Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Gamma wave

2011-10-11T18:44:22Z

LeonardO: Created page with "=Source?= ''Listening to gamma waves will help train your brain to create the same type of oscillation patterns, making you more likely to have higher intelligence and induce be..."

=Source?=

''Listening to gamma waves will help train your brain to create the same type of oscillation patterns, making you more likely to have higher intelligence and induce better cognitive performance.''

Has this phenomenon been studied and proven by science? If any studies have been made, you should add them as a reference. As it is now, this article looks more an advertisement for gamma wave CDs than an encyclopedic entry.

--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-France]] 14:44, 11 October 2011 (EDT)

Cowardice

2011-09-29T05:26:54Z

LeonardO: Rewording

'''Cowardice''' is lack of resolve, fortitude, or bravery. A coward is typically seen as being intrinsically weak. Cowardice is not the same as fear, as a complete lack of fear is rather stupidity than bravery; a coward simply does not know how to deal with their fear like a whole, complete, regular adult person. <ref>[http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/239709/am_i_a_coward_for_having_fear.html?cat=9 Am I a coward for having fear?] Associated Content, Retrieved Sept 17th 2011</ref> Such inability to deal with challenging situations leads to a variety of coping mechanisms. A coward will typically show a lot of false courage and braggadocio, but when confronted will respond first with dishonesty and then slink away. A coward will often invent excuses for avoiding conflict, a wide open schedule will suddenly become full, an acceptable medium for communication will suddenly become unacceptable, an acceptable opponent will become untouchable for some minor reason. <ref>[http://www.ehow.com/info_8544298_signs-coward.html Signs of a coward] eHow, Retrieved Sept 17th 2011</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Atheism and cowardice]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category: Morality]]

Debate: Creationism, Evolutionism and the 15 questions

2011-09-25T23:11:48Z

LeonardO:

Hello. I attentively read the 15 questions that evolutionists apparently cannot answer, and I reflected about the whole issue for some time. I have not studied biology in sufficient detail to attempt to answer any of the questions, and therefore I will not do it. But, instead of answers, new questions appeared in my mind, and they are aimed to both creationists and evolutionists. My goal is not to push or discredit any particular belief, but rather to promote thought, conversation, and a sincere search for knowledge.

For the sake of this argument, let us narrow down the scope of our debate: we are speaking about the origin of LIFE in our debate. So, to evolutionists I say: sorry, but the question "How was life born from lifeless matter" cannot be evaded. To creationists, I say: sorry, but geological concerns, the age of the Earth, the Big Bang Theory, the creation of the Universe, etc., are not part of this debate. We are talking about LIFE.

In this debate thread, you can clearly expose your ideas, in a calm, civil and clear way, whether they are for or against creationism. I don't care if you believe in God, if you believe that no God exists and life was born out of sheer chance, I don't care if you believe that we live in a giant computer simulation. As long as you expose them in a clear, sincere and CIVIL way, I welcome ALL your ideas.

In order to give more food for thought, here are some thoughts that appeared in my mind while reading those famous 15 questions.

1. '''Sometimes, science is a religion.''' By that, I mean that we believe in what we read in scientific papers and websites without a scientific mindset. If we want to be scientific, we must keep an open mind to all possibilities, no matter how small, even if they contradict our beliefs. We must use our brain to see whether a theory makes sense, and not just accept it passively - whether it's creationism or intelligent design or anything else. God (or, for the non-believers, Chance) gave you a brain --- use it!

2. '''Proving the other side wrong does not mean you are right.''' By that, I mean that it is easier to criticize arguments from the Other Side, rather than come up with your own arguments. But if you had the incontestable proof that Evolution is wrong, you still wouldn't have proven Intelligent Design. And if you were to prove the non-existence of God, you still wouldn't have proven Evolution. The real answer may very well be something we never thought about or considered.

3. '''Intelligent Design may be non-Christian, and even non-religious.''' What I mean is that we often take "Intelligent Design" to mean "Creation by God", and often, "Creation by the Christian God". But, as a matter of fact, it only means "design by one or more intelligent entity". Such an intelligent entity might be non-omnipotent and non-omniscient. It might very well be aliens. We might also be self-aware parts of a virtual simulation; in which case, our "God" would just be the programmer(s) that created such simulation. As bizarre as these ideas might sound, they ought to be analyzed scientifically, and not just written off as ridiculous.

Finally, a tip to everyone contributing to this thread: '''provide sources for what you claim.''' Which means, don't just say "there's a HUGE fossil record as evidence, just go look at it", but point out at actual examples. Don't just cut short and say "read the Bible", but provide the actual passages that you think matter, as well as the reasons why you believe that the Bible is an unerring text even in matters of science. And most of all, '''be civil''', and '''respect ideas you disagree with'''! Now let's get started!
--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-France]] 11:47, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

=Arguments in favor of the Theory of Evolution=

=Arguments against the Theory of Evolution=

==Abiogenesis==
It still hasn't sufficiently explained by which chemical processes simple organic compounds could have transformed in a self-replicating entity. The hypotheses that have been so far proposed are very improbable. <ref>http://cog-ff.com/HWALibrary/Miscellaneous/Why%20Abiogenesis%20is%20Impossible.pdf</ref>

==='''Objections'''===
''"Improbable" does not mean "impossible": improbable things do happen. Also, the fact that scientists don't have a satisfactory explaination now does not mean that they never will.''

=Arguments in favor of a religious Creation=

=Arguments against a religious Creation=

=Arguments in favor of a non-religious Intelligent Design=

=Arguments against a non-religious Intelligent Design=

=Other Arguments or general comments=

=References=
<references>
[[Category:Debate]]

Debate: Creationism, Evolutionism and the 15 questions

2011-09-25T23:10:21Z

LeonardO: /* Arguments against the Theory of Evolution */ (First entry, to show the format I'd like to use for this debate. I'd like an "Objections" field for every entry regardless of on which side it is on.)

Lille

2011-09-21T15:53:54Z

LeonardO: Just a start

'''Lille''' is a city of more than 225,000 inhabitants situated in Northern [[France]], in the Nord Pas-de-Calais region, on the frontier with Belgium. The Lille Metropole area, with a population of over 1 million inhabitants, is the fourth largest metropolitan area in France. The city's Flemish name is ''Rijsel''; both the French and the Flemish name mean roughly 'the Island'.

Debate: Creationism, Evolutionism and the 15 questions

2011-09-21T15:47:26Z

LeonardO: Forgot to sign

Hello. I attentively read the 15 questions that evolutionists apparently cannot answer, and I reflected about the whole issue for some time. I have not studied biology in sufficient detail to attempt to answer any of the questions, and therefore I will not do it. But, instead of answers, new questions appeared in my mind, and they are aimed to both creationists and evolutionists. My goal is not to push or discredit any particular belief, but rather to promote thought, conversation, and a sincere search for knowledge.

For the sake of this argument, let us narrow down the scope of our debate: we are speaking about the origin of LIFE in our debate. So, to evolutionists I say: sorry, but the question "How was life born from lifeless matter" cannot be evaded. To creationists, I say: sorry, but geological concerns, the age of the Earth, the Big Bang Theory, the creation of the Universe, etc., are not part of this debate. We are talking about LIFE.

In this debate thread, you can clearly expose your ideas, in a calm, civil and clear way, whether they are for or against creationism. I don't care if you believe in God, if you believe that no God exists and life was born out of sheer chance, I don't care if you believe that we live in a giant computer simulation. As long as you expose them in a clear, sincere and CIVIL way, I welcome ALL your ideas.

In order to give more food for thought, here are some thoughts that appeared in my mind while reading those famous 15 questions.

1. '''Sometimes, science is a religion.''' By that, I mean that we believe in what we read in scientific papers and websites without a scientific mindset. If we want to be scientific, we must keep an open mind to all possibilities, no matter how small, even if they contradict our beliefs. We must use our brain to see whether a theory makes sense, and not just accept it passively - whether it's creationism or intelligent design or anything else. God (or, for the non-believers, Chance) gave you a brain --- use it!

2. '''Proving the other side wrong does not mean you are right.''' By that, I mean that it is easier to criticize arguments from the Other Side, rather than come up with your own arguments. But if you had the incontestable proof that Evolution is wrong, you still wouldn't have proven Intelligent Design. And if you were to prove the non-existence of God, you still wouldn't have proven Evolution. The real answer may very well be something we never thought about or considered.

3. '''Intelligent Design may be non-Christian, and even non-religious.''' What I mean is that we often take "Intelligent Design" to mean "Creation by God", and often, "Creation by the Christian God". But, as a matter of fact, it only means "design by one or more intelligent entity". Such an intelligent entity might be non-omnipotent and non-omniscient. It might very well be aliens. We might also be self-aware parts of a virtual simulation; in which case, our "God" would just be the programmer(s) that created such simulation. As bizarre as these ideas might sound, they ought to be analyzed scientifically, and not just written off as ridiculous.

Finally, a tip to everyone contributing to this thread: '''provide sources for what you claim.''' Which means, don't just say "there's a HUGE fossil record as evidence, just go look at it", but point out at actual examples. Don't just cut short and say "read the Bible", but provide the actual passages that you think matter, as well as the reasons why you believe that the Bible is an unerring text even in matters of science. And most of all, '''be civil''', and '''respect ideas you disagree with'''! Now let's get started!
--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-France]] 11:47, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

=Arguments in favor of the Theory of Evolution=

=Arguments against the Theory of Evolution=

=Arguments in favor of a religious Creation=

=Arguments against a religious Creation=

=Arguments in favor of a non-religious Intelligent Design=

=Arguments against a non-religious Intelligent Design=

=Other Arguments or general comments=
[[Category:Debate]]

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2011-09-21T15:37:34Z

LeonardO: /* Scientific debates */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical Debates==
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]
# [[Debate: Are fear of death and sorrow compatible with faith?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about Pedosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
#[[Debate:Creationist]]
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]
#[[Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?]]
#[[Debate: Can God explain all of the conspiracy theories and all other phenonmena?]]
#[[Debate: Should Christians be more forthright in stating that Allah is not the same being as the Judeo-Christian God?]]
#[[Debate: Why does God send us on Earth ?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States of America really be counted as a country?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate: Should we criminalize homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?]]
# [[Would anybody consider President Barry Soetoro a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Illegal Immigrants: Is it too late for US?]]
# [[Debate: Was Osama really killed in Abbottabad?]]

==Economic debates==
# [[Debate: Did World War II end the Great Depression?]]
# [[Debate: Can there be price controls without shortages?]]
# [[Debate: Counterfeiting: A Moral Hazard]]
#[[Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?]]
# [[Is our freedom to consume what we want whenever we want worth the cost (i.e. environmental, social, economic, etc.)?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:What is CP's position on Relativity? (and, in general, on physical sciences)]]
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]
# [[Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists.]]
# [[Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?]]
# [[Debate: Creationism, Evolutionism and the 15 questions]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?]]
# [[Debate:Can/May/Should online wiki encyclopedias copy from each other?]]
# [[Debate:Is it time to propagate Conservapedia in other languages/countries?]]
# [[Debate:Should Conservapedia be more open about sex related articles?]]
# [[Debate:Should User:Conservative be banned before he totally destroys Conservapedia's reputation with his childish idiocy?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs]]
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
# [[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]
# [[Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance]]

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2011-09-21T15:37:01Z

LeonardO: /* Scientific debates */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical Debates==
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]
# [[Debate: Are fear of death and sorrow compatible with faith?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about Pedosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
#[[Debate:Creationist]]
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]
#[[Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?]]
#[[Debate: Can God explain all of the conspiracy theories and all other phenonmena?]]
#[[Debate: Should Christians be more forthright in stating that Allah is not the same being as the Judeo-Christian God?]]
#[[Debate: Why does God send us on Earth ?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States of America really be counted as a country?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate: Should we criminalize homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?]]
# [[Would anybody consider President Barry Soetoro a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Illegal Immigrants: Is it too late for US?]]
# [[Debate: Was Osama really killed in Abbottabad?]]

==Economic debates==
# [[Debate: Did World War II end the Great Depression?]]
# [[Debate: Can there be price controls without shortages?]]
# [[Debate: Counterfeiting: A Moral Hazard]]
#[[Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?]]
# [[Is our freedom to consume what we want whenever we want worth the cost (i.e. environmental, social, economic, etc.)?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:What is CP's position on Relativity? (and, in general, on physical sciences)]]
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]
# [[Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists.]]
# [[Debate: Should the United States defund the National Science Foundation?]]
# [[Debate:_Creationism,_Evolutionism_and_the_15_questions]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?]]
# [[Debate:Can/May/Should online wiki encyclopedias copy from each other?]]
# [[Debate:Is it time to propagate Conservapedia in other languages/countries?]]
# [[Debate:Should Conservapedia be more open about sex related articles?]]
# [[Debate:Should User:Conservative be banned before he totally destroys Conservapedia's reputation with his childish idiocy?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs]]
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
# [[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]
# [[Debate:Relationship between Socialism and athletic performance]]

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Debate: Creationism, Evolutionism and the 15 questions

2011-09-21T15:35:21Z

LeonardO: Created page with "Hello. I attentively read the 15 questions that evolutionists apparently cannot answer, and I reflected about the whole issue for some time. I have not studied biology in suffici..."

Hello. I attentively read the 15 questions that evolutionists apparently cannot answer, and I reflected about the whole issue for some time. I have not studied biology in sufficient detail to attempt to answer any of the questions, and therefore I will not do it. But, instead of answers, new questions appeared in my mind, and they are aimed to both creationists and evolutionists. My goal is not to push or discredit any particular belief, but rather to promote thought, conversation, and a sincere search for knowledge.

For the sake of this argument, let us narrow down the scope of our debate: we are speaking about the origin of LIFE in our debate. So, to evolutionists I say: sorry, but the question "How was life born from lifeless matter" cannot be evaded. To creationists, I say: sorry, but geological concerns, the age of the Earth, the Big Bang Theory, the creation of the Universe, etc., are not part of this debate. We are talking about LIFE.

In this debate thread, you can clearly expose your ideas, in a calm, civil and clear way, whether they are for or against creationism. I don't care if you believe in God, if you believe that no God exists and life was born out of sheer chance, I don't care if you believe that we live in a giant computer simulation. As long as you expose them in a clear, sincere and CIVIL way, I welcome ALL your ideas.

In order to give more food for thought, here are some thoughts that appeared in my mind while reading those famous 15 questions.

1. '''Sometimes, science is a religion.''' By that, I mean that we believe in what we read in scientific papers and websites without a scientific mindset. If we want to be scientific, we must keep an open mind to all possibilities, no matter how small, even if they contradict our beliefs. We must use our brain to see whether a theory makes sense, and not just accept it passively - whether it's creationism or intelligent design or anything else. God (or, for the non-believers, Chance) gave you a brain --- use it!

2. '''Proving the other side wrong does not mean you are right.''' By that, I mean that it is easier to criticize arguments from the Other Side, rather than come up with your own arguments. But if you had the incontestable proof that Evolution is wrong, you still wouldn't have proven Intelligent Design. And if you were to prove the non-existence of God, you still wouldn't have proven Evolution. The real answer may very well be something we never thought about or considered.

3. '''Intelligent Design may be non-Christian, and even non-religious.''' What I mean is that we often take "Intelligent Design" to mean "Creation by God", and often, "Creation by the Christian God". But, as a matter of fact, it only means "design by one or more intelligent entity". Such an intelligent entity might be non-omnipotent and non-omniscient. It might very well be aliens. We might also be self-aware parts of a virtual simulation; in which case, our "God" would just be the programmer(s) that created such simulation. As bizarre as these ideas might sound, they ought to be analyzed scientifically, and not just written off as ridiculous.

