they were worth in the long run, because in the long run the great majority of people will make their scheduled mortgage payments.

==2008 crises==
Multiple crises started pulling down major financial players. Countrywide, which originated 20% of all American mortgages in 2006, collapsed and was bought up by Bank of America. Bear Stearns, a large investment bank, went under; the government arranged a sale to JPMorgan Chase; stock holders lost about 90% of their investment, and the confidence in other banks was undermined.

On September 7, 2008, the government took control of the two largest mortgage holders, "[[Fannie Mae]]"<ref> Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)</ref> and "[[Freddie Mac]]"<ref>Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) </ref>. The two had lost $15 billion on the $5.4 trillion in mortgages they owned, and their notes were widely held in [[China]] and many other countries. The fear was that if the Treasury did not act the world's confidence in the US financial system would collapse. However the rest of the world was in trouble too. The stock markets in China and [[Russia]] plunged 50%, and the [[United Kingdom|British]] Treasury had to take over its largest mortgage company, [[Northern Rock]]. Vast sums of money flowed into the US because it was safer there than anywhere else.

[[Image:PANIC08.jpg|thumb|300px|Panic in Wall Street, Sept. 2008; the "bull" is the symbol of optimism on Wall Street and the "bear" is the symbol of pessimism. Here the bull panics.]]

By September the major banks were no longer lending money and most reported huge losses as they wrote down the value of the CDOs and other assets. Short sellers sold large amounts of stock in threatened companies, causing further panic and driving down share prices.<ref>The short sellers did not own the shares; the practice was stopped on Sept. 19, 2008, by the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] because it destabilized markets.</ref> [[Lehman Brothers]], one of the oldest and largest banks in New York, went bankrupt on Sept. 15 with no one to rescue it. The collapse of Lehman with its $639 billion in assets had a multiplier effect worldwide, severely weakening other big banks and sharply increasing the level of fear and distrust inside the system that caused bankers to sharply reduce their lending. Many large firms and hedge funds had borrowed billions of dollars from lenders and had pledged assets they owned as collateral. When the value of their collateral plummeted, the lenders demanded more collateral to make up the difference, so the borrowers had to sell assets to raise emergency cash. The price of the assets they sold was falling, and large additional sales further depressed prices, creating a downward spiral.

Merrill Lynch was sold to Bank of America for $50 billion, about half its value a few months before. Investors realized that AIG could no longer honor the insurance policies it wrote. It lost $13 billion in the first half of 2008 and its shares fell 95% in value. AIG was "too big" to be allowed to fail, so it was given an $85 billion loan from the government; in return the government received 80% of its stock. The government had to add another $38 billion to the AIG rescue in October.<ref> Barry Meier and Mary Williams Walsh, "A.I.G. to get Additional $37.8 Billion," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09insure.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin ''New York Times,'' Oct. 8, 2008] </ref> In effect AIG, along with GSE (government-sponsored enterprises) Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were nationalized. The Federal Reserve, with $800 billion in assets, was assisted by the Treasury, which gave it more funds.<ref> See [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/business/02crisis.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1222952525-cWL0bOgQjxNvxNo+OH1qAw Joe Nocera, "36 Hours of Alarm and Action as Crisis Spiraled," ''New York Times'' (Oct. 1, 2008)]</ref>

===European crises===
Heavy borrowing by European banks meant the crisis immediately affected Britain and other countries as well, as the British housing bubble burst about the same time as the U.S. The British government had to take over major mortgage lenders, including Northern Rock in February, 2008. Northern Rock's loans (£25 billion) and guarantees (£30 billion) extended by the Bank of England, together with the value of the company's mortgages (£55 billion), or £100 billion in all, were added to the British national debt. Bradford & Bingley, half the size of Northern Rock, held £40 billion in toxic mortgages, and was nationalized in late September.
====Fortis====
In late September, the Fortis bank, the world's 20th largest business, was partially nationalized by three governments who injected $16 billion in emergency funds. In 2007 Fortis borrowed heavily for its $100 billion takeover of rival bank ABN Amro; the deal came at the market’s peak, and Fortis now cannot pay its debts. The [[Belgium|Belgian]], [[Netherlands|Dutch]] and [[Luxembourg]] governments tried to inject capital but as consumer confidence plunged, Netherlands nationalized the Dutch wing of the company and the rest was sold in early October to the French bank BNP Paribas for €14.5 billion euros ($19 billion dollars).
====Germany====
In [[Germany]] Hypo Real Estate was given €50 billion euros ($68 billion dollars) bailout by the government. The government of [[Iceland]] took over its large banks, as the entire island economy verged on bankruptcy because it depended so much on large foreign loans. Most of the European countries hurriedly announced guarantees of personal bank deposits to avert further drop in consumer confidence and runs on the banks. Stock markets around the world continue to decline as pessimism worsens.
====Central banks====
The European Central Bank aggressively lent money to banks trying to ensure that banks would have adequate cash. The moves have not reassured savers or investors, and European stock markets have fallen even further than the American stock markets, as have the stock markets in China and Russia.

On October 13, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Austria committed €1.3 trillion euros ($1.8 trillion dollars) to guarantee bank loans and take stakes in banks, in an emergency effort to head off the collapse of their financial systems. <ref>Carter Dougherty, Nelson Schwartz and Floyd Norris, "Financial Crises Spread in Europe," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06markets.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin ''New York Times,'' Oct 6, 2008]; Gregory Viscusi, [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azerJ573HcbI&refer=home "EU Nations Commit 1.3 Trillion Euros to Bank Bailouts," ''Bloomberg.com'' Oct. 13. 2008]</ref>
====Britain====
Britain on October 8 announced a gigantic £400 billion ($680 billion) rescue plan for its banks; the government would partially own them. Prime Minister [[Gordon Brown]] said banks would still be run by their old managers, but that the government would have to be "satisfied" on matters of salaries, [[dividend]]s and lending activities. The money involved is about a third of Britain's annual [[Gross Domestic Product|GDP]] (comparable to $5 trillion in the U.S. economy.)

On October 13, Britain announced it would spend £50 billion ($85 billion) to nationalize two of the five largest banks, HBOS (Halifax Bank of Scotland) and RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland), while taking partial ownership of a third, Lloyds TSB. A fourth, Barclays will remain private if it can raise an additional £7 billion. The fifth, HSBC is based in Hong Kong and will remain private.<ref>"Financial crisis: HBOS and RBS 'to be nationalised' in £50 billion state intervention," [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3185120/Financial-crisis-HBOS-and-RBS-to-be-nationalised-in-50-billion-state-intervention.html?source=EMC-new_12102008 London ''Telegraph'' Oct 13, 2008] The existing stockholders were not bought out. They will continue to hold shares in the banks, but they will be outvoted by the new stock owned by the government.</ref>
====Switzerland====
In October 2008, the Swiss central bank and the big UBS bank reached an agreement to transfer as much as $60 billion of troubled securities and other assets from UBS’s to a separate entity. UBS will put up $6 billion in equity. The Swiss central bank will control the new entity and loan it $54 billion.

===Asia===
The crisis swept across the Middle East and Asia as well, with South Korea especially hard hit. China, which had been the world's major growth machine in recent years, seemed to slow down. In November China's government announced it would spend 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) through the end of 2010 to stimulate its economy. It specifically targeted people's livelihood in an effort to offset the impact of slowing global demand for its exports and unlock the spending power of its vast population.