Finally, a tip to everyone contributing to this thread: '''provide sources for what you claim.''' Which means, don't just say "there's a HUGE fossil record as evidence, just go look at it", but point out at actual examples. Don't just cut short and say "read the Bible", but provide the actual passages that you think matter, as well as the reasons why you believe that the Bible is an unerring text even in matters of science. And most of all, '''be civil''', and '''respect ideas you disagree with'''! Now let's get started!

=Arguments in favor of the Theory of Evolution=

=Arguments against the Theory of Evolution=

=Arguments in favor of a religious Creation=

=Arguments against a religious Creation=

=Arguments in favor of a non-religious Intelligent Design=

=Arguments against a non-religious Intelligent Design=

=Other Arguments or general comments=

User:LeonardO

2011-09-21T14:19:04Z

LeonardO:

Hello, my name is Leonard, I used to live in the United Kingdom, but I've just recently moved to northern France. I hope that my contributions will help to further improve the quality of this encyclopedia! :)

Hadean

2011-07-05T12:12:36Z

LeonardO: Created page with "The '''Hadean''' is, according to atheist scientists and Old Earth Creationists, the geologic eon that started at their estimated date for t..."

The '''Hadean''' is, according to [[atheism|atheist]] scientists and [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth Creationists]], the geologic eon that started at their estimated date for the [[Creation]] or formation of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago, and ended approximately 3.8 billion years ago. [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] reject these estimates, and maintain that the Earth was created approximately 6000 years ago. 
This name owes its name to [[Hades]], the Ancient Greek underworld, reflecting the scientists' estimates on what the conditions on Earth would have been at the time.

Mitterrand

2011-07-05T00:12:13Z

LeonardO: Redirected page to François Mitterrand

#REDIRECT [[François Mitterrand]]

Francois Mitterrand

2011-07-05T00:11:30Z

LeonardO: Redirected page to François Mitterrand

#REDIRECT [[François Mitterrand]]

François Mitterrand

2011-07-05T00:07:21Z

LeonardO: Created page with "'''François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand''' (26th October 1916 - 8th January 1996) was President of France from 1981 to 1996, and a leader of the Parti Socialiste, th..."

'''François Maurice Adrien Marie Mitterrand''' (26th October 1916 - 8th January 1996) was [[President of France]] from 1981 to 1996, and a leader of the [[Parti Socialiste]], the French Socialist Party. He was the only left-wing politician to be so far elected President of France under the Fifth Republic.

NATO war in Libya

2011-07-05T00:01:01Z

LeonardO: /* Legality of French actions */ Rewording

[[File:Gaddafi and Mandela 1.JPG|thumb|right|250px|[[Nobel Peace Prize]] winner [[Nelson Mandela]] greets an old friend and ally, Muammar Gaddafi. ''[[Reuters]]'' reports President Obama secretly ordered support for [[al Qaeda]] terrorists seeking his ouster.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umgMDJIpkn0</ref>.]]
The '''Libyan War of 2011''' started as the '''Benghazi rebellion''', a series of protests in eastern [[Libya]] following uprisings in [[Tunisia]] and [[Egypt]]. The scale of the violence contrasts markedly with North Africa's largely peaceful uprisings. Eastern Libya has fallen to the uprising, which began on February 16, 2011 in the wake of revolutions which toppled the long-serving leaders of neighboring Tunisia and Egypt. The [[Islamist]] terror group [[Al-Qaeda]] in North Africa has vowed to do everything in its power to help the uprising against the Libyan [[secular]] strongman leader [[Muammar Gaddafi]].<ref> [http://www.dawn.com/2011/02/24/al-qaeda-in-n-africa-backs-libya-uprising-site.html Al Qaeda in N. Africa backs Libya uprising: SITE] </ref><ref> [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/07/libya-uprising-live-updates Libya uprising.] </ref> Journalist David Wood has reported,
{{Cquote|Eastern Libya has been described by U.S. diplomats as a breeding ground for Islamist [[extremism]]. In diplomatic cables released by [[Wikileaks]], the region’s young men were said to have "nothing to lose" by resorting to violence. Sermons in the local [[mosque]]s are "laced with phraseology urging worshippers to support [[jihad]]," one diplomat reported.<ref>http://91.214.23.156/cablegate/wire.php?id=08TRIPOLI120&search=</ref>}}
Wood added,
{{Cquote|extremist elements make up only a portion of the resistance to Gaddafi and have been present in every popular uprising in the region stretching from the [[Iran]]ian revolution to the [[Egypt]]ian people’s overthrow of [[Hosni Mubarak]].<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html</ref>}}

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in [[Iraq]] are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime. <ref> [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links.] </ref> <ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world/guantanamo-files-libyan-detainee-now-us-ally-of-sorts.html Libyan, Once a Detainee, Is Now a U.S. Ally of Sorts.]</ref>

An international coalition has intervened in what many describe as an "illegal war"<ref>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/01/obamas_illegal_war</ref> led by the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO), whose own leaders have publicly questioned what the value, purpose, and reason for existence of the NATO organization is. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/world/europe/14iht-letter14.html</ref><ref>http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_58ebd6cf-0558-5ee2-bd8d-cf27c1af7630.html</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/12/nato-usa</ref>

__TOC__
It was reported on February 24, 2011, an emergency meeting of the [[United Nations Human Rights Council]] on Libya would take no action or make no recommendation to the [[UN General Assembly]] to remove Libya from holding its seat on the UN Human Rights Council for alleged human rights abuses.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] (UNSC) voted on March 17, 2011, to pass Security Council resolution 1973 proposed by [[France]], along with its [[British]] and [[Lebanese]] partners, initiating a use of force doctrine in Libya. [[China]], [[Russia]], [[India]] and [[Brazil]] (the so-called BRIC nations) all abstained from the vote. The [[Obama administration]] called for Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi to step aside and has given assistance to the insurgent anti-Gaddafi forces. However, US Congressional leaders were not consulted prior to the commitment of U.S. forces,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262921/boehner-obama-libya-many-other-members-house-representatives-are-troubled-robert-costa</ref> nor did the Congress authorize the use of force in Libya.

Military and intelligence experts in France, Britain, and the United States warned about uncertainties but were overruled by political leaders. The end result was a set of decisions that focused on short term considerations and gambled on the outcome. French, British, and US leaders did not fully coordinate but, according to Anthony Cordesman, it became clear,
{{Cquote|they sought and got international cover from the UN by claiming a no fly zone could protect civilians when their real objective was to use force as a catalyst to drive Qaddafi out of power.}}
[[Sarkozy]], [[Cameron]], and [[Obama]] seem to have assumed that a largely unknown, divided, and fractured group of insurgents could win through sheer political momentum and could then be turned into a successful government. One month later it was obvious a "weak, divided, poorly led, and badly equipped and supplied set of rebel forces can only hang on with the present level of air support" provided by the [[United Nations]].

<blockquote>
The assault on Libya has set off a frenzy of speculations about the real motive behind the war in the oil-rich country, with many analysts saying that under the guise of protecting civilians, as enshrined in the UNSC Resolution 1973, which permitted the use of force against the Libyan regime, Washington and its Western allies are basically after the North African country’s vast oil reserves. <ref>[http://2012indyinfo.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/presstv-germany-slams-nato-mission-in-libya/ Germany slams NATO mission in Libya.]</ref>
</blockquote>

== Libya before the 2011 uprising ==
[[File:Libya Irrigation project.jpg|thumb|330px|Satellite view is showing irrigated farming projects at Al Khufrah Oasis in southeast Libya. Part of the "Great Man Made River Project" ($33 billion), where fossil water is mined from vast underground aquifers. This water is transported about 800 km (500 mi) to the coastal cities of Libya by means of the world's largest underground network of pipes.]]
In 1951 Libya was officially the poorest country in the world. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,864742,00.html] Before the 2011 uprising Libyans living standards were considered the highest in Africa. The GDP per Capita was more than the double of that in Egypt, and above that in Russia. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of all charges; but more than the advances in housing, agricultural, industry, health care, education, is the advance in direct popular democracy. [http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/libfacts.htm] [[Condoleezza Rice]] praised Libya for its "excellent co-operation" in the US-led war on terror. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4773617.stm] (BBC News).

<blockquote>
The living standards of Libyans have improved significantly since the 1970s, ranking the country among the highest in Africa. Urbanization, developmental projects, and high oil revenues have enabled the Libyan government to elevate its people's living standards. The social and economic status of women and children has particularly improved. Various subsidized or free services (health, education, housing, and basic foodstuffs) have ensured basic necessities. The low percentage of people without access to safe water (3 percent), health services (0 percent) and sanitation (2 percent), and a relatively high life expectancy (70.2 years) in 1998 indicate the improved living standards. Adequate health care and subsidized foodstuffs have sharply reduced infant mortality, from 105 per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 20 per 1,000 live births in 1998. The government also subsidizes education, which is compulsory and free between the ages of 6 and 15. The expansion of educational facilities has elevated the literacy rate (78.1 in 1998). There are universities in [[Tripoli]], Benghazi, Marsa el-Brega, Misurata, Sebha, and Tobruk. [http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Libya-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html] (SOURCE: Handbook of the Nations; CIA World Factbook.)
</blockquote>

[[Nobel Peace Prize]] recipient [[Nelson Mandela]] warned of the machinations of outside influences in a speech praising Gaddafi and his leadership in Africa:
{{Cquote|In a world where the strong may seek to impose upon the more vulnerable; and where particular nations or groups of nations may still seek to decide the fate of the planet - in such a world respect for multilateralism, moderation of public discourse and a patient search for compromise become even more imperative to save the world from debilitating conflict and enduring inequality. When we dismissed criticism of our friendship with yourself, My Brother Leader, and of the relationship between [[South Africa]] and Libya, it was precisely in defence of those values.<ref>http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=222537&sn=Detail</ref>}}
[[File:Benghazi shopping center Libya.JPG|thumb|Benghazi shopping center.]]
At present Gaddafi is not well seen in the EU and USA but the Libyan people seem to be thriving with him as leader. A delegation of medical professionals from [[Russia]], [[Ukraine]] and [[Belarus]] wrote in an appeal to "Russian President [[Medvedev]] and Prime Minister [[Putin]] that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort". Libya today is not a highly polarized society divided between extremes of wealth and poverty.

On February 24, 2011, no threat was seen to Libya’s Seat on top U.N. Human Rights Body. A European Union-proposed draft resolution for a subsequent session “strongly condemns” human rights violations committed in Libya amid turmoil sparked by protesters, rather than condemning Gaddafi or the regime for committing them. [http://www.cnsnews.com/public/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human]
<blockquote>
The "United Nations Development Program (UNDP) confirms that the country had excellent prospects for achieving United Nations development goals by 2015. NATO's war will have already dashed those hopes. A collapse like the one in Iraq now threatens the country. [http://www.newsfrommiddleeast.com/?new=77210]
</blockquote>
<center>
[[File:View to Tripoli Libya.jpg|380px|thumb|center|Tripoli, 2009.]]
</center>

==Libya under Gaddafi ==
===Petrodollars and oil===
According to a Russian article titled ''Bombing of Lybia - Punishment for Qaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,'' Gaddafi initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the [[euro]] as payment for crude oil shipments, and called on [[Arab]] and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gaddafi proposed establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. The initiative was viewed negatively by the United States and the [[European Union]], with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Gaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.

In the wake of the global [[financial crisis of 2008]], which forced the US economy into [[recession]], both China and Russia have called for the dollar’s role in the financial system to be diluted. In September 2010 ''Bloomberg News'' reported China and Russia plan to start trading in each other’s currencies as the world’s second-biggest energy consumer and the largest energy supplier seek to diminish the dollar’s role in global trade. Bhanu Baweja commented,
{{Cquote|Given the risk to the dollar and U.S. assets from their fiscal position they want to reduce their dependence on the dollar as an invoicing currency....It makes sense for two large economies to exclude a third, overly dominant economy from their trading equation.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-08/china-russia-push-yuan-ruble-trading-to-diminish-dominance-of-u-s-dollar.html</ref>}}

===African Satellite Control Center===
An observer spelled out one of Gaddafi’s motivations for proposing an African Union:
{{Cquote|It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.

An African satellite only cost a onetime payment of US$400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a US$500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn't finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can [[slave]]s, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the [[World Bank]], the [[International Monetary Fund]], the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put US$300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added US$50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further US$27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.<ref>http://www.vtcommons.org/blog/2011/04/21/ethan-allen-qaddafi</ref>}}

===Libyan Central Bank===
In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:
{{Cquote|One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned.... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a [[sovereign]] nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.<ref>Eric Encina,''[http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27208.html Globalists Target 100% State Owned Central Bank of Libya,]'' Market Oracle.</ref>}}
Ellen Brown adds,
{{Cquote|Libya not only has oil. According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS (Bank of International Settlements), the IMF and their rules.<ref>Ellen Brown, ''[http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/5625-libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking,]'' Reader Supported News, April 15, 2011.</ref>}}
Gaddafi’s proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa contravenes IMF rules and is designed to bypass them.

=== Italian Friendship treaty ===
"We signed a friendship treaty with Libya, that includes a nonaggression clause, but when the counterpart '''no longer exists''' — in this case the Libyan state — the treaty cannot be applied”. [[Italy]]’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini on February 26, 2011 (the uprising began on February 16, 2011).
{{Cquote|Italy’s treaty with Libya, signed by Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] in August 2008, calls on Italy to pay Libya $5 billion over 20 years in reparations for its colonial past there. In return, Libya pledged to help block the flow of illegal immigrants to Italy and grant favorable treatment for Italian companies seeking to do business in Libya. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/world/europe/28military.html]</ref>}}

== National Transitional Council ==
The National Transitional Council of the Libyan Republic announced its official establishment in early March 2011 in the city of Benghazi. The stated goal was to liberate Libya from Mu’ammar Gaddafi.<ref>http://ntclibya.org/english/</ref> It has been recognized by France, [[Qatar]], Italy, [[Kuwait]], [[Maldives]] and [[Gambia]]. They have proceeded to form a transitional government for the post-Gaddafi era. Before forming a goverment they robbed about $505 million from the Central Bank of Libya in Benghazi.
[[File:Libya Rebels Gaining Momentum.jpg|thumb|Anti-Gaddafi forces in March, 2011 (Photo:Reuters).]]
{{Cquote|The top leaders of the “revolutionary” masses in Benghazi are two recent defectors of what the Left dubs Gaddafi’s “murderous regime”, Mustafa Abdul Jalil a former Justice minister (who prosecuted dissenters up to the day before the armed uprising), Mahmoud Jebril a top Gaddafite neo-liberal prominent in inviting multi-nationals to take over the oil fields (FT, March 23, 2011, p. 7) and Ali Aziz al-Eisawa, Gaddafi’s former ambassador to India who jumped ship when it looked like the uprising would succeed. These self-appointed leaders of the “rebels” are staunch backers of Euro-US military intervention just as they previously were long-term backers of Gaddafi’s dictatorship and promoters of MNC takeovers of oil and gas fields. The heads of the “rebels” military council is Omar Hariri and General Abdul Fattah Younis former head of the Ministry of Interior, both with long histories (since 1969) of repressing any democratic movements.<ref>http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/euro-us-war-on-libya-official-lies-and-misconceptions-of-critics/</ref>}}
The root base of the armed uprising is Benghazi, a hotbed of tribal backers and clients of the deposed King Idris who ruled with an iron fist over a semi-feudal backward state.

In May, 2011, NATO and Arab countries agreed in Rome to set up a fund to manage donations to help areas controlled by the rebels; they announced a financial mechanism to assist the opposition in Libya. This would include a partial unfreezing of the Gaddafi regime assets in banks that would go into a temporary fund to be managed by the U.N. Sanctions Committee. And it would help the rebels with their immediate needs to cover food, medicine and hospital costs;<ref>http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/136011941/diplomats-discuss-aid-to-libyan-rebels</ref> They could have access to a special $3 billion (£1.8 billion) trust fund established by its Western backers to finance the breakaway regions fighting Col Muammar Gaddafi;<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8492745/Libyan-rebels-to-receive-1.8-billion-trust-fund.html</ref> the Transitional National Council is planing to use money pledged for humanitarian and reconstruction needs to buy weapons.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/amnesty-international-accuses-gaddafi-regime-of-war-crimes-in-misurata/2011/05/06/AFbPjw6F_story.html?hpid=z2</ref>
[[File:Rebel fighters hoist the former Libyan monarchy flag on the outskirts of Benghazi.jpg|thumb|Rebel fighters hoist the former Libyan monarchy flag on the outskirts of Benghazi. Modern urbanization and equipments may be clearly seen there.]]
<blockquote>
Rebel commanders have created a wanted list and placed suspects under round-the-clock surveillance. Secret militia units raid houses without court warrants and often interrogate suspects for hours. Those released have to sign a document stating their loyalty to the revolution. As many as 30 civilians are being held at various rebel military bases around Benghazi without due process of law, said human rights activists, judges and prosecutors. In recent weeks, at least seven former members of the internal security police have turned up dead, their bodies riddled with bullets. Although it is not known who killed them, many suspect that they died at the hands of rebel-affiliated death squads. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/libyan-rebels-accused-of-reprisal-attacks/2011/05/20/AFaeAh8G_story.html?hpid=z4]
</blockquote>

On May, 26, the deputy leader of Libya's rebel administration said it could take up to two years to organize elections, backtracking on promises of a six-month transition to democracy. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110526/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya]

==French intervention==

A report from Congressman [[Dennis Kucinich]] corroborated the claim of Franco Bechis<ref>''[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RkUoFsgEwm8J:www.voltairenet.org/article169069.html+French+plans+to+topple+Gaddafi+on+track+since+last+November&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com French plans to topple Gaddafi on track since last November]'', by Franco Bechis, VoltaireNet, March 26, 2011.</ref> in Italy that "plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010."<ref>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24347</ref> On March 10, 2011, France became the first and only country to recognize the Libyan Transitional National Council “as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.”<ref> “Sarkozy’s Libyan Surprise,” ''The Economist'', March 14, 2011.</ref> "France recognises states, not parties", said a senior official on March 9th. After a meeting arranged by [[Bernard Henri Levy|Bernard-Henri Lévy]] the next morning, on March 10th, two representatives of the Libyan opposition emerged from President Sarkozys office at the Elysée Palace to announce that "France recognizes the Libyan Transitional National Council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people". <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2</ref><ref>http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/03/france_and_libya</ref>

On March 19, two days after passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1973,<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278685</ref> French President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] convened an emergency meeting of allied and Arab leaders in [[Paris]] which endorsed the immediate deployment of military aircraft to stop an assault by Gaddafi forces on Benghazi and the establishment of a no-fly zone in the country. Before the end of the meeting, French fighter planes had attacked armored vehicles and tanks outside Benghazi. Some participants at the Paris meeting were critical of the French government both for insisting on convening the meeting before agreeing to endorse air strikes, and then for launching air strikes before the meeting was over.<ref>Allies Open Air Assault on Qaddafi’s Forces in Libya, ''New York Times'', March 19, 2011.</ref> French officials claim that meeting participants were informed of the operation beforehand. The strikes had clearly been planned and coordinated with the knowledge of key allied militaries, including the [[United States]].<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service'', March 30, 2011, p. 19 pd.</ref>

[[National Public Radio]] (NPR) reports Sarkozy has enjoyed a "burst of public support"<ref>http://wap.npr.org/story/134855539</ref> while the ''[[London Guardian]]'' writes Sarkozy's actions may save him from "electoral humiliation."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/libya-crisis-nicolas-sarkozy-electoral</ref> Several analysts speculate Sarkozy has used the crisis to propel France into a Superpower role, usurping the global leadership of the United States abrogated by [[President Obama]].<ref>http://www.businessandpolitics.org/?p=4651</ref> Columnist Jim Hoagland of the ''[[Washington Post]]'' observes,
{{Cquote|France is a country that has a past being involved in world affairs, wanting to count in world affairs, and being willing to pay its way for defense forces and to use those forces abroad. So, France plays a natural role in that. At a time when governments are slashing defense spending and reducing troops, France still wants to occupy an important role in world affairs....the reason you're seeing France taking on such a much larger role is that other countries, including the United States, are not willing to do it anymore. And Sarkozy is trying to fill that vacuum.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/france2_04-07.html</ref>}}

Sarkozy's approval rating stood at 30% prior to the intervention.

===Legality of French actions===
On May 29 two French lawyers, Roland Dumas and Jacques Vergès, said that they planned to initiate legal proceedings against French President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] for crimes against humanity over the [[NATO]]-led military campaign in [[Libya]]. Dumas (who also served as a foreign minister under President [[François Mitterrand]]) said that the NATO mission, which was meant to protect civilians, is in fact killing them.<ref>http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=46395</ref>

On July 4 a French lawyer, Marcel Ceccaldi, called for investigation of the ICC on NATO "war crimes". [http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/07/04/libye-un-avocat-demande-une-enquete-de-la-cpi-sur-les-crimes-de-guerre-de-l-otan_1544755_1496980.html]

==Security Council Res. 1973 and NATO==
UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 of March 17, 2011 followed on the heels of Gaddafi’s public threat on March 2 to throw western oil companies out of Libya, and his invitation on March 14 to Chinese, Russian, and Indian firms to produce Libyan oil in their place.<ref>''[http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/7661/Business/Economy/Gaddafi-offers-Libyan-oil-production-to-India,-Rus.aspx Gaddafi offers Libyan oil production to India, Russia, China,] Agence France-Presse, March 14, 2011.</ref> China, Russia, India and Brazil all abstained on UNSC Resolution 1973.

Despite France taking the lead role in the intervention, the Congressional Research Service reports, "Only the United States and NATO possess the command and control capabilities necessary for coalition operations enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya." France only recently rejoined the NATO alliance, in 2008, after a 40 year absence. The Congressional Research Service, which analyzes information and prepares reports for members of Congress, also states,
{{Cquote|In spite of statements underscoring NATO unity on steps announced to date, the initial planning and operational phases were also marked by significant levels of discord within Europe and [[NATO]] on the aims and future direction of the mission. A key point of contention was reportedly the amount of flexibility that NATO forces would be granted to protect civilians and civilian areas, as called for in paragraph 4 of UNSCR 1973. Reports indicate that French officials insisted on maintaining the ability to strike ground forces that threatened civilian areas, while their [[Turkish]] counterparts vocally opposed any targeting of ground forces. Adding to the strain within NATO, NATO ally [[Germany]] abstained from UNSCR 1973 and, opposed to any potential [[combat]] operation, on March 23, withdrew its naval assets in the [[Mediterranean]] from NATO command. Throughout the first week of operations, other European allies contributing to the mission, including Italy and Norway, expressed increasing frustration with the lack of agreement within NATO, with Norway refusing to deploy its fighter jets unless under they were under NATO command and control.<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya):
Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service,'' March 30, 2011, p. 20 pdf.</ref>}}

Of NATO's 28 members, 14 are said to be "actively participating," but only 6 provided military support. By June Norway announced its intention to quit the coalition<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/norway-quit-libya-operation-august</ref> and French and British leaders expressed concerns over being able to meet the costs of a war they dragged the United States into.<ref>http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/2e515285f07040df999bd6b670db791c/Article_2011-06-14-EU-NATO-Libya/id-f6d2287c00ba4816924c082ed9cc12fa</ref> Of the 22-country [[Arab League]], whose appeal prompted the United Nations to vote on intervention, only [[Qatar]] and the [[United Arab Emirates]] are involved. Of the 192 members of the [[UN General Assembly]], who all have a legal "responsibility to protect" civilians attacked by their own governments, only [[Sweden]] has responded.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref> After the authorization and commitment of NATO and U.S. forces, Secretary Gates announced,
{{Cquote|The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.}}
and warned
{{Cquote|The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the American body politic writ large—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.<ref>http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/10/robert_gates_nato_defense_secretary_questions_future_of_the_alli.html</ref>}}

===Exceeding UN mandate===
Resolution 1973 authorized strict limitations, according to international law, on NATO as the organization with responsibility for the implementation of the resolution. Particularly, it provides only for a naval blockade enforcing the arms embargo, and enforcement of a no-fly zone. On March 29, 2011, Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin commented after a meeting with NATO officials in [[Brussels, Belgium]], that Russia expressed deep concern over the interpretation of the Security Council’s resolution, as some countries have effectively turned it into an approval for ground operations.
{{Cquote|[[Moscow]] has many questions about how the UN Security Council’s resolution is being carried out...First of all, there are reports that civilians have been killed in the air strikes. This is odd if you consider the message of the resolution, which says that the foreign forces’ actions should protect civilians. So it’s hard to comprehend how you can protect civilians by killing them....we demanded that the UN Security Council be fully informed about the actions of the alliance in Libya at all times... We have reports of air strikes against convoys far from the front line. This is a far cry from the UN Security Council resolution.<ref>http://rt.com/news/coalition-libya-nato-russian-envoy/</ref>}}
[[File:Bombing Tripoli Libya.jpg|right|Bombing Tripoli, Libya.]]
NATO planes and ships have been striking cities and military installations in Libya since mid-March, 2011. Allied military officials have spoken in recent weeks of the need for escalation to help protect Libyan civilians and have called for Gaddafi to step down. Libyan officials have said that NATO is picking sides in a civil war and complained that strikes on Gaddafi’s Tripoli compound are attempts to assassinate the leader of a sovereign country. NATO launched its largest airstrike against Moammar Gaddafi’s regime on May, 24, 2011, with at least 15 massive explosions rocking the Libyan capital. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/french-officials-france-and-britain-to-use-attack-helicopters-in-libya/2011/05/23/AFTF909G_story.html?hpid=z2]
<blockquote>
On May 15, two months into the NATO bombing campaign against loyal Gaddafi’s forces, Britain’s top military commander has said that the Libyan leader could remain “clinging to power” unless NATO broadened its bombing targets to include the country’s infrastructure. [http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html]
</blockquote>

The French and the British described plans for a wargames exercise for an attack on Libya last November, in the end they used those military assets that had been mobilized for the real thing 3 months ago. We know that NATO doesn’t just go and bomb a country over night, these things are planned far in advance, and in this case there is conclusive evidence that there have been plans for this for many many years. <ref> [https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend] June 4, 2011. </ref>
<blockquote>
On Jun 18, Prime minister of Libya Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi accused [[NATO]] of a "new level of aggression" over the past 72 hours in which he said the military alliance intentionally targeted civilian buildings, including a hotel and a university. "It has become clear to us that NATO has moved on to deliberately hitting civilian buildings. ... This is a crime against humanity," he told reporters in the capital. Libya's Health Ministry released new casualty figures that put the number of civilians killed in NATO air strikes through to June 7 at 856. <ref> [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/gaddafi-rages-at-nato-after-bombing-2299509.html Gaddafi rages at NATO after bombing.] </ref>
</blockquote>
[[File:Women with Gaddafi Libya.jpg|thumb|280px|Lizzie Cocker with mum and two daughters from Sudan who have been living in Libya for 17 years. They had to flee from Misrata to Tripoli following the vicious atrocities committed by the pro-NATO rebels against black skinned peoples. They are firmly standing behind their leader Moammar Gadaffi. The sisters have written on the poster, on the left: "King of Kings of Africa" and on the right: "Our souls are for you".]]
==== Italy - Berlusconi ====
[[Italy]] called for a suspension of hostilities in [[Libya]] on June 22 in the latest sign of dissent within [[NATO]] as the civilian death toll mounts and [[Muammar Gaddafi]] shows no signs of quitting power. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110622/ts_afp/libyaconflictnatoitalydiplomacy]

===African response to UN & NATO intervention===
NATO's Libyan intervention has proven fractious in black Africa; in March [[Nigeria]]'s Foreign Minister Odein Ajumogobia commented, "The contradictions between principle and national interest ... have enabled the international community to impose a no-fly zone over Libya ostensibly to protect innocent civilians from slaughter, but to watch seemingly helplessly (in [[Ivory Coast]]) as ...men, women and children are slaughtered in equally, even if less egregious, violence."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503543_162-503543.html?keyword=ivory+coast</ref>

<blockquote>
Amr Moussa, the outgoing head of the Arab League and a front runner to become president of a democratic Egypt, has voiced reservations about NATO's bombing campaign in Libya, calling for a ceasefire and talks on a political settlement while Muammar Gaddafi remains in power. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/21/arab-league-chief-libya-air-strikes]
</blockquote>

The Arab League, which in March asked the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians, condemned the loss of life in bombing incidents.

<blockquote>
"When the Arab League agreed on the idea of having a no-fly zone over Libya it was to protect civilians but when civilians get killed this has to be condemned with the harshest of statements," said Deputy Secretary-General Ahmed Ben Helli.
</blockquote>

The Libyan leader says the Western-led military campaign is an act of colonial aggression designed to steal Libya's oil. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110620/wl_nm/us_libya]

==United States intervention==
[[File:Treaty of Tripoli PD LC.jpg|thumb|Treaty of Tripoli, Libya was one of the first nation to recognize the US in 1796.]]
===Frozen assets===
President Obama moved swiftly to support French plans to frustrate Gaddafi’s proposal for an African Union with his unilateral declaration of a national emergency in order to freeze all of the Bank of Libya’s $30 billion of funds to which America had access. This was reported in the U.S. press as a freeze of the funds of "Colonel Qaddafi, his children and family, and senior members of the Libyan government.<ref>''New York Times'', February 27, 2011.</ref> The second section of Obama’s decree explicitly targeted "All property and interests… of the Government of Libya, its agencies, instrumentalities, and controlled entities, and the Central Bank of Libya.<ref>Executive Order of February 25, 2011, citing International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, seizes all Libyan Govt assets, February 25, 2011, link. The authority granted to the President by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act "may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose" (50 U.S.C. 1701).</ref> The consequences of the $30-billion freeze for [[Africa]], as well as for Libya, have been spelled out by an African observer:
{{Cquote|The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.}}

===War Powers Act===

Under the [[War Powers Act]] of 1973 the U.S President has limited authority to use military force without Congressional authorization when there is an imminent [[national security]] threat, however President Obama made clear that he ordered the use of force for other reasons. Members of Congress of both parties have expressed concern the President may have violated the law in doing so.<ref>http://rooney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3190:rooney-resolution-president-should-obtain-congressional-authorization-or-end-military-campaign-in-libya-&catid=48:2011-press-releases</ref> The War Powers Act specifically states that the President’s power to introduce forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities can only be exercised pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. The War Powers Act requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific Congressional authorization. None of these prerequisites have been met.