==$700 billion bailout ==
"We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis," [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] warned the nation on Sept. 25, 2008.:
{{QuoteBox|Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending. Credit markets have frozen. And families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money....without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold: More banks could fail, including some in your community. The stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically. And if you own a business or a farm, you would find it harder and more expensive to get credit. More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs. Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.<ref>see [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080924-10.html Bush speech online]</ref>}}
On September 19, 2008, the Treasury and Federal Reserve proposed a major rescue plan--the largest government intervention in the economy since [[World War II]]. The plan was for the Treasury to purchase $700 billion of the CDOs. The bailout was needed, Bush said, to avert a major disaster for the economy. Most (but not all) Democrats signed on to the bailout plan, adding provisions for Congressional oversight and caps on CEO compensation; but at the last moment on Sept 25, 2008 House Republicans said no, and GOP presidential nominee [[John McCain]] held off endorsement.

Conservatives were split on what to do. Many agreed with Bush that the bailout proposed by Treasury Secretary [[Henry M. Paulson]] was urgently needed. Large banks and corporations strongly endorsed the bailout. The [[American Bankers Association]] and the [[Mortgage Bankers Association]] are fighting against any amendment that would reduce mortgage obligations for people in bankruptcy, while directing all the government funds to the banking industry.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, normally an outspoken advocate of big corporate interests, instead stressed the crisis's impact on small and midsize businesses. "We're looking at an economy that was slipping toward recession even before this crisis culminated in a market lockup last week," said Chamber economist Martin Regalia. The debate in Congress, he said, "is costing every American taxpayer money, directly."<ref>Elizabeth Williamson, "Big Business Wants Deal, Setbacks and All," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122238988380577457.html ''Wall Street Journal'' Sept. 26, 2008]</ref> Democratic nominee Senator [[Barack Obama]] endorsed the plan, as amended by Congressional Democrats. On the other hand, ordinary taxpayers and "Main Street", that is businessmen who operated at the local level, were highly suspicious of [[Wall Street]]. McCain, blaming the crisis on "the corruption and manipulation of our home mortgage system", rejected the bailout as a favor for Wall Street and little help to Main Street. Believers in the market economy insisted that the market should run its course, and opposed the bailout.<ref> See comments from a range of economists at [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26assess.html?ref=business Peter S. Goodman, "Credit Enters a Lockdown," ''New York Times'' Sept. 25, 2008]</ref>

A compromise bailout was agreed to by leaders of both parties but the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" (EESA) was voted down in the House on Sept. 29. Democrats favored the Bush bill 60%-40%, but Republicans voted no by 65-35%. The stock market lost a trillion dollars in value in one day as uncertainty reigned. Finally a large majority passed an expanded bailout bill, that added $100 billion in new subsidies to the original $700 billion, plus tax breaks and a rise in FDIC insurance to $250,000 from $100,000, designed to reassure ordinary depositors. Both Obama and McCain voted for this version of the bill.

The Treasury TARP program proved erratic and had to be radically modified several times. The Treasury dropped the original plan to buy toxic securities and instead has used $250 billion to prop up major banks. In October Paulson and Bernanke used their new powers to take an ownership stake in the nine largest U.S. banks, of $7 to $25 billion each. These banks are now partly owned and controlled by the government. However those banks are keeping the money and not lending it out. The Bush administration has refused to allow the money to be used to help the [[automobile]] industry. The price of bank stocks has fallen sharply since the bailout passed. The world's largest bank, Citigroup, was on the verge of collapse in late November and received a second bailout of $20 billion (in addition to $25 billion in October), and a federal guarantee to cover most of its toxic investments.

By mid-November the market had lost confidence in Treasury Secretary Paulson, who indicated he was baffled and would let the incoming Obama administration handle the unspent $450 billion. The stock market jumped 6% on the news that Obama had picked New York banker Timothy Geithner to replace Paulson.<ref>Theo Francis, "Obama to Nominate New York Fed Chief Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary," [http://www.businessweek.com/election/2008/blog/archives/2008/11/obama_to_nomina.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story ''Business Week'' Nov. 21, 2008]</ref> In late November the Federal Reserve announced it will buy up to $600 billion in mortgage-related assets from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, hoping to restart the housing and credit markets. Under the new "Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility", or '''TALF''', the Federal Reserve will loan up to $200 billion to financial companies that hold securities backed by consumer and small-business loans.

Hedge funds are private investment companies with $1.7 trillion in assets. They have lost $180 billion since July and some are near collapse. Investors are demanding their money back, and Wall Street in late October is bracing for a shake-out in the industry.<ref> Louise Story, "Citadel Chief denies rumors of trouble" [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/business/25hedge.html?ref=business ''New York Times,'' Oct 24, 2008]</ref>

In late November the government announced an $800 billion plan to boost consumer credit and the market for mortgage-related securities. Plans call for the Federal Reserve in early 2009 to extend up to $200 billion in non-recourse loans to holders of asset-backed securities backed by highly-rated consumer and small business loans.<ref> "Non-recourse" loans means that if they are not paid back the borrowers cannot be sued for their other assets. Mortgages fall in this category, so that if people default they just walk away from the debt and never have to repay it. However it damages their credit rating.</ref> Treasury will contribute $20 billion in funds through its Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The Federal Reserve also announced it will purchase up to $100 billion in GSE (government-sponsored enterprises, especially Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac) debt through a series of competitive auctions starting in December, 2008. The Federal Reserve starting in December will purchase up to $500 billion in mortgage-backed securities backed by GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the Fed is preparing to launch new liquidity programs to support the economy in addition to further slashing interests rates. The total commitments by the government in bailouts and loan guarantees exceeded $7 trillion dollars, but the economy nevertheless continued to slip downward.<ref>Maya Jackson Randall, "Paulson Says Treasury Actively Mulling New Rescue Programs," [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122816189458369851.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy ''Wall Street Journal'' Dec. 1, 2008]</ref>
===Deepening recession===
By early December the entire economy was heading downward with no bright spots. The recession that began in Dec. 2007 intensified, as retail sales plunged. In November 2008 Americans, their confidence shaken, saved their money and sharply reduced their credit card purchases. Auto sales were down 37% in November (compared to Nov. 2007) to the lowest rate in 26 years. GM sales fell 41% Ford fell 31% and the foreign cars were down just as much, with Toyota down 34%, Nissan down 42% and Honda down 32%.<ref> Stephanie Rosenbloom, "In November, Shoppers Cut Spending Even More," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/economy/03shop.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Dec. 2, 2008]; Nick Bunkley, "Another Month of Miserable Auto Sales," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/business/03sales.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Dec. 2, 2008].</ref> Retailers rang up the lowest November sales in more than 30 years, as holiday shopping not only failed to lift the economy but showed that the crisis is further distressing everyday consumers. Thirty major companies -- including Macy's, Sears, Abercrombie & Fitch and Target -- posted sales declines; Wal-Mart, anchoring the bottom of the price chain, sawincreased sales. Retail sales in November fell 2.7 percent compared with the same month last year.<ref> Ylan Q. Mui, "Retailers Report a Crisis in All Aisles: November Sales Slump as Shoppers Stow Credit Cards," [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/04/AR2008120404347.html?hpid=topnews ''Washington Post'' Dec. 5, 2008]</ref>
[[Image:Jobloss.jpg|thumb|300px]]

The Federal Reserve reported on Dec. 3, 2008, that every region reported sales declines, drops in manufacturing activity, weakening real estate markets, tighter lending, and deteriorating labor marketsThose sectors that had been strong until recently -- especially as agriculture and energy -- also softened as commodity prices declined. November saw 533,000 jobs disappear in the worst one-month decline in 34 years.