On March 21, 2011, President Obama publicly announced U.S. military forces commenced no fly-zone operations in Libya two days earlier, on March 19, "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe" and cited UN Resolutions as giving him the authority to do so. Secretary of Defense [[Robert Gates]] warned establishment of a no-fly zone meant attacking Libaya.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20038391-503544.html</ref> Officials as National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough also opposed to attacking Libya; but "[[Hillary Clinton]] won the bureaucratic battle to use DOD resources to achieve what's essentially the State Department's objective... and Obama let it happen". <ref>[http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/18/how_obama_turned_on_a_dime_toward_war How Obama turned on a dime toward war.] </ref> The Charter of the [[United Nations]], in Article 2(4), prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of a member state, and many observers have wondered whether the establishment of a no-fly zone would constitute a violation of this prohibition. The Congressional Research Services advised that a no-fly zone imposed against a state that has not carried out an attack on its neighbors may consider the imposition of a no-fly zone an “armed attack.” CRS warned that even if no-fly zone operations in a given state do not constitute an “armed attack",
{{Cquote|that state, and other members of the international community, might consider them a violation of the prohibition of the “threat or use of force,” as well as of the customary duty of non-intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states.}}

NATO's Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee days before President Obama publicly admitted to intervention that U.S. intelligence knew of [[al Qaeda]] and [[Hezbollah]] elements among the Libyan insurgents.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8414583/Libya-al-Qaeda-among-Libya-rebels-Nato-chief-fears.html</ref> A document published by the U.S. [[West Point]] Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center reveals that Libya sent more fighters to the [[Operation_Iraqi_Freedom#InsurgencyIraq|Islamic insurgency]] than any other [[Muslim]] country (from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah.).<ref>[http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf The Sinjar documents], a collection of al Qaeda computer data captured by Americans in 2007 in a predawn raid near Sinjar, Iraq, six miles from the Syrian border. The documents included background information on around 750 foreign fighters, who migrated to Iraq to kill American soldiers, many of those fighters coming from among the very people we are now pledging to protect. David Wood wrote: "Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah. On a per capita basis, that’s more than twice as many than came from any other Arabic-speaking country, amounting to what the counter terrorism center called a Libyan “surge” of young men eager to kill Americans."</ref> This set off a fierce debate in the [[Obama administration]] over the wisdom of arming terrorists.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss</ref> It is now known however, that sometime prior to March 31, 2011,<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=2&hp</ref> President Obama signed a secret Presidential Finding authorizing support for the insurgents.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref> Direct arms support would violate the arms embargo imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1970 on February 26, 2011.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref>

Public opinion initially was divided on support for President Obama's actions, within 30 days however, opposition rose 15%<ref>http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/americans-rapidly-turn-against-obama-over-handling-of-libyan-intervention.php</ref> as the reality of the intervention set in.

===Legality of U.S. military actions===
The ''[[Washington Post]]'' reported on May 20, 2011 President Obama missed the legal deadline set in the 1973 law that required him to obtain Congressional approval for U.S. military operations in Libya. Under the [[Nixon]]-era War Powers Resolution, the president must obtain Congressional authorization of military action within 60 days, or else begin withdrawing forces.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-likely-to-miss-deadline-for-congressional-approval-of-libya-operations/2011/05/19/AFFLKn7G_story.html</ref> Sen. [[Richard Lugar]] of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations warned President Obama,
[[File:NATO strike Libya.jpg|right|220px|NATO strike, Libya.]]
{{Cquote|U.S. military operations in Libya have assumed a different character than you suggested when you announced the decision to initiate them. In your March 21 letter to the Congress, you indicated that these operations would be limited in their nature, duration, and scope, and focused on protecting civilians and civilian populated areas from attack. Two months into these operations, your Administration is unable to specify what limits will apply to the duration of the operations, and the coalition in which we are participating appears to have expanded its objectives to weakening the Gaddafi regime’s hold on power through strikes on leadership targets and, potentially, infrastructure targets.<ref>http://lugar.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=332967&</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-obama-above-the-law/2011/05/26/AGL5zyCH_story.html</ref>}}

The evidence is President Obama’s war in Libya is illegal and unconstitutional. Columnist George Will laid out the case in, “Is Obama Above the Law?” The war is a violation of the War Powers Act, which says the president can go to war without Congressional approval only if there is an imminent threat to the U.S. and there is a 60-day deadline for the withdrawal of forces. [http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2467]

The law states that “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States , its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Since there was no declaration of war or statutory authorization for the Libya action, there has to be a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S. There was none in the Libya case.<ref>http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2458 Conservative Truth.</ref> A [[bipartisan]] group of legislators have begun action against what they percieve to be President Obama's unconstitutional misuse of power.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/house/166577-kucinich-jones-sue-white-house-over-libya-war</ref>

=== 10 Reasons to Oppose the War in Libya ===

According to Rep. [[Dennis Kucinich]]:

* '''It is unconstitutional''', violating Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which gives the power of declaring war to the Congress.
* '''It is illegal''', as the War Powers Resolution was exploited out of context in order to declare war.
* '''American public opinion is against it''', as 6 Americans out of 10 oppose the war.
* It '''distracts''' the President from more immediate concerns, such as the dire state of the economy.
* It '''costs''' funds that should be used for other purposes.
* Although the war was declared by Britain and France, '''America is paying more than other NATO allies'''.
* '''Civilians are being killed''' by the same powers that are supposed to protect them.
* '''The U.N. Resolution that authorized limited military action did not allow for regime change'''
* '''Public support of the war is eroding even in other allied countries.'''
* '''The situation is a stalemate''' that ought to be solved by political, not military means.

See more at: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/10-reasons-to-oppose-the_b_881554.html 10 Reasons to Oppose the War in Libya.]

=== Opposition of [[Ron Paul]] ===

<blockquote>
Why did the US intervene in a civil war in a country that has neither attacked us nor poses a threat? We are told this was another humanitarian intervention, like Clinton’s 1999 war against [[Serbia]]. But as civilian victims of the US-led coalition bombing continue to add up, it is getting difficult to determine whether the problem we are creating on the ground is worse than the one we were trying to solve. [http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-03-28/ron-paul-end-the-libyan-war/]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, explained in a recent article that there is plausible reason to believe the rebels are current or former Islamist mujahedin, eager to engage in jihad. Indeed, Gaddafi has fought against Libyan Islamists for years and is seen by them as a bitter enemy. Astoundingly, it may well be that we are assisting al Qaeda in this new war! [[Ibidem]]
</blockquote>

==Role of China==
In the first decade of the Twenty-first century China quietly has overtaken the United States to become Africa's largest trading partner, particularly in oil, which accounts for 73 percent of all African exports. According to the Chinese government's first white paper on its economic and trade cooperation with Africa, China's trade with Africa has soared to $114.81 billion in the first 11 months of 2010. China uses about 8 million barrels per day (bpd), a demand that is projected to rise to 11.3 million bpd by 2015 and now receives 28 percent of its oil imports from Africa. China's top oil suppliers are [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Iran]], [[Angola]], Russia, [[Oman]] and [[Sudan]]. Saudi Arabia is China's top oil supplier (1.1 million bpd.) China is also buying oil from [[Chad]], [[Gabon]] and [[Nigeria]] as well. China's top African oil suppliers are [[Angola]], [[Sudan]] and [[Nigeria]]. The [[International Monetary Fund]] reports, oil now accounts for 99 percent of Sudanese exports, with China absorbing for 65 percent of them. Energy is Angola's sole export hard currency earner, with China now accounting for 35 percent of Angolan exports.<ref>http://mammutcapital.blogspot.com/2011/06/upcoming-us-china-struggle-for-african.html</ref>

===Competition for resources===
After hostilities began China evacuated over 36,000 of its energy and construction workers and shut down operations of Chinese companies with over $18.8 billion of Chinese investments in Libya.<ref>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/1119924/1/.html</ref> China alone is expected to invest on a scale of $50 billion a year in Libaya and Africa by 2015, a figure - funded by America’s [[trade deficit]] with China - which the Western powers and NATO cannot match.<ref>Leslie Hook, ''China’s future in Africa, after Libya,'' March 4, 2011. The U.S trade deficit with China in 2010 was $273 billion.</ref> China, Libya's largest Asian oil customer, called for an immediate ceasefire.

Dr. [[Paul Craig Roberts]], former Assistant Secretary of US Treasury in the [[Reagan administration]] observed the joint French, British, and US coalition's objective is
{{Cquote|to eliminate China from the [[Mediterranean]]. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source. The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that's the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.}}
Roberts observes
{{Cquote| the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or [[Yemen]] or [[Bahrain]] or [[Tunisia]] and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion...these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is - they did not originate in the capital city. And we have heard from the beginning credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests, and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/26/111109/new-rebel-leader-spent-much-of.html</ref> to head up the Libyan rebellion... China has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya.<ref>http://www.presstv.ir/detail/175076.html</ref>}}

Whatever Washington’s ulterior motives, there is no doubt that NATO’s military operations in Libya are harming China’s fiscal interests. According to information from China’s Ministry of Trade, by March, when the military operation began, there were 75 major Chinese companies operating in Libya, and they had concluded $18 billion in contracts. Because of the NATO operations in Libya, the Chinese companies are expecting gigantic losses. <ref> [http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ Washington Using NATO For Proxy Conflict With China In Libya.] </ref>

==Mission creep==
UN Security Council Resolution 1973, passed in March 2011, does not authorise participating members to support the anti-Gaddafi forces, to defend armed groups, or to oust Gaddafi. Nor does it authorise a ground invasion or military occupation. Strategic analyst Anthony Cordesman notes the similarities between Libya and Iraq and the loose uncoordinated coalitions "failure to plan for the decisive and lasting use of force, failure to plan for the civil side of military operations and to support stability operations, and focus on short term goals without a realistic plan for a successful strategic and post-conflict outcome." Cordesman notes,
{{Cquote|the lives and futures of some 6.6 million Libyans are at stake. The Franco-Anglo-American gamble now seems far too likely to fail at their expense. Moreover, it seems likely to drag the other nations that support the operation into their failure -- along with part of the reputation of NATO and credibility of the UN.... gambling on Qaddafi caving in has created a far more serious humanitarian crisis for the Libyan people than would ever have occurred if the Coalition had acted decisively from the start ...The humanitarian cost of humanitarian restraint is all too clear: Hundreds of Libyan and foreign workers have been killed...hundreds of thousands lack jobs, security, and safe conditions of life....an enduring war of attrition will turn a minor humanitarian crisis into a major one ...This kind of operation cannot be “surgical’ – if “surgical” now means minimizing bloodshed regardless of whether the patient dies. Hard, and sometimes brutal, choices need to be made between limited civilian casualties and collateral damage during the decisive use of force and an open-ended war of attrition that will produce far higher cumulative civilian casualties and collateral damage.<ref>http://csis.org/publication/libya-will-farce-stay-us-and-france-and-britain</ref>}}
Cordesman notes mission creep and boots on the ground ultimately lead to [[nation building]]:
{{Cquote|France, Britain, and the US now have a special obligation to both finish what they started in military terms, and deal with the aftermath. A post-conflict Libya will need extensive help in building a workable political system, in rebuilding the capability to govern, in both rebuilding the existing economy and correcting for decades of Qaddafi’s reckless and constantly shifting eccentricities.}}
On April 19, 2011, one month after Sarkozy, Cameron, and Obama asked the UN Security Council for authorization for a limited use of force, the UK ''[[Guardian (UK)|Guardian]]'' reported,
{{Cquote|Britain is now publicly doing what it expressly said it would not do when the no-fly intervention began: putting boots on the ground in Libya. France is taking similar action. Given that the rebel forces have convincingly demonstrated their inability to win on their own, given the sizable negatives for David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy of an open-ended, inconclusive conflict, and given Barack Obama's flat refusal to do any more, the question now is: how many more British and French boots will follow, sooner or later, in the advisers' fateful footsteps?....By encouraging and assisting rebel resistance, as [[George H. W. Bush|George Bush Snr]] did with the [[Shia]]s of southern [[Iraq]] in 1991, Britain and France risk worsening the plight of the Libyan civilians they are primarily pledged to defend. The UN and concerned aid agencies all agree the humanitarian situation is growing steadily worse, the longer the conflict continues. ..<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref>}}

<blockquote>
Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, in particular, has been scathing about Western intervention in Libya, comparing the Resolution 1973 to “a medieval call to the crusades” and saying “the so-called civilized community, with all its might, pounces on a small country, and ruins infrastructure that has been built over generations.” Mr. Putin returned to the subject of Libya repeatedly, despite acknowledging that foreign policy decisions were not within his portfolio as prime minister. [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/world/europe/28russia.html?hp]
</blockquote>

===Manufacturing Consent===

"On how the western media makes the case for war. Our consent has been manufactured by the criminalization of Gaddafi and his government, and the Libyan people cannot believe it when I tell them what is said about him in the west. And if only you could see how they live, they are far more free than us in England in many ways, this does not fit in with the oppressive image of Gaddafi portrayed in the west.

So for example, I have had Libyans coming up to me asking me about a report in the popular French newspaper Le Figaro that came out about 3 days ago saying 10,000 people have been killed in Tripoli over the past 3 months by government forces. They are astonished, because this is complete and utter lies. " [https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend.]

==External links==
[[File:Tripoli NATO bombing Libya.jpg|thumb|Tripoli, NATO bombing.]]
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels.] ''The Independent'', UK.
*[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2055251,00.html Why Libya's Uprising Is Bad for the World Economy.]
*[http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions False pretense for war in Libya?]
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-nato-civil-war-cameron These humanitarians come to Libya with missiles, and an agenda.] by [[Simon Jenkins]].
*[http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=24188 The West's War Against Gaddafi. Yet another long-lasting, tragic crime against humanity.]
*[http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama%E2%80%99s-war-in-libya-is-illegal-and-unconstitutional/ Obama’s War in Libya is Illegal and Unconstitutional.] by Cliff Kincaid.
*[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/30/us-libya-school-idUSTRE73T24620110430 Libya disabled children school hit in NATO strike.] Reuters.
*[http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/06/08/natos-alternate-universe-in-libya.html NATO's "Alternate Universe" in Libya.]
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reese-schonfeld/are-the-lessons-of-kosovo_b_868281.html Are The Lessons of Kosovo Spreading to Libya?]
*[http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/06/22/le-patron-de-la-ligue-arabe-fait-part-de-scrupules-sur-la-libye_1539111_1496980.html#ens_id=1481986 The head of the Arab League expressed "qualms" about Libya.] In French.

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Libya]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:War]]

Talk:Stephen Hawking

2011-07-04T18:05:43Z

LeonardO: /* Value judgements */

==Divorce==

How would divorce influence his "promotion of his pseudoscience fantasies"? There's no causality, and unless the claim can be cited beyond simply stating that, "It's unknown," it doesn't belong on an educational website. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 16:51, 8 October 2010 (EDT)
:Good point... added references and removed the "it is unknown" bit. [[User:AndrewWi|AndrewWi]] 19:56, 1 November 2010 (EDT)
::I still don't think it's relevant because atheists and those who promote pseudoscience aren't the only ones who get divorced. How can we explain why John McCain has been divorced once, Newt Gingrich twice and Rush Limbaugh three times? The bottom line is, divorce is an ill that plagues society, and not one group is devoid of it. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 20:15, 1 November 2010 (EDT)

== Hawking's "unfortunate belief" ==

Why is it unfortunate that Hawking has "yet to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior"? Surely this a subjective statement, very much so opposed to the supposed "objectiveness" of Conservapedia. Some may find it fortunate that Hawking thinks this way. I see no reason why the personal opinion of the writer should be included in the article. I suggest this be removed immediately, if Conservapedia's supposed good name be kept. by all means, mention that Hawking does not accept Jesus Christ as his saviour, but no commennt should be made on the matter in such a way as has been done already in this article.

==Value judgements==
Do words like ''unfortunately'' and ''foolish'' really belong here? I understand that this encyclopedia is written from a Christian, Conservative, Young Earth Creationist point of view and I respect that, but there are subtler and gentler ways of promoting these beliefs. There is no need to open walnuts with a sledgehammer, when a nutcracker will do. Personally, I'd remove at least these two words. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 13:48, 4 July 2011 (EDT)
:If you please, employ the nutcracker! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:56, 4 July 2011 (EDT)
::What I would write is ''Stephen Hawking is an Atheist, and has made the comment that there is no place for a creator, claiming that all of the universe is self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself.''
::Saying that he is an Atheist already contains in himself the fact that he "has yet to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior", as every user here will be familiar with what Atheism is. Words like ''unfortunately'' and ''foolish'' should, in my opinion, be removed. 
::Last but not least, I'd change "God's Creation" to "Universe", but, I admit, this is just being pedantic: Hawkins is an Atheist, so he can have made no claims about "God's Creation", but he is likely to have called it "Universe". But I guess that "God's Creation" would be fine. 
::I am not trying to impose my point of view, anyway, and mine are just suggestions. If you find them not suitable for your website, feel free to reject them. 
::Sincerely, 
[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 14:05, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Stephen Hawking

2011-07-04T18:05:23Z

LeonardO: /* Value judgements */

==Divorce==

How would divorce influence his "promotion of his pseudoscience fantasies"? There's no causality, and unless the claim can be cited beyond simply stating that, "It's unknown," it doesn't belong on an educational website. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 16:51, 8 October 2010 (EDT)
:Good point... added references and removed the "it is unknown" bit. [[User:AndrewWi|AndrewWi]] 19:56, 1 November 2010 (EDT)
::I still don't think it's relevant because atheists and those who promote pseudoscience aren't the only ones who get divorced. How can we explain why John McCain has been divorced once, Newt Gingrich twice and Rush Limbaugh three times? The bottom line is, divorce is an ill that plagues society, and not one group is devoid of it. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 20:15, 1 November 2010 (EDT)

== Hawking's "unfortunate belief" ==

Why is it unfortunate that Hawking has "yet to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior"? Surely this a subjective statement, very much so opposed to the supposed "objectiveness" of Conservapedia. Some may find it fortunate that Hawking thinks this way. I see no reason why the personal opinion of the writer should be included in the article. I suggest this be removed immediately, if Conservapedia's supposed good name be kept. by all means, mention that Hawking does not accept Jesus Christ as his saviour, but no commennt should be made on the matter in such a way as has been done already in this article.

==Value judgements==
Do words like ''unfortunately'' and ''foolish'' really belong here? I understand that this encyclopedia is written from a Christian, Conservative, Young Earth Creationist point of view and I respect that, but there are subtler and gentler ways of promoting these beliefs. There is no need to open walnuts with a sledgehammer, when a nutcracker will do. Personally, I'd remove at least these two words. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 13:48, 4 July 2011 (EDT)
:If you please, employ the nutcracker! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:56, 4 July 2011 (EDT)
::What I would write is ''Stephen Hawking is an Atheist, and has made the comment that there is no place for a creator, claiming that all of the universe is self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself.''
::Saying that he is an Atheist already contains in himself the fact that he "has yet to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior", as every user here will be familiar with what Atheism is. Words like ''unfortunately'' and ''foolish'' should, in my opinion, be removed. 
::Last but not least, I'd change "God's Creation" to "Universe", but, I admit, this is just being pedantic: Hawkins is an Atheist, so he can have made no claims about "God's Creation", but he is likely to have called it "Universe". But I guess that "God's Creation" would be fine. 
::I am not trying to impose my point of view, anyway, and mine are just suggestions. If you find them not suitable for your website, feel free to reject them. 
::Sincerely, 
--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 14:05, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Stephen Hawking

2011-07-04T18:05:04Z

LeonardO: /* Value judgements */

==Divorce==

How would divorce influence his "promotion of his pseudoscience fantasies"? There's no causality, and unless the claim can be cited beyond simply stating that, "It's unknown," it doesn't belong on an educational website. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 16:51, 8 October 2010 (EDT)
:Good point... added references and removed the "it is unknown" bit. [[User:AndrewWi|AndrewWi]] 19:56, 1 November 2010 (EDT)
::I still don't think it's relevant because atheists and those who promote pseudoscience aren't the only ones who get divorced. How can we explain why John McCain has been divorced once, Newt Gingrich twice and Rush Limbaugh three times? The bottom line is, divorce is an ill that plagues society, and not one group is devoid of it. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 20:15, 1 November 2010 (EDT)

== Hawking's "unfortunate belief" ==

Why is it unfortunate that Hawking has "yet to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior"? Surely this a subjective statement, very much so opposed to the supposed "objectiveness" of Conservapedia. Some may find it fortunate that Hawking thinks this way. I see no reason why the personal opinion of the writer should be included in the article. I suggest this be removed immediately, if Conservapedia's supposed good name be kept. by all means, mention that Hawking does not accept Jesus Christ as his saviour, but no commennt should be made on the matter in such a way as has been done already in this article.

==Value judgements==
Do words like ''unfortunately'' and ''foolish'' really belong here? I understand that this encyclopedia is written from a Christian, Conservative, Young Earth Creationist point of view and I respect that, but there are subtler and gentler ways of promoting these beliefs. There is no need to open walnuts with a sledgehammer, when a nutcracker will do. Personally, I'd remove at least these two words. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 13:48, 4 July 2011 (EDT)
:If you please, employ the nutcracker! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:56, 4 July 2011 (EDT)
::What I would write is ''Stephen Hawking is an Atheist, and has made the comment that there is no place for a creator, claiming that all of the universe is self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself.''
::Saying that he is an Atheist already contains in himself the fact that he "has yet to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior", as every user here will be familiar with what Atheism is. Words like ''unfortunately'' and ''foolish'' should, in my opinion, be removed. 
Last but not least, I'd change "God's Creation" to "Universe", but, I admit, this is just being pedantic: Hawkins is an Atheist, so he can have made no claims about "God's Creation", but he is likely to have called it "Universe". But I guess that "God's Creation" would be fine. 
::I am not trying to impose my point of view, anyway, and mine are just suggestions. If you find them not suitable for your website, feel free to reject them. 
::Sincerely, 
--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 14:05, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Stephen Hawking

2011-07-04T17:48:02Z

LeonardO:

Age of the Earth

2011-07-04T17:44:26Z

LeonardO: Broke one very long sentence in two.

''See also [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].''

The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. This subject still causes debate today, particularly between [[young Earth Creationism| young-Earth scientists]], who see much evidence that the Earth is only about 6,000 or so years old, and [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth creationists]] and [[Atheism|atheistic scientists]], who argue that Earth is 4.5 billion years old.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> There is much scientific evidence [[young earth creationism|which points to a young age of the earth and the universe]]. For example, in 2009, the biblical creation organization [[Creation Ministries International]] published an article entitled ''[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe]''.

== Historical views ==
[[Image:Landscape.jpg|right|300px]]
For most of recorded history, humans of many backgrounds viewed the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years.<ref>Burnet, p. 258.</ref>

Similarly, people such as St. Barnabas and St. Irenæus held the Earth to be 6,000 years old.<ref>Burnet, p. 259.</ref>

In 1830, Dr. Hales published a list of 120 historical authorities from various cultures who had decided on a [[date of creation]]. These ranged from 6984 B.C. to 3616 B.C.<ref>Batten 2002 quotes from "Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible", 1879 8th Edition, 1939, which relates this, and reproduces the selection of the dates from Young.</ref>

Included in Hales' list is [[James Ussher]], who calculated the famous date of 4004 B.C. for creation. Young-Earth creationists still consider this date to be close to the actual date.

In 1778 George-Louis Lecrerc, Count of Buffon, proposed that the Earth was about 74,832 years old.<ref name="ingv">INGV</ref>
[[James Hutton]], whilst not proposing a date, dismissed the Biblical account and claimed in 1785 that there was not evidence of a beginning at all.<ref name="ingv" />
[[Charles Lyell]] supported Hutton's idea in 1830, in ''Principles of Geology''.<ref name="ingv" />

In 1854 [[Hermann von Helmholtz]] estimated an age of between 20 and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" />
Around the same time [[Lord Kelvin]] put his mind to deriving an age, and came up with a range between 20 million years and 400 million years. He later refined that down to between 20 million and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" /> More recent discoveries of radioactivity and mantle convection explain why the assumptions Helmholtz and Kelvin made resulted in dates that are much lower than current uniformitarian estimates.

The 1911 edition of the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] discussed dates up to 500 million years.<ref>Encyclopædia Britannica, pp 650-651.</ref>

By about 1930, J. H. Jeans was arguing for an age of the Earth of around two billion years.<ref>Universal History of the World, p.76.</ref>

Using circular logic -- assuming that decay rates somehow remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin -- [[atheists]] insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years based on an implausible assumption of constancy in [[Potassium-argon dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>

== Geology ==

[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF). <ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref>
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging". <ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>

Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[old-earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* Burnet, Thomas, [http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/ste/ste36.htm The Sacred Theory of the Earth, chapter V], 1691.
* Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition (1911). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling On-line page facsimiles].
* Hammerton, J.A. (Ed.), "Universal History of the World" (8 volumes) The Educational Book Co., London, c1930.
* Batten, Don, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/417 Old-earth or young-earth belief: Which belief is the recent aberration?], ''Creation'' 24(1):24–27, December 2001.
* [http://www.ingv.it/~roma/SITOINGLESE/activities/geomagnetismo/analysistheory/historicalresearch/age.html The age of the Earth] (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV)).
*Peck WH, Valley JW, Wilde SA, and Graham CM (2000) Ion microprobe Evidence for Pre-4.4 Ga Continental Crust and Low Temperature Water/Rock Interaction. ''Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr'', vol 32, no. 7.

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the Earth and Universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]

== Notes ==
<references />
[[Category:Geology]]

Age of the Earth

2011-07-04T17:42:19Z

LeonardO:

''See also [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].''

The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia, and still causes debate today, particularly between [[young Earth Creationism| young-Earth scientists]], who see much evidence that the Earth is only about 6,000 or so years old, and [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth creationists]] and [[Atheism|atheistic scientists]], who argue that Earth is 4.5 billion years old.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> There is much scientific evidence [[young earth creationism|which points to a young age of the earth and the universe]]. For example, in 2009, the biblical creation organization [[Creation Ministries International]] published an article entitled ''[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe]''.

== Historical views ==
[[Image:Landscape.jpg|right|300px]]
For most of recorded history, humans of many backgrounds viewed the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years.<ref>Burnet, p. 258.</ref>

Similarly, people such as St. Barnabas and St. Irenæus held the Earth to be 6,000 years old.<ref>Burnet, p. 259.</ref>

In 1830, Dr. Hales published a list of 120 historical authorities from various cultures who had decided on a [[date of creation]]. These ranged from 6984 B.C. to 3616 B.C.<ref>Batten 2002 quotes from "Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible", 1879 8th Edition, 1939, which relates this, and reproduces the selection of the dates from Young.</ref>

Included in Hales' list is [[James Ussher]], who calculated the famous date of 4004 B.C. for creation. Young-Earth creationists still consider this date to be close to the actual date.

In 1778 George-Louis Lecrerc, Count of Buffon, proposed that the Earth was about 74,832 years old.<ref name="ingv">INGV</ref>
[[James Hutton]], whilst not proposing a date, dismissed the Biblical account and claimed in 1785 that there was not evidence of a beginning at all.<ref name="ingv" />
[[Charles Lyell]] supported Hutton's idea in 1830, in ''Principles of Geology''.<ref name="ingv" />

In 1854 [[Hermann von Helmholtz]] estimated an age of between 20 and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" />
Around the same time [[Lord Kelvin]] put his mind to deriving an age, and came up with a range between 20 million years and 400 million years. He later refined that down to between 20 million and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" /> More recent discoveries of radioactivity and mantle convection explain why the assumptions Helmholtz and Kelvin made resulted in dates that are much lower than current uniformitarian estimates.

The 1911 edition of the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] discussed dates up to 500 million years.<ref>Encyclopædia Britannica, pp 650-651.</ref>

By about 1930, J. H. Jeans was arguing for an age of the Earth of around two billion years.<ref>Universal History of the World, p.76.</ref>

Using circular logic -- assuming that decay rates somehow remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin -- [[atheists]] insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years based on an implausible assumption of constancy in [[Potassium-argon dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>

== Geology ==

[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF). <ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref>
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging". <ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>

Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[old-earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* Burnet, Thomas, [http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/ste/ste36.htm The Sacred Theory of the Earth, chapter V], 1691.
* Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition (1911). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling On-line page facsimiles].
* Hammerton, J.A. (Ed.), "Universal History of the World" (8 volumes) The Educational Book Co., London, c1930.
* Batten, Don, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/417 Old-earth or young-earth belief: Which belief is the recent aberration?], ''Creation'' 24(1):24–27, December 2001.
* [http://www.ingv.it/~roma/SITOINGLESE/activities/geomagnetismo/analysistheory/historicalresearch/age.html The age of the Earth] (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV)).
*Peck WH, Valley JW, Wilde SA, and Graham CM (2000) Ion microprobe Evidence for Pre-4.4 Ga Continental Crust and Low Temperature Water/Rock Interaction. ''Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr'', vol 32, no. 7.

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the Earth and Universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]

== Notes ==
<references />
[[Category:Geology]]

Age of the Earth

2011-07-04T17:41:59Z

LeonardO: Removed negative value judgement words such as 'insist' or 'somehow', while respecting the website's Young Earth Creationism support.

''See also [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].''

The '''Age of the Earth''' has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia, and still causes debate today, particularly between [[young Earth Creationism| young-Earth scientists]], who see much evidence that the Earth is only about 6,000 or so years old, and [[Old Earth Creationism|Old Earth creationists]], and [[Atheism|atheistic scientists]], who argue that Earth is 4.5 billion years old.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml</ref> There is much scientific evidence [[young earth creationism|which points to a young age of the earth and the universe]]. For example, in 2009, the biblical creation organization [[Creation Ministries International]] published an article entitled ''[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe]''.

== Historical views ==
[[Image:Landscape.jpg|right|300px]]
For most of recorded history, humans of many backgrounds viewed the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years.<ref>Burnet, p. 258.</ref>

Similarly, people such as St. Barnabas and St. Irenæus held the Earth to be 6,000 years old.<ref>Burnet, p. 259.</ref>

In 1830, Dr. Hales published a list of 120 historical authorities from various cultures who had decided on a [[date of creation]]. These ranged from 6984 B.C. to 3616 B.C.<ref>Batten 2002 quotes from "Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible", 1879 8th Edition, 1939, which relates this, and reproduces the selection of the dates from Young.</ref>

Included in Hales' list is [[James Ussher]], who calculated the famous date of 4004 B.C. for creation. Young-Earth creationists still consider this date to be close to the actual date.