==Collapse of #6 and #4 largest banks, rescue of #1==
===Washington Mutual collapses===
On Sept. 25, Washington Mutual, the 6th largest bank in the US with $310 billion in assets, went [[bankrupt]] after a run in which depositors withdrew $17 billion in a few days. Its stockholders lost all their money, the US government took it over (through the [[FDIC]], which insures ordinary bank deposits), and resold it the same day to the biggest New York bank, JPMorgan Chase. It was the largest commercial bank failure in American history, by far.<ref>In the [[Great Depression]], only one major bank failed (New York's Bank of United States, in late 1930), although over 6000 small neighborhood and rural banks went under; depositors eventually received on average 85% of their deposits.</ref>
===Wachovia collapses===
Meanwhile the #4 U.S. bank, Wachovia, burdened by $120 billion in toxic securities,<ref> At the height of the bubble in 2006 Wachovia purchased Golden West Financial, a California lender specializing in "pay-option" mortgages that enabled speculators to buy houses and pay very little a month for a year or two (at which time they expected to sell it for a profit). [http://www.brokeroutpost.com/reference/22657.htm explanation of pay-option loans]</ref> was bought out by Citigroup on Sept. 29 in a deal engineered by the FDIC. However Wachovia then broke its deal and merged into Wells Fargo. The result is that four major banks now dominate the American economy (Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo), along with dozens of regional chains and thousands of small local banks.
===Bank of America renegotiates mortgages===
In early October, Bank of America, the new owner of Countrywide, reached a settlement with 11 states that sued it over fraudulent practices. The state of Illinois accused Countrywide of relaxing underwriting standards, structuring loans with risky features, and misleading consumers with hidden fees and fake marketing claims, like a false promise of a "no closing costs loan." Countrywide gave special incentives to its brokers for selling impossible loans by paying higher commissions on them. In reviewing one Illinois mortgage broker’s sales, the Illinois complaint said the "vast majority of the loans had inflated income, almost all without the borrower’s knowledge." Bank of America did not deny the charges and instead agreed to pay out $8.4 billion to 400,000 Countrywide customers. Countrywide will reduce principal balances for some people and cut interest rates for others. Rates for some people could decline to as low as 2.5% and remain at that level for five years. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and IndyMac, now all owned by the federal government, have begun their own programs to modify mortgage terms for some hard-pressed borrowers.
<ref> Gretchen Morgenson, "Countrywide to Set Aside $8.4 Billion in Loan Aid," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/business/06countrywide.html?ref=business ''New York Times'' Oct. 6, 2008]</ref>
===Largest bank rescued===
Citigroup, the world's largest bank was tottering in late November despite its receipt of $25 billion in TARP bailout money. Its value on the stock market plunged to $21 billion, down from $244 billion two years ago. Round after round of layoffs have ended 75,000 jobs in 2008 out of 375,000 employees a year ago. Very heavy exposure to toxic mortgages is the main culprit. The government stepped in with the largest bailout yet, including $20 billion in new cash, and guarantees of toxic assets by the Treasury, FDIC and Federal Reserve.

At all times Citigroup used elaborate mathematical risk models that looked at mortgages in particular geographical areas, but never included the possibility of a national housing downturn, or the prospect that millions of mortgage holders would default on their mortgages. The prevailing approach at Citigroup and the other big banks was to make money as fast as possible (generating annual bonuses of $10 to $30 million for senior executives), which assigning zero to the risk of a system-wide downturn. Such a downturn came with disastrous consequences for Citigroup and its rivals on Wall Street. Even after Bear Stearns ran into serious trouble in summer 2007, Citigroup decided the possibility of trouble with its CDO’s was so tiny (less than 1/100 of 1%) that they excluded them from their risk analysis.

Despite two federal bailouts Citigroup is still wobbly. It holds $20 billion of mortgage-linked securities that have been marked down to between 21 cents and 41 cents on the dollar. It has billions of dollars of giant buyout and corporate loans of dubious value. And it also faces a potential massive losses on auto, mortgage and credit card loans as the economy worsens.<ref>Eric Dash and Julie Creswell, "Citigroup Pays for a Rush to Risk," [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23citi.html?ref=business&pagewanted=all ''New York'' Times,’’ Nov. 22, 2008]</ref>

==Crisis in Auto industry==
In 2008 a series of damaging blows drove the "Big Three" (GM, Ford and Chrysler) to the verge of bankruptcy. Part of the cause was very high labor costs (much higher than the foreign plants in the U.S.), which prevents lower prices. The Big Three had in recent years stressed expensive, fuel-guzzling SUVs and large pickups. They were much more profitable than smaller, fuel-efficient cars. When gasoline prices shot past $4 in 2008, Americans stopped buying the big cars, and the Big Three saw their sales plummet. The Financial Crisis played a role as no one was willing to loan GM the money to buy Chrysler. Consumer credit has tightened and it became much harder for people with average or poor credit to obtain a bank loan to buy a car, so sales fell further. Stock prices plummeted as shareholders worried about bankruptcy; GM's shares fell to 1946 levels. Intense debate is underway about a massive bailout, that would be in addition to a $25 billion loan Congress passed in September 2008 to assist in increasing fuel efficiency. President Bush has proposed changing the terms of that loan so it could be used to cover daily operating expenses, but Congress rejected that. Republicans in Congress in mid-November blocked Democratic proposals to underwrite a new bailout of the auto industry, as industry leaders made an unconvincing case before Congress. President elect Obama and Democrats in Congress have demanded the Big Three come up with a highly specific plan with some chance of long-term viability, with the expectation that Congress will address the issue again in January 2009.

In addition to the Big Three hundreds of large suppliers of parts are in financial crisis as well; most would go under if the Big Three go bankrupt.

Intense debate in December 2008 focused on allowing bankruptcy or injecting billions more of federal aid in a massive bailout; it would be in addition to a $25 billion loan Congress passed in September 2008 to assist in increasing fuel efficiency. The Democrats in Congress supported president Bush's proposal to sue the fuel-efficiency loans to help with the immediate problem. It passed the Hosue but Senate Republicans brioke with Bush and it failed. The opponents called for a bankruptcy that would allow GM to get out of its contracts to pay union members high wages, as well as generous pensionsand medical benefits to retired workers. Bush then acted unilaterally and decided to use [[Financial Crisis of 2008|TARP money]] to bail out GM and Chrysler, on December 19. GM and Chrysler will get $13.4 billions in loans they can use to pay their suppliers.<ref> GM and Chrysler will receive $4 billion each when they sign the loan agreements with the Treasury. GM will have access to an addition $5.4 billion on Jan. 16 and another $4 billion on Feb. 17 provided that Congress has released the remaining $350 billion for the Treasury’s TARP rescue program. </ref> GM can receive another $4 billion in February, but by then the Obama adminsitration will be in charge, and it is emphasizing the need for a long-range solution.<ref>David E. Sanger, David M. Herszenhorn and Bill Vlasic, “Bush Aids Detroit, but Hard Choices Wait for Obama,” [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html?hp ''NewYork Times'' Dec. 19, 2008]</ref>