In 1778 George-Louis Lecrerc, Count of Buffon, proposed that the Earth was about 74,832 years old.<ref name="ingv">INGV</ref>
[[James Hutton]], whilst not proposing a date, dismissed the Biblical account and claimed in 1785 that there was not evidence of a beginning at all.<ref name="ingv" />
[[Charles Lyell]] supported Hutton's idea in 1830, in ''Principles of Geology''.<ref name="ingv" />

In 1854 [[Hermann von Helmholtz]] estimated an age of between 20 and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" />
Around the same time [[Lord Kelvin]] put his mind to deriving an age, and came up with a range between 20 million years and 400 million years. He later refined that down to between 20 million and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" /> More recent discoveries of radioactivity and mantle convection explain why the assumptions Helmholtz and Kelvin made resulted in dates that are much lower than current uniformitarian estimates.

The 1911 edition of the [[Encyclopedia Britannica]] discussed dates up to 500 million years.<ref>Encyclopædia Britannica, pp 650-651.</ref>

By about 1930, J. H. Jeans was arguing for an age of the Earth of around two billion years.<ref>Universal History of the World, p.76.</ref>

Using circular logic -- assuming that decay rates somehow remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin -- [[atheists]] insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years based on an implausible assumption of constancy in [[Potassium-argon dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>

== Geology ==

[[Image:516XZRGNCKL AA240 .jpg|right|300px]]
[[William R. Corliss]] is a cataloger of scientific [[Anomaly|anomalies]] (observations and facts that challenge prevailing scientific [[paradigm]]s) and has published many works on the subject.<ref name="sf">[http://www.science-frontiers.com/ Science Frontiers] (Corliss' web-site)</ref>
He also wrote 13 books for the [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration]] (NASA), a dozen educational booklets for the [[Atomic Energy Commission]] (AEC), and a dozen articles for the [[National Science Foundation]] (NSF). <ref>Corliss, 2002</ref> The science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on the career of William Corliss.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref>
''New Scientist'' wrote regarding Corliss's work: "All I can say to Corliss is carry on cataloging". <ref>Quoted on the [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm Science Frontiers web-site]</ref> [[Arthur C. Clarke]] described Corliss as "[[Charles Fort|Fort]]'s latter-day - and much more scientific - successor."<ref>Clarke, Arthur C. (1990) ''Astounding Days: A Science Fictional Autobiography''. Gollancz. Page 110</ref>

Corliss's work on geological anomalies catalogs scores of anomalies which challenge the [[old-earth]] [[paradigm]].<ref>[http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm#Geology Geological Catalogs] (Science Frontiers)</ref>

== Bibliography ==
* Burnet, Thomas, [http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/ste/ste36.htm The Sacred Theory of the Earth, chapter V], 1691.
* Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition (1911). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Tim_Starling On-line page facsimiles].
* Hammerton, J.A. (Ed.), "Universal History of the World" (8 volumes) The Educational Book Co., London, c1930.
* Batten, Don, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/417 Old-earth or young-earth belief: Which belief is the recent aberration?], ''Creation'' 24(1):24–27, December 2001.
* [http://www.ingv.it/~roma/SITOINGLESE/activities/geomagnetismo/analysistheory/historicalresearch/age.html The age of the Earth] (Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV)).
*Peck WH, Valley JW, Wilde SA, and Graham CM (2000) Ion microprobe Evidence for Pre-4.4 Ga Continental Crust and Low Temperature Water/Rock Interaction. ''Geol. Soc. Am. Abstr'', vol 32, no. 7.

== External Links ==
*[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth] by [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-8-how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?] - ''Refuting evolution'' - Chapter 8 by Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] at [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://creation.com/young-age-of-the-earth-universe-qa Age of the Earth and Universe] by [[Creation Ministries International]]

== Notes ==
<references />
[[Category:Geology]]

Breeding

2011-07-04T17:00:47Z

LeonardO:

'''Breeding''' is the selective mating of animals and plants to produce offspring with desirable qualities. It can also refer to the behavior of [[animal]]s in the reproductive season.

==See also==
[[Artificial selection]]

[[category:agriculture]]

Breeding

2011-07-04T16:59:38Z

LeonardO: Undo revision 885886 by ManhoIeBreeder (talk)

'''Breeding''' is the selective mating of animals to produce an offspring with desirable qualities. It can also refer to the behavior of [[animal]]s in the reproductive season.
[[category:agriculture]]

Talk:Abraham died

2011-07-04T13:39:42Z

LeonardO: Created page with "==Necessity of this article== Does this article really need to exist in Conservapedia? It doesn't seem to deserve a whole article to itself and its body could easily be included..."

==Necessity of this article==

Does this article really need to exist in Conservapedia? It doesn't seem to deserve a whole article to itself and its body could easily be included in the body of another, bigger article. But if you believe that it does deserve its own page, you should at least think about renaming its title. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 09:39, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

Artificial selection

2011-07-02T15:29:03Z

LeonardO: Created page with "''Artificial selection'', also known as ''selective breeding'', is the intentional breeding by man of plants and animals for certain desirable traits. It is worth noting that wh..."

''Artificial selection'', also known as ''selective breeding'', is the intentional breeding by man of plants and animals for certain desirable traits.

It is worth noting that while many incorrectly consider [[Natural selection|natural]] and artificial selection to be synonymous with [[Evolution]], the two concepts are distinct, and most [[Creationism|Creationists]] accept natural and artificial selection as real observed processes.

Creation vs. evolution debate

2011-07-02T15:22:41Z

LeonardO: Suggested wording change - attention required

The '''Creation vs. Evolution debate''' is an ongoing dispute most prevalent in regions of the [[United States]].
It concerns the question of how man, as well as animals and plants, came to exist in their present form; whether they were created as they currently are by the [[intelligent design]] of a Creator, or they [[evolution|evolved]] though [[natural selection]] from primitive lifeforms. Believers in Evolutionism usually support other [[atheist]] theories concerning the origin of the [[universe]], [[Earth]], and [[life]].

The [[creation]] vs. [[evolution]] debate has a long history,<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=3-240}}</ref> and today is carried out in the [[mass media]], churches, and the [[Internet]]. A major focus of the debate concerns what should be taught as [[science]] in [[public schools]].<ref>{{hnb|Peters & Hewlett|2005|Ref=CITEREFPetersHewlett2005|p=1}}</ref>

== The debate ==

Although the debate ostensibly focuses on the origin of living things (i.e. did they evolve from other living things or were they separately created), the debate also encompasses related issues such as the origins of the universe, galaxies, stars, the solar system, Earth, the geologic record, and life itself.

In the United States, the teaching of [[biology|biological]] [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] in the public schools is a significant area of contention, while the teaching of alternatives such as [[creation science]] and [[intelligent design]] are other aspects of the dispute, although the leading creationist and Intelligent Design organisations oppose efforts to make creation or Intelligent Design a compulsory part of school curricula.<ref>{{hnb|See, for example, Sarfati|2008}}</ref>

In the first case, [[evolutionists]] argue that Creation Science and intelligent design should not be taught in the public schools because they are fundamentally [[religion|religious]] in nature and not science. Evolutionists claim they are thinly-disguised schemes to introduce religion to the classroom.

Creationists argue that evolution is anti-theist [[ideology]] dressed up as science,<ref>{{hnb|Hayward|1998|p=2}}</ref> and that religion, in the form of [[Secular Humanism]], is already in the classroom.

In the United States, various court decisions have concluded that religious views of creation cannot be taught in schools, and a recent court decision concluded that Intelligent Design proponents have a religious motive, and therefore barred the introduction of intelligent design into public science curricula.
However, the court failed to consider whether or not proponents of evolution have a religious motive.

Evolution does hold ground in the observations we can all make around us. One example of micro-evolution occuring everyday is the mutation of bacteria. Following the principle of Occam's razor, evolution is the most logical conclusion, as compared to a god or deity controlling every mutation occuring every day.

== History of the creation vs. evolution debate ==

=== Before Darwin ===

Even before evolution itself became a subject of widespread debate, the creationary view was already under attack from the new field of geology.
People such as [[James Hutton]] and [[Charles Lyell]] promoted a model of geology which was at odds with the biblical account.
These men proposed what has become known as "[[uniformitarianism]]", a view that the geological record can be explained in terms of what we see happening today.
By doing so, they ruled out the biblical account by fiat, as they rejected that geological formations could have been caused by catastrophic events such as [[Great Flood|Noah's flood]].

===Creation vs. evolution debate in the age of Darwin===
The creation-evolution controversy has a long history, beginning with challenges made by various [[Darwin]]ian promoters to [[Bible|biblical]] accounts of creation. In response to theories promulgated by outspoken proponents of these theories, such as "Darwin's Bulldog" [[Thomas Henry Huxley]], some religious persons and organizations questioned the legitimacy of scientific ideas that were being used to call into question the veracity of the creation account in [[Genesis]].

Darwin's 1859 book, ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection'', was a bombshell that revolutionized the way [[naturalist]]s viewed the world. The book was heavily promoted by [[atheist]]s and [[agnostic]]s and its promotion attracted attention and controversy, and many [[theologian]]s reacted to Darwin's theories. For example, in his 1874 work ''What is Darwinism?'' the theologian [[Charles Hodge]] argued that Darwin's theories were tantamount to [[atheism]].<ref>{{hnb|Hodge|1874|p=177}}</ref><ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14}}</ref>

The controversy was fueled by one of Darwin's most vigorous promoters, Thomas Henry Huxley, who opined that Christianity is "a compound of some of the best and some of the worst elements of [[Paganism]] and [[Judaism]], moulded in practice by the innate character of certain people of the Western World".<ref>{{hnb|Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish|1982|Ref=CITEREFBurnsRalphLernerStandish1982|p=965}}, {{hnb|Huxley|1902}}</ref> Perhaps the most uncompromising of the evolutionary philosophers was the [[Germany|German]], [[Ernst Heinrick Haeckel]], a [[professor]] of biology, who dogmatically affirmed that nothing spiritual exists.<ref>{{hnb|Burns, Ralph, Lerner, & Standish|1982|Ref=CITEREFBurnsRalphLernerStandish1982|p=965}}</ref>

A watershed in the [[Protestantism|Protestant]] objections to evolution occurred after about 1875.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=13}}</ref> Previously, citing [[Louis Agassiz]] and other scientific luminaries, Protestant contributors to religious quarterlies dismissed Darwin's theories as unscientific.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=13}}</ref> After 1875, it became clear that the majority of naturalists embraced evolution, and a sizable minority of these Protestant contributors rejected Darwin's theory because it called into question the veracity of [Scripture]]s.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=13}}</ref> Even so, virtually none of these dissenters insisted on a young Earth, as that position had already been ceded.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14}}</ref>

The greatest concern for creationists at the turn of the [[twentieth century]] was the issue of human ancestry.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=15}}</ref>

{{cquote|I do not wish to meddle with any man's family matters, or quarrel with any one about his relatives. If a man prefers to look for his kindred in the zoological gardens, it is no concern of mine; if he wants to believe that the founder of his family was an ape, a gorilla, a mud-turtle, or a moner, he may do so; but when he insists that I shall trace my lineage in that direction, I say ''No Sir!''...I prefer that my genealogical table shall end as it now does, with "Cainan, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=15}}, quoting H.L Hastings' tract in ''Was Moses Mistaken? or, Creation and Evolution'' (1896). See also Lk 3:37-38.</ref>}}

Creationists during this period were largely [[premillennialism|premillennialists]], whose belief in [[Christ]]'s return depended on a quasi-literal reading of the Bible.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14}}</ref> However, they were not as concerned about [[geology]], freely granting scientists [[Gap Theory|any time they needed]] before the [[Garden of Eden|Edenic]] creation to account for scientific observations, such as [[fossil]]s and geological findings.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=14-15}}</ref> In the immediate post-Darwinian era, few scientists or clerics rejected the antiquity of the earth, the progressive nature of the fossil record.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=17}}</ref> Likewise, few attached geological significance to the [[Great Flood|biblical flood]], unlike subsequent creationists.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=17}}</ref> Evolutionary skeptics, creationist leaders and skeptical scientists were usually either willing to adopt a figurative reading of the first chapter of Genesis, or allowed that the six days of creation were not necessarily 24-hour days.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=18}}, Noting that this applies to published or public skeptics. Many or most Christians may have held on to a literal six days of creation, but these views were rarely expressed in books and journals. Exceptions are also noted, such as literal interpretations published by Eleazar Lord (1788-1871) and David Nevins Lord (1792-1880). However, the observation that evolutionary critics had a relaxed interpretation of Genesis is supported by specifically enumerating: Louis Agassiz (1807-1873); Arnold Henry Guyot (1807-1884); John William Dawson (1820-1899); Enoch Fitch Burr (1818-1907); George D. Armstrong (1813-1899); Charles Hodge, theologian (1797-1878); James Dwight Dana (1813-1895); Edward Hitchcock, clergyman and respected Amherst College geologist, (1793-1864); Reverend Herbert W. Morris (1818-1897); H. L. Hastings (1833?-1899); Luther T. Townsend (1838-1922); Alexander Patterson, Presbyterian evangelist who published ''The Other Side of Evolution Its Effects and Fallacy''</ref>

=== Scopes trial ===

Initial reactions in the United States to Darwin's theory were largely not political. According to Darwin Biographer Mr. James Moore, Darwin's colleague [[Alfred Russel Wallace]] conducted a tour "trumpeting Darwin's cause in America" in 1886–1887.<ref>{{hnb|Tippett|2006}} Darwian biographer Mr. James Moore's characterization of Wallace's tour, as he was being interviewed by Krista Tippet on ''Speaking of Faith''.</ref> Wallace's explanations were generally accepted without many problems, but attitudes changed after the [[First World War]].<ref>{{hnb|Tippett|2006}}</ref> The controversy became political when public schools began using textbooks teaching that man evolved from monkeys, in what was believed to be accordance with Charles Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. In response, the State of [[Tennessee]] passed a law (the [[Butler Act]] of 1925) prohibiting the teaching of any theory of the origins of humans that contradicted the teachings of the Bible. This law was tested in the highly publicized [[Scopes trial]] of 1925. The law was upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court, and remained on the books until 1967 when it was repealed.

=== Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) textbooks ===

By the mid-twentieth century, most neo-Darwinists either repudiated or dismissed earlier [[Lamarck]]ian and theistic theories of evolution.<ref name=Larson253>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=253}}</ref> Neo-darwinists including [[paleontology|paleontologist]] [[George Simpson]] and Julian Huxley evangelized for Darwinism<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=250}}, describing the religious zeal of Simpson and Huxley.</ref> and urged that the public schools teach the "fact of evolution".<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=248,250}}</ref> Their desires were fulfilled in the 1960s, with the introduction of federally supported Biological Sciences Curriculum Study ([http://www.bscs.org/ BSCS]) biology text books that promoted evolution as an organizing principle.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=246,252}}</ref>

Meanwhile, [[public opinion poll]]s suggested that most Americans either believed that God specially created human beings or guided evolution.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=251}}</ref> Membership in [[church]]es favoring increasingly literal interpretations of Scripture continued to rise, with the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] and [[Lutheran]] Church–[[Missouri]] Synod outpacing all other denominations.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=251}}</ref> With growth, these churches became better equipped to carry a creationist message, with their own [[college]]s, [[school]]s, publishing houses, and broadcast [[media]].<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=252}}</ref>

With decreasing church membership among evolutionary scientists, the role of opposing the anti-BSCS textbook movement passed from prominent scientists in liberal churches to secular scientists less equipped to reach Christian audiences.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=252}}</ref> Anti-evolutionary forces were able to reduce the number of school districts utilizing BSCS biology text books, but courts continued to prevent religious instruction in public schools.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=252}}</ref>

=== Institute for Creation Research ===
[[Henry Morris]] and [[John C. Whitcomb]] Jr.'s influential ''[[The Genesis Flood (book)|The Genesis Flood]]'', which argued that creation was literally six days long, humans lived concurrently with [[dinosaur]]s, and that [[God]] created each kind of life, was published in 1961.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=255}},{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=xi,200-208}}</ref> With publication, Morris became a popular speaker, spreading anti-evolutionary ideas at [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] churches, colleges, and conferences.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=255}}</ref> Morris setup up the [[Creation Science Research Center]] (CSRC), an organization dominated by [[Baptist]]s, as an adjunct to the [[Christian Heritage College]].<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=284}}</ref> The CSRC rushed publication of biology text books that promoted creationism, and also published other books such as [[Kelly Segrave]]'s sensational ''Sons of God Return'' that dealt with UFOlogy, [[flood geology]], and demonology.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=284-285}}</ref> These efforts were against the recommendations of Morris, who urged a more cautious and scientific approach.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=284}}</ref> Ultimately, the CSRC broke up, and Morris founded the [[ICR|Institute for Creation Research]]. Morris promised that the ICR, unlike the CSRC, would be controlled and operated by scientists.<ref>{{hnb|Numbers|1992|p=286}}</ref> During this time, Morris and others who supported flood geology adopted the terms ''scientific creationism'' and ''creation science''.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=255-256}}</ref> The flood geologists effectively co-opted "the generic creationist label for their hyperliteralist views".<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=254-255}}, {{hnb|Numbers|1998|p=5-6}}</ref> Previously, ''Creationism'' was a generic term describing a philosophical perspective that presupposed the existence of God.<ref>{{hnb|Hayward|1998|p=11}}</ref>

==The current creation vs. evolution debate==

=== Smithsonian-Sternberg affair ===

The [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair]] occurred after [[Richard Sternberg]] managed the [[peer review]] process of a paper published by intelligent design researcher [[Stephen Meyer]]. Richard Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment at the [[Smithsonian Institution]] in retaliation.

=== Court cases ===
Major court cases in the creation-evolution controversy are disputes about what can be taught in the schools. After about 1968, they have prohibited attempts to teach creation science or intelligent design in American public schools on the basis of the principle of [[Bill of rights|Separation of Church and State]].

* 1925 '''Scopes Trial''': A staged trial in [[Tennessee]], engineered by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] and town promoters, challenging the Butler Act which prohibited the teaching of human evolution. The willing defendant was found guilty of "teaching" evolution, though he was a gym teacher. The conviction was later overturned on a technicality.<ref>{{hnb|Larson|2006}}, {{hnb|Coulter|2006}}</ref>
* 1968 '''Epperson v. Arkansas''': Ruled that a 1928 [[Arkansas]] law prohibiting teaching that man descended from animals in the public schools was unconstitutional.
* 1982 '''McLean v. Arkansas''': Ruled that the teaching of Creation-science violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
* 1987 '''Edwards v. Aguillard''': Ruled against Creation-science in [[Louisiana]].
* 2005 '''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District''': Ruled that [[intelligent design]] was religious in nature and therefore could not be taught in the public schools in Dover [[Pennsylvania]].

== Timeline of the creation vs evolution debate ==
* 1859 - Charles Darwin published ''[[The Origin of Species]]'' regarding the theory of evolution. The theory's most radical tenet, "[[natural selection]]," attempted to replace the generally accepted idea of [[baraminology|Created Kinds]].
* 1860 - Liberal theologians published ''Essays and Reviews'' supporting Darwin. A debate of Darwin's theory was arranged at the [[Oxford]] Museum, with "Darwin's bulldog" Thomas Huxley among its defenders and [[Samuel Wilberforce]], the Bishop of Oxford leading its critics.
* 1925 - The Scopes Trial tested the new Butler Act, which made it illegal to teach that man descended from animals in public schools. Scopes was found guilty and fined $100; prosecution lawyer [[William Jennings Bryan]] offered to pay it, but the decision was later set aside on a technicality after appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
* 1958 - The federally-supported [[National Science Foundation]] started the [http://www.bscs.org/ Biological Sciences Curriculum Study] publishes textbooks which emphasize evolution as an organizing principle.
* 1961 - ''The Genesis Flood'' by Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr. reinvigorated the creationist movement.
* 1968 - A U.S. Supreme Court issues its [[Epperson v. Arkansas]] decision repealing laws that prohibited the teaching of evolution and required the teaching of a creationism on the grounds that it violated the the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
* 1974 - [[Karl Popper]] classifies Darwin's theory of evolution as a metaphysical research program.<ref>{{hnb|Popper|1974}} as reprinted in {{hnb|Balashov & Rosenberg|Ref=CITEREFBalashovRosenberg2002|p=302}}, see [http://books.google.com/books?id=tAkXVaNq5GAC&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=popper+metaphysical+research&source=web&ots=0nhuwofKbm&sig=XCjz0MaNM1F7ai7Ek2aO03HkTOg Facsimile on Google books]</ref>
* 2004 - Intelligent Design researcher Stephen C. Meyer publishes a paper, ''The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories'' in the peer-reviewed journal ''Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington'', leading to the [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair]]
* 2005 - U.S. Representative Mark Souder's office issues a report concurring with the U.S. Office of Special Council's conclusion that Richard Sternberg was subjected to a hostile work environment at the Smithsonian Institution in retaliation for his role in publishing Stephen C. Meyer's paper. See [[Smithsonian-Sternberg affair]].
* 2007 - [[Pope Benedict XVI]] publishes ''Creation and Evolution'', where he writes "[It] is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory."<ref>Creation and Evolution, Pope Benedict XVI, 2007, Sankt Ulrich Publishing. See also [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_re_eu/pope_evolution;_ylt=A0WTUejOaB1G9GUBBgKs0NUE]</ref>
* 2008 - [[Ben Stein]] releases the documentary ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' which exposes the suppression of [[intelligent design]] in the classroom by evolutionist establishment.

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

== Sources ==
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Aviezer
| Given = Nathan
| Year = 1990
| Title = In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science
| Publisher = Ktav Pub Inc.
| ID = ISBN 0881253286
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Balashov
| Given1 = Yuri (Editor)
| Surname2 = Rosenberg
| Given2 = Alexander (Editor)
| Year = 2002
| Title = Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings
| Publisher = Routledge
| ID = ISBN 0415257824
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Barry
| Given = Alvin L.
| Authorlink = Alvin L. Barry
| Year = 2001
| Title = What about....Creation and Evolution
| Journal = Unchanging Truth in Changing Times: The Complete Collection of the What About Pamphlets
| Pages = 60-61
| Publisher = The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod The Office of the President
| URL = https://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/Unchanging_Truth.pdf
}}Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Burns
| Given1 = Edward M.
| Surname2 = Ralph
| Given2 = Philip Lee
| Surname3 = Lerner
| Given3 = Robert E.
| Surname4 = Standish
| Given4 = Meacham
| Year = 1982
| Title = World Civilizations Their History and Their Culture
| Edition = Sixth
| Publisher = W.W. Norton & Company
| ID = ISBN 0-393-95077-8
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Coulter
| Given= Ann
| Year= 2006
| Title= Godless: The Church of Liberalism
| Publisher = Crown Forum.
| ID= ISBN 978-1400054206
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname= Dawkins
| Given = Richard
| Authorlink = Richard Dawkins
| Year = 2006
| Title = The God Delusion
| Publisher = Bantam Books
| ID = ISBN 0-618-68000-4
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Dennett
| Given = Daniel
| Authorlink = Daniel Dennett
| Year = 1995
| Title = Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life
| Publisher = Simon & Schuster
| ID = ISBN 978-0684802909
| Pages = 592
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Desmond
| Given1 = Adrian
| Surname2 = Moore
| Given2 = James
| Authorlink2 = James Moore (biographer)
| Year = 1991
| Title = Darwin
| Publisher = London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group
| ID = ISBN 0-7181-3430-3}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Faid
| Given = Robert W.
| Authorlink = Robert W. Faid
| Year = 1991
| Title = A Scientific Approach to Christianity
| Publisher = New Leaf Press (AR)
| ID = ISBN 0-89221-186-5
| Pages = 196
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = GCAG
| Given = General Council of the Assemblies of God of the United States
| Authorlink = General Council of the Assemblies of God of the United States
| Year = 1977
| Date = 1977-08-17
| Title = The Doctrine of Creation
| publisher = Gospel Publishing House
| URL = http://www.ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4177_creation.pdf
}} Retrieved on 2007-01-14
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Ghedotti
| Given = Michael J.
| Year = 2006
| Date = 2006-03-11
| Title = Evolutionary Biology at Regis, a Jesuit Catholic School
| Publisher = regis.edu
| URL = http://academic.regis.edu/mghedott/evolut.htm
}} Retrieved on 2007-02-05
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Hayward
| Given = James L.
| Year = 1998
| Title = The Creation/Evolution Controversy : an Annotated Bibliography
| Publisher = Scarecrow Press/Salem Press
| Pages = 253
| ID = ISBN 0-8108-3386-7
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| last = Hennigan
| first = Tom
| title = An Initial Investigation into the Baraminology of Snakes
| journal = Creation Research Society Quarterly
| pages = 153-160
| year = 2005
| date = December 2005
| url = http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/42/42_3/CRSQ%2012-05%20Snakes%20article.pdf
}}Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Hodge
| Given = Charles
| Authorlink = Charles Hodge
| Title = What is Darwinism?
| Year = 1874
| Publisher = Scribner, Armstrong, and Company
| ID = ASIN B0006AEEMO
| URL = http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19192/19192-8.txt
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Hovind
| Given = Kent
| Authorlink = Kent Hovind
| Year = 2006
| Title = Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
| Publisher = Creation Science Evangelism
| URL = http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Huxley
| Given = Thomas H.
| Authorlink = Thomas Huxley
| Year = 1902
| Title = An Episcopal Trilogy 1887
| Journal = Collected Essays Science and Christian Tradition
| Volume = V
| Pages = 126-159
| URL = http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15905/15905-8.txt
| Publisher = Kessinger Publishing
| ID = ISBN 978-1417973729 }} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Huxley
| Given1 = Thomas H.
| Authorlink1 = Thomas Huxley
| Surname2 = Huxley
| Given2 = Leonard
| Authorlink2 = Leonard Huxley (writer)
| Year = 1975
| Title = Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley
| Volume = 1
| URL = http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5084
| Publisher = Ams Pr Inc
| ID = ISBN 0404149804 }} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Johnson
| Given = Phillip E.
| Authorlink = Phillip E. Johnson
| Year = 1998
| Title = Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education
| Publisher = IntervaVsity Press
| ID = ISBN 0-8308-1929-0
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Johnson
| Given = Phillip E.
| Authorlink = Phillip E. Johnson
| Year = 1993
| Title = Darwin on Trial
| Edition = 2nd
| Publisher = InterVarsity Press
| ID = ISBN 0-8308-1324-1
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Kofahl
| Given = Robert E.
| Year = 1989
| Date = June, 1989
| Title = The Hierarchy of Conceptual Levels For Scientific Thought And Research
| Journal = CRS Quarterly
| Volume = 26
| Number = 1
| Publisher = The Creation Research Society
}} See [http://creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum26_1.html abstract] Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Larson
| Given1 = Edward J.
| Authorlink1 = Edward John Larson
| Surname2 = Witham
| Given2 = Larry
| Year = 1998
| Title = Leading scientists still reject God
| Journal = Nature
| Page = 313
| Publisher = Macmillan Publishers Ltd
| URL = http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.pdf
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Larson
| Given = Edward J.
| Authorlink = Edward John Larson
| Year = 2004
| Title = Evolution
| Publisher = Modern Library
| ID = ISBN 0-679-64288-9
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Larson
| Given = Edward J.
| Authorlink = Edward John Larson
| Year = 2006
| Title = Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial And America's Continuing Debate over Science And Religion
| Publisher = Basic Books
| ID = ISBN 978-0465075102
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Lenski
| Given = Richard E.
| Year = 2000
| Title = Evolution: Fact and Theory
| Publisher = AcitionBioscience.org
| URL = http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Martz
| Given1 = Larry
| Surname2 = McDaniel
| Given2 = Ann
| Year = 1987
| Date = 1987-06-29
| Title = Keeping God out of the Classroom (Washington and bureau reports)
| Journal = Newsweek
| Pages = 23-24
| Volume = CIX
| Number = 26
| Publisher = Newsweek Inc.
| ID = ISSN 0028-9604
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Morris
| Given = Henry M.
| Authorlink = Henry M. Morris
| Year = 2001
| Title = Back to Genesis: How Not to Defend Evolution
| Publisher = Institute for Creation Research
| URL = http://www.icr.org/pdf/btg/btg-153.pdf
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Morris
| Given = Henry M.
| Authorlink = Henry M. Morris
| Year = 1982
| Date = 1982-01-01
| Title = Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past
| Journal = Impact
| Volume = 103
| Publisher = Institute for Creation Research
| URL = http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=185
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Myers
| Given = PZ
| Authorlink = PZ Myers
| Year = 2006
| date = 2006-06-18
| Title = Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?
| Publisher = scienceblogs.com
| URL = http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Nelkin
| Given = Dorothy
| Authorlink = Dorothy Nelkin
| Year = 1982
| Title = The Creation Controversy: Science or Scripture in the Schools
| Publisher = Norton
| Pages = 242
| ID = ISBN 0393016358
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Numbers
| Given = Ronald L.
| year = 1992
| title = Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism
| publisher = Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
| pages = 224
| id = isbn 0-679-40104-0
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Numbers
| Given = Ronald L.
| Year = 1998
| Date = 1998-11-15
| Title = Darwinism Comes to America
| Publisher = Harvard University Press
| Pages = 224
| ID = ISBN 0674193121
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname1 = Peters
| Given1 = Ted
| Surname2 = Hewlett
| Given2 = Martinez
| Year = 2005
| Date = 2005-12-22
| Title = The Evolution Controversy: Who's Fighting with Whom about What?
| Publisher = Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary
| URL = http://www.plts.edu/docs/ite_evol_fighting.pdf
}} Retrieved on 2007-05-08
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Popper
| Given = Karl
| Authorlink = Karl Popper
| Year = 1974
| Title = Darwinism as a Metaphysical Research Programme
| Journal = The Philosophy of Karl Popper
| Publisher = Open Court Publishing Co.
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Popper
| Given= Karl
| Authorlink= Karl Popper
| Year= 1976
| Title = Unended Quest: An Intellecutal Autobiography
| Publisher = Open Court Publishing Co.
| ID= ISBN 0-87548-366-6
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Sarfati
| Given= Jonathan
| Authorlink= Jonathan Sarfati
| Year= 2008
| Title = Creation and Evolutionism
| Publisher = Creation Ministries International
| URL = http://creation.com/science-creation-and-evolutionism-refutation-of-nas#public Science
}}
*{{Harvard reference
| Surname = Tippett
| Given = Krista
| Authorlink= Krista Tippet
| Year= 2006
| date= 2006-07-20
| Title = Evolution and Wonder: Understanding Charles Darwin
| Publisher= American Public Media
| URL= http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/darwin/transcript.shtml
}} Also available as [http://download.publicradio.org/podcast/speakingoffaith/20060720_darwin.mp3 Audio in mp3 format]. Retrieved on 2007-05-08

[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Origins Debate]]
[[Category:Fundamentalism]]

Talk:Creation vs. evolution debate

2011-07-02T15:06:32Z

LeonardO: Evolutionism has nothing to do with the origin of the Earth, or of the Universe; wording should be changed to reflect that

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
== Another article ==

Another article I worked on. It might still have some liberal bias, so feel free to flag this bias here and I will try to rework it. Please do not simply delete content, though, unless you have the source. But if you must delete content, please move the deleted content to this page so that I can have a chance to rework it. Thanks. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 01:20, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scopes Trial ==

The Scopes trial section needs to be reworked per Coulter's ''Godless'' and Larson's ''Summer for the gods'', emphasizing that this farce trial was invented by liberials and attention cravers.
:Added Coulter and Larson to sources...done. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 03:13, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Very well done==

Heartofgold, I believe this is very well done. You pointed out the facts without instating to many POV issues. This is a great article.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:24, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks. I do want to go over the article more to remove unfortunate use of tone that will appear to be forcing the reader to make up his or her mind in a certain way. On the other hand, I do not want to exclude aspects of the controversy that are glossed over by staunch evoluitionists, such as the less flattering motives and methods of some prominent Darwinian and Evolutionary promoters. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution from monkeys ==

SimonA changed "...textbooks teaching that man evolved from monkeys in accordance with Charles Darwin's theory ..." to "...textbooks teaching that man evolved from monkeys, in ''what was believed to be'' accordance with Charles Darwin's theory ..." (my emphasis).