===Bankruptcy scenario===
Bankruptcy of the Big Three would be very expensive to the economy as a whole and the federal government. It would mean loss of 240,000 very high paying jobs at the Big Three, a loss of 980,000 high-paying jobs at the suppliers and local dealers, and 1.7 million additional jobs throughout the economy. It would cause a decline in personal income of $151 billion the first year, and $398 billion over three years. The federal, state and local governments would lose tax revenue and spend on welfare programs a total of $156 billion over three years.<ref>CAR Research Memorandum. "The Impact of the U.S. Economy of a Major Contraction of the Detroit Three Automakers" (Nov 2008) [http://www.cargroup.org/documents/FINALDetroitThreeContractionImpact_3__000.pdf online edition]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Henry M. Paulson]]
*[[Paper loss]]

====References====
<references/>

[[Category:Finance]]
[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Economic history]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Al Franken

2008-12-23T09:10:19Z

Learn together:

[[Image:Frank en Minnesota.jpg|right|thumb|Al Franken, while campaigning in Minnesota]]
'''Al Franken''' is a [[liberal]] satirist, comedian, and former radio host for the [[Air America]] network. Franken has worked as a comedy writer and performer on the television program ''[[Saturday Night Live]]'' and was the star and screenwriter of the motion picture ''[[Stuart Saves His Family]]''.

Franken is known for his [[conservative|anti-conservative]] views (he has called them "nasty, hateful people"{{fact}}) and his coarse humor. He once quipped to the Harvard Crimson, "I dislike homosexuals. I was glad when that [Harvard] homosexual got killed." <ref>http://www.gaypatriot.net/2007/01/18/al-frankens-anti-gay-past/</ref><ref>http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2007/01/al-franken-jokes-about-murder-of-gay.html</ref><ref>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=112149</ref> In his book ''Lying Liars'', Franken wrote that a "Methodist minister had had his head up his %#@" in a dispute about the Bible<ref>"Do you know what God’s punishment is for liars?" [the minister] asked me ... "God’s punishment for liars is that they believe their own lies." The minister was referring to 2 Thess 2:10-12 which says substantially that. Franken acknowledged his mistake in the paperback version</ref>

At one point his radio show was going to be called "The Liberal Show,<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/magazine/21FRANKEN.html?pagewanted=8&ei=5007&en=5c47bbc5c11b11f2&ex=1395205200&partner=USERLAND ''Al Franken, Seriously''] [[New York Times]] Magazine</ref> but upon debut, it was known as "The O'Franken Factor," a name Franken chose to parody [[Bill O'Reilly]] and taunt him into a lawsuit, getting his show free publicity<ref>[http://www.kgw.com/business/stories/kgw_033004_biz_progressive_radio.d7edf1d8.html Al Franken's liberal radio network comes to Portland.</ref> When the lawsuit failed to materialize, the show was renamed "The Al Franken Show."

Franken ran for a [[Senate]] seat in [[Minnesota]] in as a [[Democrat]] during the 2008 election. Franken's rudeness, vulgarity, and coarse style led to questions about whether or not he alienated himself from the important undecided swing voters<ref>http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1083904.html Star Tribune retrieved 6 April, 2007</ref><ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/06/frankens-senate-race-haunted-by-1995-rape-joke-on-snl-set/ Franken’s Senate Race Haunted by 1995 Rape Joke on ‘SNL’ Set]</ref>. Franken was also called under fire for an interview he did in Playboy magazine that was considered by many to be unbecoming for a senatorial candidate<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/franken_playboy/2008/05/29/100040.html?s=al&promo_code=635B-1</ref> Many claimed that the article hurt him in his Congressional run.<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Washington_Post_franken/2008/06/18/105702.html</ref> The election was very close, with incumbent Norm Coleman leading by less than 300 votes. According to Minnesota state law, a statewide recount will now commence. Coleman and his supporters called on Franken to halt the recount and concede, but Franken has refused to do so. Some believe his refusal to concede is because ACORN and others are working on his behalf to manipulate the vote count in his favor. <ref>http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/18048/</ref> Indeed, the respected [[Wall Street Journal]] has noted that the count keeps changing before the recount, and only in Franken's favor. Looking at what is happening in the vote tallying from a mathematical perspective, they find that it is an extreme statistical improbability.<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/franken_stealing_election/2008/11/12/150391.html?s=al&promo_code=711A-1</ref> Further multiple examples were given where the board overseeing the recount blantly applied different standards for Franken and Coleman, choosing to award Franken votes where similar circumstances for Coleman were denied.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470892,00.html</ref>

==Controversial Statements==
On Franken's website there is the admonition ''"Anybody who deliberately propagandizes with lies should be held up to scorn and ridicule"''<ref>http://lyingliar.com/index.htm</ref>. Throughout his books he has held himself to "impossibly high standards" to tell the truth about those he has written about. Author Alan Skorski researched two of Franken's books (''Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot'' and ''Lies and and the Lying Liars who Tell Them'') and found an extensive pattern of lies, misstatements, factual inaccuracies, among them:
*Accusing Ann Coulter of "lying with footnotes" by "citing a source and misrepresenting what it says"; throughout his book Skorski states that Franken has done exactly that on numerous occasions (Skorski, pg. xiii)
*Accusing President George W. Bush of treason
*The collision between Bush foreign policy advisor Richard Armitage and news reporter Helen Thomas, which Franken had claimed broke both her hip and jaw (''Lying Liars'', pg 218), but which Thomas herself said never happened (Skorski, pg 208). After this came to light, Franken later added a footnote in the paperback version of the book saying, "The Helen Thomas thing is a joke."<ref>Franken, ''Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them'', page 227 of the paperback</ref>
*Franken stated he is "often compared to Rush Limbaugh" when on the air, despite the fact that by the time he left his Air America show to run for the U.S. Senate, his radio network was reduced to just over 40 market stations as a result of severely-low ratings and ultimately bankruptcy. Limbaugh, by comparison, plays on more than 600 stations with an average daily listening audience of 22 million (Skorski, pg 303).
*Franken claimed on his radio show (June 1, 2005) that Rush Limbaugh made up a quotation supposedly said by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which claimed Ginsburg said "replacing 'Mother's Day' and 'Father's Day' with a 'Parent's Day' should be considered...". Skorski did a Google check on Ginsburg and discovered a May 20, 2005 column from the ''National Review'' titled "Bench Warmers, Putting Judicial Nominees in Perspective, Part III"; this column cited a September, 1974 article written by Ginsburg which advocated for the creation of a "Parent's Day" to replace both Mother's and Father's Days.
*Franken claimed John Murphy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was lying when took a pro-CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) position on PBS's ''Lehrer Report'' (July 27, 2005) stating "we've seen unemployment fall to 5.0 percent today, which is lower than it's been in decades." <ref>http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm</ref>. Skorski demonstrated that Franken took the unemployment figures under the Clinton Administration by the month (rather than by the year as the Bureau of Labor Statistics does) and willfully distorted them to make it appear that it was Murphy who was lying (Skorski, pg. 77-78).

== Tax Issues ==

During his [[Senate]] campaign in 2008, it was discovered that Al Franken had not paid [[taxes]] in 17 states he earned money over the last four years. Franken blamed it on his accountant saying "This all really comes from one mistake, which is him not understanding that I was supposed to pay state taxes in these other states." Franken says he will pay those states now, plus interest and penalties for a total of $70,000. <ref>[http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/05/01/accountants/ Accountants: Franken's tax problems should have been caught] Minnesota Public Radio, May 2, 2008</ref>

== Playboy Article ==

In 2000, Al Franken's comments appeared in Playboy Magazine article titled "[[Porn]]-O-Rama!" He was quoted as saying that the [[internet]] is a great tool for learning and that his 12 year old son was able to do a report on bestiality for a sixth-grade assignment, though the statement was rather tongue in cheek.

== Books by Franken ==
*''I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me!'' (Dell Books, 1992) (in character as Stuart Smalley)
*''Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot'' (Delacorte Press, 1996) (a satirical book of personal attacks on [[Rush Limbaugh]] as well as other conservatives.)
*''Why Not Me?'' (Delacorte Press, 1999) (a parody-journal kept through the fictional "Franken for President" campaign)
*''Oh, the Things I know! A Guide to Success, or Failing That, Happiness'' (Plume Books, 2003)
*''[[Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them|Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right]]'' (Dutton Books, 2003) (targets conservative commentators and the media, particularly [[Ann Coulter]], [[Bill O'Reilly]], [[Sean Hannity]] as well as Fox News)
*''The Truth (with jokes)'' (Dutton Books, 2005) (Franken's view on how [[George W. Bush]] beat [[John Kerry]] in the 2004 Election with what Al Franken calls the "Fears, Smears, and Queers strategy")

==References==
*Skorski, Alan. ''Pants On Fire: How Al Franken Lies, Smears, and Deceives,'' Cumberland House Publishing, Nashville, Tennessee (2005)
*[http://www.frankenlies.com/ Website devoted to exposing Franken's lies from his two books, ''The Truth'' and ''Lies and the Lying Liars'']
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0291253/ Al Franken] at the Internet Movie Database
*[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1142525 Al Franken] at National Public Radio

{{DEFAULTSORT: Franken, Al}}
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[category:Broadcasters]]
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]

Immorality

2008-12-16T06:46:56Z

Learn together:

'''Immorality''' is that state, condition, or lifestyle choice that goes against common[[ morality]]. Most Western morality is based upon the [[Bible]]. It is debated whether knowledge of immorality is a part of human nature or if it is just cultural.

==See Also==
* [[Amoral]]

[[Category:Sin]]

Amoral

2008-12-16T06:46:05Z

Learn together: Started Article

Someone who is '''amoral''' is one that does not know the difference between that which is right and that which is wrong. More and more western society is becoming amoral, as [[morality]] is taught as something that is relative to the situation.

Amorality is not to be confused with [[immorality]]. A person that is immoral is choosing to do that which is wrong, knowing full well that it is wrong. In many ways amoral is more dangerous. A person who knows they are lost can turn to what is right, but a person who has lost their compass will have a hard time finding their way at all.

[[Category:Sin]]

Immorality

2008-12-16T06:38:46Z

Learn together:

Chicago

2008-12-16T04:19:42Z

Learn together: Do not remove information

[[Image:Chicago Science Museum.jpg|thumb|Museum of Science and Industry.]]
'''Chicago''' is a city located in [[Illinois]] on the western shore of [[Lake Michigan]]. It is the third-largest city in the [[United States]], with approximately 2.8 million residents. <ref>http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html</ref> and has the third largest population of any city in the United States.<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922422.html</ref>. The Chicago metropolitan area, which extends from southern [[Wisconsin]] to northeastern [[Indiana]], contains approximately 9.3 million people. <ref>http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/metro_general/2006/CSA-EST2006-alldata.csv</ref>

The current mayor of Chicago is [[Richard M. Daley]], who was elected in 1989. His father, [[Richard J. Daley]], was mayor from 1955-1976. <ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/Daley2.html</ref>

Chicago is home to the [[Sears Tower]], which at 1,450 feet is the tallest building in the United States, and was once the tallest building in the world. <ref>http://www.thesearstower.com/buildinginfo.axis?type=n&name=Property Profile </ref>

The city hosted the [[1968 Democratic National Convention]] when [[Richard J. Daley]] was mayor. The convention was disrupted by radicals such as [[Abbie Hoffman]].

The world-renowned ''Art Institute of Chicago'' houses both a museum and a school. <ref> [http://www.artic.edu/ The Art Institute of Chicago] </ref>

==See also==
*[[Chicago Illinois Temple]]
*[[Art cities]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.fieldmuseum.org/ The Field Museum]
*[http://www.nationalmuseumofmexicanart.org/ National Museum of Mexican Art]
*[http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalEntityHomeAction.do?entityName=Tourism&entityNameEnumValue=41 City of Chicago - Tourism]

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

[[Category:United States Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:Illinois]]

Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-16T03:34:19Z

Learn together: /* Isaiah 7:14 */

The translations of several passages in the [[Bible]] are disputed. This has led to some [[doctrine|doctrinal]] disagreement throughout [[Christian]] history, with scholars and others citing different [[translation]]s of the same passage to support slightly different views. A few critics of [[Christianity]] cite rare uncertainties in translation to challenge the entire religion; this viewpoint ignores the overwhelming agreement in translation and the role of [[faith]], [[prayer]] and divine inspiration in religious discourse.

[[Islam]] dictates that the [[Koran]] be read only in its original [[Arabic]], thereby avoiding any issues of translation. Translations of the Koran do exist, but they are not used for study, worship or devotional purposes.

== Disappearing Hell ==

Modern translations have been eliminating references to [[Hell]]. For example, the [[King James Bible]] mentions Hell 54 times<ref>http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=Hell&t=KJV</ref>, while the [[New International Version]] mentions it only 14 times<ref>http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=Hell&t=NIV&sf=5</ref>. The following translations of Matt 11:23 in chronological order illustrate the disappearance:

{| class="wikitable"
|[[King James Bible|KJB]]||And thou, [[Capernaum]], which art exalted unto [[heaven]], shalt be brought down to [[hell]]: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in [[Sodom]], it would have remained until this day.
|-
|[[Revised Standard Version|NRSV]]||And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|[[New American Bible|NAB]]||And for your , Capernaum: 'Will you be exalted to heaven" You will go down to the netherworld.' For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|[[New International Version|NIV]]||And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.
|-
|[[Holman Christian Standard Bible|Holman]]||And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until today.
|}

== Downplaying the Deity of Jesus ==

Modern versions tend to downplay the deity of Jesus, and use phrases like "Lord Jesus Christ" and "Jesus Christ" less frequently than older translations. Here is a comparison:<ref>These are taken from the keyword search tool on http://www.biblegateway.com/</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|[[King James Version|KJV]]||81 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|[[English Standard Version|ESV]]||61 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|[[New International Version|NIV]]||60 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|[[Holman Christian Standard Bible|Holman]]||61 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|}

See also the section on "Jesus as God" below. One commentator argues that modern translations are not downplaying Jesus's deity, but the tables provided in the analysis indicate otherwise.<ref>http://www.contenderministries.org/biblestudy/kjodeityofchrist.php</ref>

== Downplaying the Spirit at Creation ==

The first few sentences of the Bible describe Creation, and liberal translations tend to deny the presence of the Spirit of [[God]]. Here is Genesis 1:1-2 in several different translations:

{| class="wikitable"
|RSV<ref>Revised Standard Version</ref>||In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
|-
|New English Bible||In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth, the earth was without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters.
|}

== Isaiah 7:14 ==

This passage is a prophesy of the birth of [[Jesus]], and the dispute concerns whether to translate the term for the woman as "virgin" or "young woman." The Hebrew term is ambiguous; the Greek term as used in the [[Septuagint]] means "virgin".

{| class="wikitable"
|[[New American Bible|NAB]]||... the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
|-
|[[Holman Christian Standard Bible|Holman]]||... The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.
|-
|[[New International Version|NIV]]||... The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
|-
|[[Revised Standard Version|NRSV]]||Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
|}

== Romans 3:28 ==

This passage sparked the [[Reformation]]. [[Martin Luther]] added an extra German word for "alone" (alleine or alleyn) after the phrase: "justified by faith": "So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, alleyn durch den Glauben." This reflected Luther's view that man is justified (saved) by faith alone, and that salvation comes only from faith. The Roman Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox Church) taught that man is justified (saved) by faith and good works.

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
|-
|Holman||For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
|-
|NIV||For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
|-
|NRSV||For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.
|}

== John 19:30 ==

This passage describes the last words of [[Jesus]], and what happened next.

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||... he said, "It is finished." And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.
|-
|Holman||... He said, "It is finished!" Then bowing His head, He yielded up His spirit.
|-
|NIV||... Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
|-
|NRSV||... he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
|-
|Msg<ref>The Message</ref>||... Jesus said, "It's done ... complete." Bowing his head, he offered up his spirit.
|}

== "Holy Spirit" (Paraclete) ==

[[Jesus]] used the Greek term "paraclete" to refer to what is now commonly called the "Holy Spirit" in English (formerly the "Holy Ghost," see next section below). The Greek term can mean "(1) a legal advocate, or counsel for defense, (2) an intercessor, (3) a helper, generally."<ref>[http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Paraclete "Paraclete".] NETBible.com</ref> What are the differences in translation in its biblical use? One of the five references to this word by John (four in his Gospel, and the fifth in his first letter) is in John 15:26, which quotes Jesus:

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
|-
|Holman||When the Counselor comes -- whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father -- he will testify about me.
|-
|NIV||When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
|-
|NRSV||When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.
|}

== Holy "Spirit" or Holy "Ghost" ==

The English language lacks an equivalent for the Greek term "pneuma", which is used 350 times in the New Testament to express the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]].<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4151 "Pneuma".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> This Greek word is typically translated as "to breathe, "to blow," or "of the wind."<ref name="pneo">[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4154&version=kjv "Pneo".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> It forms the root for the English term "pneumonia".<ref name="pneo"/>

For hundreds of years the English translation of this term in connection with the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]] has been "Holy Ghost":<ref name="Holy Ghost">[http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/HolyGhost.html "Some Thoughts on the Use of the Term the Holy Ghost".] Geocities.com</ref>

:Not only does the King James Bible use the term the Holy Ghost, but all earlier English Bibles did as well. The Holy Ghost is found in Wycliffe's translation 1395, Tyndale’s New Testament 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Douay-Rheims version, and in more modern times it is also found in Montgomery’s New Testament, the Revised Version, the Catholic Douay version 1950, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millennium Bible.

Yet none of the modern English versions of the Bible translates this as "Holy Ghost," and instead they insist on the less forceful and more ambiguous term "Holy Spirit." One commentator observes:<ref name="Holy Ghost"/>

:It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts.

For example, the New International Version repeatedly refers to a personal, human "ghost" where the King James Bible referred to "spirit":

:Mt 14:26:

::New International Version: When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.<ref name="Matthew">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NAS&bookcode=mt&bookname=Matthew&chapterid=14&verseid=26 Matthew 14:26.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.<ref name="Matthew"/>

:Luke 24:39:

::New International Version: "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.<ref name="Luke">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NIV&bookcode=lu&bookname=Luke&chapterid=24&verseid=39 Luke 24:39.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."<ref name="Luke"/>

== The Adulteress Story, beginning of John 8 ==

The authenticity of the story of Jesus and an adulteress appears at John 7:53 through John 8:11 is rejected by most modern biblical translations and many if not nearly all modern biblical scholars, and it does not exist in any of the early biblical manuscripts.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]</ref> The passage has become a favorite of [[liberals]] to argue against [[capital punishment]]: "Common reasons against capital punishment ... Abolitionists '''often''' quote Jesus' treatment of the adulteress in the Gospel of John as support for their position."<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/executb.htm "Capital punishment - the death penalty; Basic reasons: pro and anti".] ReligiousTolerance.org (emphasis added)</ref>

The passage is used to deny the very existence of Hell, and thus the necessity of being saved.<ref>Here is an example of a false denial of Hell based on the Adulteress Story: "No one is going to burn in hell. ... Here's what we know from Jesus' teachings. He would never condemn anyone. Read the story of the adulteress about to be stoned." - Craig. [http://forum.greaterreality.com/messages/9.html "Re: Heaven and Hell".] Greater Reality Forums. Forum.GreaterReality.com</ref>

The different translations of the Bible comment on this passage as follows:

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||7,53-8,11: The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after 7, 36, or at the end of this gospel, or after Lk 21, 38, or at the end of that gospel.
|-
|Holman||Other mss [manuscripts] omit bracketed text [John 7:53-8:11].
|-
|NIV||The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.
|-
|NRSV||The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.
|-
|Amp<ref>Amplified Bible</ref>||John 7:53 to 8:11 is absent from most of the older manuscripts, and those that have it sometimes place it elsewhere. The story may well be authentic. Indeed, Christ's response of compassion and mercy is so much in keeping with His character that we accept it as authentic, and feel that to omit it would be most unfortunate.
|}

== Our Father ==

Different versions have different translations for the leading Christian prayer, the ''Our Father'' (at Mt 6:12-13):

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.
|-
|Holman||Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
|-
|AV/KJV<ref>[[King James Bible|Authorised Version (King James Version)]]</ref>||And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
|-
|NRSV||And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.
|}

== Protestant or Catholic ==

There appears to be no meaningful differences between translations of the New Testament between Protestants and Catholics.<ref>Akin, Jimmy. [http://www.jimmyakin.org/greek/page/2/ "The Greek New Testament".] JimmyAkin.org</ref> There are differences with respect to the Old Testament.

Note that there are significant differences between modern translations and translation of several hundreds of years ago.

== Jesus as God - Romans 9:5 ==

A point of contention is the description of Jesus as God in Romans 9:5. Here are several translations of it:

{| class="wikitable"
|AV/KJV<ref>[[King James Bible|Authorised Version (King James Version)]]</ref>||Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
|-
|NIV||Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
|-
|NAB||theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.
|-
|NRSV||to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
|-
|RSV||The patriarchs are theirs, and from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen.
|}

==Acts 8:37==
{| class="wikitable"
|KJB||And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37&version=9;]
|-
|NIV||........[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37;&version=31;]
|-
|ESV||.........[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37;&version=47;]
|}

===Context===
Right before Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunch, the eunuch asked "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (KJV Acts 8:36) In other versions, nothing. The chariot stands still, and he is baptized (v. 38)

===Meaning===
This omission shows an emphasis being placed on works rather than faith in Jesus Christ. Baptisim alone will not take you to Heaven.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

* [[Bible translations]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible Versions|*]]

Gasoline

2008-12-16T03:31:11Z

Learn together:

'''Gasoline''' or '''gas''' is a [[fuel]] derived from [[petroleum]], which is in turn derived from ancient [[vegetable]] matter and [[dinosaur]]s. Gasoline is an aliphatic hydrocarbon, or the molecules are composed of nothing but hydrogen and carbon in long chains. The energy contained in a gallon of gasoline is approximately 132X106 joules of [[energy]], equivalent to 125,000 [[BTU]] or 36,650 [[watt-hours]]. <ref> US Department of Energy [http://cta.ornl.gov/data/appendix_b.shtml]</ref> This high energy density allows for much of the modern industry and comforts of the modern world through the [[transportation]] of goods and people.
 Gasoline is refined from [[crude oil]] via [[distillation]]. Gasoline is sold at gas or fueling stations where it is pumped into [[vehicle]]s. According to national figures from the U.S. Department of Energy, in May 2007, 46% of the cost of gasoline went to pay for crude oil, 28% for refining, 13% to taxes, and 13% for distribution and marketing<ref>Energy Information Administration [http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp]</ref>. While Prices have risen to new highs, in [[inflation|inflationary]] terms, gas prices are still lower than during the [[1973 Energy Crisis]] or the [[1979 Energy Crisis]]. It is illegal to pump your own gas in [[Oregon]].

==See Also==
*[[Gasoline station]]

==References==
<References/>

[[Category:Energy]]

Gasoline station

2008-12-16T03:30:42Z

Learn together:

A '''gas station''' is a place where motorists can go to fill up their vehicles with [[gasoline]]. In the United States most vehicles run on unleaded gasoline. This usually includes grades of 87, 89, and 91 octane with the higher numbers being the more pure blends and the higher quality. Most modern cars run on 87.

Regular gasoline was largely replaced decades ago for environmental concerns.

Some stations also sell diesel gasoline, which has been common in trucks and at one time Mercedes vehicles.

At one time, such as back in the 1950s, gas stations were full service. The trend that spread from the 1970s was towards self service, which is the most common type today. There are still pockets on the east coast that are mostly full service.

Many gas stations come with a convenience store that sells common automobile products, cigerettes, and food items. A large amount of the profit from gas stations come from the convenience stores. Some gas stations also come with automotive repair shops, although this has become increasingly rare as independent automotive repair shops have sprung up separate from gas stations.

The average profit on a gallon of gas in for a gas station owner is 23 cents.<ref>http://autos.aol.com/article/general/v2/_a/confessions-of-a-gas-station-owner/20081215144709990001</ref>

==References==
<References/>

Gas station

2008-12-16T03:30:09Z

Learn together: Gas station moved to Gasoline station

#REDIRECT [[Gasoline station]]

Gasoline station

2008-12-16T03:30:09Z

Learn together: Gas station moved to Gasoline station

A '''gas station''' is a place where motorists can go to fill up their vehicles with gas. In the United States most vehicles run on unleaded gasoline. This usually includes grades of 87, 89, and 91 octane with the higher numbers being the more pure blends and the higher quality. Most modern cars run on 87.

Regular gasoline was largely replaced decades ago for environmental concerns.

Some stations also sell diesel gasoline, which has been common in trucks and at one time Mercedes vehicles.

At one time, such as back in the 1950s, gas stations were full service. The trend that spread from the 1970s was towards self service, which is the most common type today. There are still pockets on the east coast that are mostly full service.

Many gas stations come with a convenience store that sells common automobile products, cigerettes, and food items. A large amount of the profit from gas stations come from the convenience stores. Some gas stations also come with automotive repair shops, although this has become increasingly rare as independent automotive repair shops have sprung up separate from gas stations.

The average profit on a gallon of gas in for a gas station owner is 23 cents.<ref>http://autos.aol.com/article/general/v2/_a/confessions-of-a-gas-station-owner/20081215144709990001</ref>

==References==
<References/>

Gasoline station

2008-12-16T03:20:44Z

Learn together: Started Article

Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-16T03:04:07Z

Learn together: /* Downplaying the Deity of Jesus */

The translations of several passages in the [[Bible]] are disputed. This has led to some [[doctrine|doctrinal]] disagreement throughout [[Christian]] history, with scholars and others citing different [[translation]]s of the same passage to support slightly different views. A few critics of [[Christianity]] cite rare uncertainties in translation to challenge the entire religion; this viewpoint ignores the overwhelming agreement in translation and the role of [[faith]], [[prayer]] and divine inspiration in religious discourse.

[[Islam]] dictates that the [[Koran]] be read only in its original [[Arabic]], thereby avoiding any issues of translation. Translations of the Koran do exist, but they are not used for study, worship or devotional purposes.

== Disappearing Hell ==

Modern translations have been eliminating references to [[Hell]]. For example, the [[King James Bible]] mentions Hell 54 times<ref>http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=Hell&t=KJV</ref>, while the [[New International Version]] mentions it only 14 times<ref>http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=Hell&t=NIV&sf=5</ref>. The following translations of Matt 11:23 in chronological order illustrate the disappearance:

{| class="wikitable"
|[[King James Bible|KJB]]||And thou, [[Capernaum]], which art exalted unto [[heaven]], shalt be brought down to [[hell]]: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in [[Sodom]], it would have remained until this day.
|-
|[[Revised Standard Version|NRSV]]||And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|[[New American Bible|NAB]]||And for your , Capernaum: 'Will you be exalted to heaven" You will go down to the netherworld.' For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
|-
|[[New International Version|NIV]]||And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.
|-
|[[Holman Christian Standard Bible|Holman]]||And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until today.
|}

== Downplaying the Deity of Jesus ==

Modern versions tend to downplay the deity of Jesus, and use phrases like "Lord Jesus Christ" and "Jesus Christ" less frequently than older translations. Here is a comparison:<ref>These are taken from the keyword search tool on http://www.biblegateway.com/</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|[[King James Version|KJV]]||81 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|[[English Standard Version|ESV]]||61 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|[[New International Version|NIV]]||60 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|-
|[[Holman Christian Standard Bible|Holman]]||61 references to "Lord Jesus Christ"
|}

See also the section on "Jesus as God" below. One commentator argues that modern translations are not downplaying Jesus's deity, but the tables provided in the analysis indicate otherwise.<ref>http://www.contenderministries.org/biblestudy/kjodeityofchrist.php</ref>

== Downplaying the Spirit at Creation ==

The first few sentences of the Bible describe Creation, and liberal translations tend to deny the presence of the Spirit of [[God]]. Here is Genesis 1:1-2 in several different translations:

{| class="wikitable"
|RSV<ref>Revised Standard Version</ref>||In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
|-
|New English Bible||In the beginning of creation, when God made heaven and earth, the earth was without form and void, with darkness over the face of the abyss, and a mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters.
|}

== Isaiah 7:14 ==

This passage is a prophesy of the birth of [[Jesus]], and the dispute concerns whether to translate the term for the woman as "virgin" or "young woman." The Hebrew term is ambiguous; the Greek term means "virgin".

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB<ref>New American Bible</ref>||... the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
|-
|Holman<ref>Holman Christian Standard Bible</ref>||... The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.
|-
|NIV<ref>New International Version</ref>||... The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
|-
|NRSV<ref>New Revised Standard Version</ref>||Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
|}

== Romans 3:28 ==

This passage sparked the [[Reformation]]. [[Martin Luther]] added an extra German word for "alone" (alleine or alleyn) after the phrase: "justified by faith": "So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, alleyn durch den Glauben." This reflected Luther's view that man is justified (saved) by faith alone, and that salvation comes only from faith. The Roman Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthodox Church) taught that man is justified (saved) by faith and good works.

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
|-
|Holman||For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
|-
|NIV||For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
|-
|NRSV||For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.
|}

== John 19:30 ==

This passage describes the last words of [[Jesus]], and what happened next.

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||... he said, "It is finished." And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit.
|-
|Holman||... He said, "It is finished!" Then bowing His head, He yielded up His spirit.
|-
|NIV||... Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
|-
|NRSV||... he said, "It is finished." Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
|-
|Msg<ref>The Message</ref>||... Jesus said, "It's done ... complete." Bowing his head, he offered up his spirit.
|}

== "Holy Spirit" (Paraclete) ==

[[Jesus]] used the Greek term "paraclete" to refer to what is now commonly called the "Holy Spirit" in English (formerly the "Holy Ghost," see next section below). The Greek term can mean "(1) a legal advocate, or counsel for defense, (2) an intercessor, (3) a helper, generally."<ref>[http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Paraclete "Paraclete".] NETBible.com</ref> What are the differences in translation in its biblical use? One of the five references to this word by John (four in his Gospel, and the fifth in his first letter) is in John 15:26, which quotes Jesus:

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
|-
|Holman||When the Counselor comes -- whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father -- he will testify about me.
|-
|NIV||When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
|-
|NRSV||When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf.
|}

== Holy "Spirit" or Holy "Ghost" ==

The English language lacks an equivalent for the Greek term "pneuma", which is used 350 times in the New Testament to express the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]].<ref>[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4151 "Pneuma".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> This Greek word is typically translated as "to breathe, "to blow," or "of the wind."<ref name="pneo">[http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4154&version=kjv "Pneo".] The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon. Crosswalk.com</ref> It forms the root for the English term "pneumonia".<ref name="pneo"/>

For hundreds of years the English translation of this term in connection with the third member of the [[Holy Trinity]] has been "Holy Ghost":<ref name="Holy Ghost">[http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/HolyGhost.html "Some Thoughts on the Use of the Term the Holy Ghost".] Geocities.com</ref>

:Not only does the King James Bible use the term the Holy Ghost, but all earlier English Bibles did as well. The Holy Ghost is found in Wycliffe's translation 1395, Tyndale’s New Testament 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley's N.T. 1755, Douay-Rheims version, and in more modern times it is also found in Montgomery’s New Testament, the Revised Version, the Catholic Douay version 1950, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millennium Bible.

Yet none of the modern English versions of the Bible translates this as "Holy Ghost," and instead they insist on the less forceful and more ambiguous term "Holy Spirit." One commentator observes:<ref name="Holy Ghost"/>

:It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts.

For example, the New International Version repeatedly refers to a personal, human "ghost" where the King James Bible referred to "spirit":

:Mt 14:26:

::New International Version: When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.<ref name="Matthew">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NAS&bookcode=mt&bookname=Matthew&chapterid=14&verseid=26 Matthew 14:26.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.<ref name="Matthew"/>

:Luke 24:39:

::New International Version: "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.<ref name="Luke">[http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&translation=NIV&bookcode=lu&bookname=Luke&chapterid=24&verseid=39 Luke 24:39.] My Bible Study Tools. Crosswalk.com</ref>

::King James Bible: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."<ref name="Luke"/>

== The Adulteress Story, beginning of John 8 ==

The authenticity of the story of Jesus and an adulteress appears at John 7:53 through John 8:11 is rejected by most modern biblical translations and many if not nearly all modern biblical scholars, and it does not exist in any of the early biblical manuscripts.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Essay:Adulteress Story]]</ref> The passage has become a favorite of [[liberals]] to argue against [[capital punishment]]: "Common reasons against capital punishment ... Abolitionists '''often''' quote Jesus' treatment of the adulteress in the Gospel of John as support for their position."<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/executb.htm "Capital punishment - the death penalty; Basic reasons: pro and anti".] ReligiousTolerance.org (emphasis added)</ref>

The passage is used to deny the very existence of Hell, and thus the necessity of being saved.<ref>Here is an example of a false denial of Hell based on the Adulteress Story: "No one is going to burn in hell. ... Here's what we know from Jesus' teachings. He would never condemn anyone. Read the story of the adulteress about to be stoned." - Craig. [http://forum.greaterreality.com/messages/9.html "Re: Heaven and Hell".] Greater Reality Forums. Forum.GreaterReality.com</ref>

The different translations of the Bible comment on this passage as follows:

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||7,53-8,11: The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after 7, 36, or at the end of this gospel, or after Lk 21, 38, or at the end of that gospel.
|-
|Holman||Other mss [manuscripts] omit bracketed text [John 7:53-8:11].
|-
|NIV||The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.
|-
|NRSV||The most ancient authorities lack 7.53-8.11; other authorities add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations of text; some mark the passage as doubtful.
|-
|Amp<ref>Amplified Bible</ref>||John 7:53 to 8:11 is absent from most of the older manuscripts, and those that have it sometimes place it elsewhere. The story may well be authentic. Indeed, Christ's response of compassion and mercy is so much in keeping with His character that we accept it as authentic, and feel that to omit it would be most unfortunate.
|}

== Our Father ==

Different versions have different translations for the leading Christian prayer, the ''Our Father'' (at Mt 6:12-13):

{| class="wikitable"
|NAB||And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one.
|-
|Holman||Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
|-
|AV/KJV<ref>[[King James Bible|Authorised Version (King James Version)]]</ref>||And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
|-
|NRSV||And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.
|}

== Protestant or Catholic ==

There appears to be no meaningful differences between translations of the New Testament between Protestants and Catholics.<ref>Akin, Jimmy. [http://www.jimmyakin.org/greek/page/2/ "The Greek New Testament".] JimmyAkin.org</ref> There are differences with respect to the Old Testament.

Note that there are significant differences between modern translations and translation of several hundreds of years ago.

== Jesus as God - Romans 9:5 ==

A point of contention is the description of Jesus as God in Romans 9:5. Here are several translations of it:

{| class="wikitable"
|AV/KJV<ref>[[King James Bible|Authorised Version (King James Version)]]</ref>||Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
|-
|NIV||Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
|-
|NAB||theirs the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, is the Messiah. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.
|-
|NRSV||to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
|-
|RSV||The patriarchs are theirs, and from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever! Amen.
|}

==Acts 8:37==
{| class="wikitable"
|KJB||And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37&version=9;]
|-
|NIV||........[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37;&version=31;]
|-
|ESV||.........[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%208:37;&version=47;]
|}

===Context===
Right before Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunch, the eunuch asked "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (KJV Acts 8:36) In other versions, nothing. The chariot stands still, and he is baptized (v. 38)

===Meaning===
This omission shows an emphasis being placed on works rather than faith in Jesus Christ. Baptisim alone will not take you to Heaven.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

* [[Bible translations]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible Versions|*]]