If he is saying that Darwin didn't teach that man evolved from ''monkeys'', per se, then I'll accept that he is probably correct. But did the textbooks say "''monkeys''"? The point is, I'm wondering if the edit was merely a technicality that would be better fixed in a different way. At the moment, it ''implies'' that Darwin's theory ''doesn't'' propose that man evolved from an ape-like creature, which it clearly does.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:47, 28 December 2007 (EST)

==[[Culture Wars]]==

Cut from intro:

: where it is often portrayed as part of the culture wars.<nowiki><ref>{{hnb|Larson|2004|p=247-263}} Chapter titled ''Modern Culture Wars''. See also {{hnb|Ruse|1999|p=26}}, who writes "One thing that historians delighted in showing is that, contrary to the usually held tale of science and religion being always opposed...religion and theologically inclined philosophy have frequently been very significant factors in the forward movement of science."</ref></nowiki>

I have no idea what [[culture wars]] means here, or "portrayed as". And what does the reference have to do with anything? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:13, 12 January 2008 (EST)

==Language inaccuracy==
Concerning the opening paragraph, it is incorrect. Evolution concerns, according to Evolutionists, only the evolution of lifeforms; it does not seek to answer the question "How did life appear", and, even less, the questions "What is the origin of the Earth" and "What is the origin of the Universe". Evolutionism has nothing to do with Earth or the Universe. 
To clear things up: 
[[Evolutionism]] is the non-religious theory about the development of lifeforms; 
[[Abiogenesis]] is the non-religious field of study about how life can appear from inorganic matter; 
There are several non-religious theories about the origin of the planet Earth and the Solar System; 
[[The Big Bang Theory]] is the most famous non-religious theory about the origin of the Universe; 
[[Creationism]] is the religious theory that encompasses the origin of man, life, the planet, and the Universe. 
So, while you can use the word [[Creationism]] to describe both the creation of life, of man, and of the Universe, the word ''Evolutionism'', if you want to be accurate, should only be used in a biological sense. While it is true that most people who believe in Evolution also seem to believe in the Big Bang, the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do whatsoever with the origin of the Earth, or of the Universe, or even with the origin of life. Therefore, saying that the Creation vs Evolution debate "''concerns the question of how things came to be, including the universe, Earth, life, and mankind''" is incorrect. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 11:06, 2 July 2011 (EDT)

Hugo Chavez

2011-07-02T14:34:51Z

LeonardO: Health Crisis

{{Dictator bio
| image =[[Image:chavez.jpg|200px]]
| name =Hugo Chavez
| birth =July 28, 1954 Sabaneta, Venezuela
| parents =Hugo de los Reyes Chávez Elena Frías de Chávez
| religion =Roman Catholic
| education =Daniel Florencio O'Leary High School, Barinas Venezuelan Academy of Military Sciences, Caracas
| spouse =Nancy Colmenares (div.) Marisabel Rodríguez (div.)
| children =Rosa Virginia María Gabriela Hugo Rafael Rosinés (with Marisabel)
| death =n/a
| deathmanner =n/a
| burial =n/a
| country =[[Venezuela]]
| military =Venezuelan army
| rank =Lieutenant colonel
| polbeliefs =[[Socialism]] [[Communism]]
| party =Fifth Republic Movement United Socialist Party
| dictatordate =November 2000
| war =n/a
| deathnumber =Unknown
}}
'''Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías''' (b. July 28, 1954) is the repressive [[leftist]] [[tyrant]] of the Bolivarian Republic of [[Venezuela]].
A self-proclaimed [[socialist]] and [[collectivist]], his disastrous economic policies have led to food shortages, quotas, and rationing in his oil-rich country, causing thousands to flee.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref>
Chávez assumed power as President in 1999 and pledged to aid Venezuela's poor majority.
Fraudulent elections were held in 2000 and in 2006, allowing Chavez to retain his [[Authoritarianism|authoritarian]] power. As such it would be accurate to describe him as a [[dictator]].

*{{Venezuela blunder}}

==Election fraud==
Steven F. Hayward wrote:
* While exit polls conducted by the very reliable American firm of Penn, Schoen, and Berland showed Chavez losing by a large margin (41 to 59), the official results put Chavez free and clear by a vote of 58 to 41 percent.<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5A8D0094-4590-4DFB-A7F0-C2E06A6820FB]</ref>

A 26 February 2003 report by Robert Tracinski obliterates the left-wing mythology around Chavez:
<blockquote>
: '''Step one''': Chavez has initiated formal proceedings to revoke the licenses of independent, privately owned television and radio stations. Meanwhile, his political militias, the Bolivarian Circles, have staged violent attacks on independent media outlets. After all, elections don't mean much if all people watch is propaganda on state-run television.

: '''Step two''': Chavez has used a moratorium on currency conversion--needed to pay for imported goods--to punish his opponents. Vowing "no dollars for coup-mongers," he has used this power, for example, to prevent opposition newspapers from importing ink. After all, elections don't mean much if your opponents are too busy worrying where their next meal is coming from.

: '''Step three''': Venezuelan police acting on Chavez's orders have arrested Carlos Fernandez, the head of Venezuela's largest business federation and a leader of the recent anti-Chavez strike, charging him with rebellion and sabotage. Another strike leader, Carlos Ortega, head of Venezuela's largest labor union, has gone into hiding. In one move, Chavez has neutralized two potential rivals for the presidency. After all, elections don't mean much if all of the other candidates are in jail.

: '''Step four''': Last week, four protesters were kidnapped while returning from an anti-Chavez rally. They were blindfolded, tortured, and shot execution-style. Some of the victims were witnesses to a previous pro-Chavez political killing, and they had planned to testify against the shooter. Consider the message sent to the opposition when the mutilated bodies of their friends start showing up in the city streets. After all, elections don't mean much if your opponents are afraid to leave their houses and walk to the polls.

: '''Step five''': A few days ago, Chavez delivered a speech denouncing Spain, Colombia, and the US for interfering in Venezuela. This morning in Caracas, the diplomatic missions of Spain and Colombia were bombed. Credit was claimed by a splinter pro-Chavez group--but this was not a bunch of kids cooking up homemade bombs in their basement. The bombs were powerful plastic explosives, the kind of weapons that are difficult to obtain without government complicity.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/americas/2514-dictatorship-by-the-numbers-in-venezuela.html</ref>
</blockquote>

$4 billion dollars were spent paying paramilitary groups to attack unarmed protestors and other dissidents during and after the elections.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/americas/2968-venezuela-a-new-junket-for-a-dictator-s-best-friend-jimmy-carter.html</ref>

The European Union condemned the conditions placed on election monitors as unacceptable and declined to attend. The Carter Center was shut out for three days. Experts from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University have identified signs of fraud based on statistical analysis.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/americas/3924-the-carter-stamp-of-approval-on-the-venueuzlan-election-less-than-worthless.html</ref>

==Human rights concerns==
Hugo Chávez is a great friend of the tyrannical [[Cuban]] despot [[Fidel Castro]] and is said to have drawn his political style through influences such as [[Che Guevara]], [[Karl Marx]] and [[Simon Bolivar]]. The U.S. State Department ''Report on Global Anti-Semitism'' cited Chavez in August 2004 warning citizens against following the lead of Jewish citizens in the effort to overturn his referendum victory.<ref>[http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm Report on Global Anti-Semitism] U. S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, [[Human Rights]], and Labor, January 5, 2005. </ref> Chavez has also embraced a number of world leaders that have hostile relations with the United States, including Holocaust-denier [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]], the President of [[Iran]], who Chavez has referred to as "my brother".<ref>[http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/07/31/en_pol_art_31A756133.shtml Chávez decorated in Iran; initials cooperation pacts]</ref> U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives [[Nancy Pelosi]] said of Chavez, "Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern-day [[Simon Bolivar]], but all he is is an everyday thug."<ref>[http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/pruden092206.php3 Back to the old days, if only for a minute], Wesley Pruden, ''Jewish World Review'', Sept. 22, 2006.</ref> He is also considered to be an ally of [[leftist]] [[Ecuador|Ecuadorian]] president [[Rafael Correa]], [[Bolivia|Bolivian]] president [[Evo Morales]] and the president of [[Nicaragua]], [[Daniel Ortega]] ... all radical leftists.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6187364.stm Correa]</ref>

In May 2007, Chavez silenced the only remaining opposition television station critical of his repression by revoking its licence.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2085952,00.html Chávez silences critical TV station], Rory Carroll, ''The Guardian'', May 23, 2007.</ref> Crowds of students demonstrated saying they feared for the future of human rights in Venezuala. National Guard troops were ordered to fire [[tear gas]] and [[rubber bullets]]. Two students were injured, a third was hit with a tear gas canister, and about 20 people needed emergency medical attention for inhaling tear gas. <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/05/28/ap3763178.html Troops Fire Upon Protesters in Venezuela], Fabiola Sanchez, Associated Press, 05.28.07. Retrieved from Forbes.com 05/31/07. </ref> Chavez employs discrimination against [[migrant workers]] in the country.<ref>http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/world/americas/3924-the-carter-stamp-of-approval-on-the-venueuzlan-election-less-than-worthless.html</ref>

Chavez has said, “I am going to go after those who resist the revolution and eliminate them one by one.”<ref>[http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2007/jul/07/guest_commentary_we_must_help_venezuela_because_fr/ Because Freedom Matters], By U.S. Rep. Connie Mack IV and Blanquita Cullm, ''Naples Daily News'', July 7, 2007.</ref>

===Trafficking in Persons===
Venezuela under Chavez has been on the U.S. State Department’s Tier 3 list for [[trafficking in persons]] since 2004, which means that the government is categorized as one that has failed to make significant efforts to bring itself into compliance with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in persons. The State Department’s June 2007 Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report maintains that Venezuela is a source, transit, and destination country for women and children trafficked for [[sexual exploitation]] and [[forced labor]].<ref>U.S. Department of State, [http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2007/ Trafficking in Persons Report], June 12, 2007, p. 207.</ref>

==Relations with US==
[[File:Chavez Obama.jpg|thumb|At the Fifth Summit of the Americas.]]
Foreign relations between the [[United States of America]] and [[Venezuela]] are presently unstable. Chavez often criticizes the United States for its 'imperialism' on his radio segment 'Alo Presidente', and alleges the United States's supported a 2002 coup in Venezuela which toppled Chávez momentarily and later removed by Chávez supporters, also known as 'Chávistas'. Venezuela is heavily dependent upon trade revenue from oil sales to the United States.

===Terrorism===
In May 2006, the State Department determined that, pursuant to Section 40A of the [[Arms Export Control Act]], Venezuela was not fully cooperating with U.S. [[antiterrorism]] efforts. This triggered a prohibition on the sale or license of defense articles and services to Venezuela. Other countries on the Section 40A list include [[Cuba]], [[Iran]], [[North Korea]], and [[Syria]], not to be confused with the "state sponsors of
terrorism" list under Section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, which currently includes Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. The State Department asserted that the Section 40A determination was based on Venezuela’s near lack of antiterrorism cooperation over the last year, citing its support for Iraqi insurgents and Iran’s development of nuclear capabilities, the country’s status as a safe haven for Colombian and Basque terrorist groups, and its effort to derail hemispheric efforts to advance counter-terrorism policies in the OAS. In May 2007, the State Department again included Venezuela in its annual Section 40A determination that it was not cooperating fully with U.S. antiterrorism efforts.

In late April 2007, the State Department issued its annual Country Reports on Terrorism, which asserted that President Chávez "persisted in public criticism of U.S. counterterrorism efforts, deepened Venezuelan relationships with Iran and Cuba, and was unwilling to prevent Venezuelan territory from being used as a safe haven" by Colombian terrorist groups.

There have been long-held suspicions that Chávez has supported leftist Colombian guerrillas, although Chávez denies such support. The State Department’s terrorism report maintains that units of Colombia’s two leftist terrorist groups — the [[Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia]] (FARC) and the [[National Liberation Army]] (ELN) — often crossed into Venezuela "to rest and regroup with relative impunity."

In addition, according to the report, splinter groups of the FARC and a rightist terrorist group, the [[AUC|United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia]] (AUC) reportedly operate in various parts of the country and are involved in drug trafficking. The report maintained, however, that "it remained unclear to what extent the Venezuelan
Government provided material support to Colombian terrorists."

In addition, according to the report, Venezuelan citizenship, identity, and travel documents remained easy to obtain, making the country a potentially attractive waystation for terrorists. In July 13, 2006, congressional testimony, the State Department’s Principal Deputy Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Frank Urbancic, asserted that the United States was detaining increasing numbers of third-country aliens at its borders carrying falsified or fraudulently issued Venezuelan documents. U.S. officials also have expressed concerns about President Chávez’s close relationship with Cuba’s Fidel Castro, but Chávez defends his relationship with Cuba. Overall Venezuelan support to Cuba is estimated to be more than $2 billion a year.<ref>Frances Robles and Phil Gunson, ''Cuba Spotlights Chávez Friendship,'' Miami Herald, January 26, 2007.</ref> Venezuela supplies some 90,000 barrels of oil per day to Cuba on a concessionary basis under PetroCaribe. In return, Venezuela has received support from thousands of Cuban health care workers and sports instructors in the country.

During an April 2005 trip to Cuba, Presidents Chávez and Castro announced commercial deals worth over $400 million, including a joint shipyard to build small navy ships and a joint housing construction company. In January 2007, a delegation of Cuban officials visited Caracas and signed a number of agreements to increase economic linkages, including an agreement for joint oil exploration in both countries.

PdVSA is also involved in refurbishing an unfinished oil refinery in Cienfuegos, Cuba. Beyond Latin America, the Bush Administration has expressed concerns with Venezuela’s growing relations with Iran. In February 2006, Secretary of State Rice referred to Venezuela, along with Cuba, as “sidekicks” of Iran in reference to those countries’ votes in the International Atomic Energy Agency against reporting Iran to the U.N. Security Council over its uranium enrichment program.<ref>Pablo Bachelet, “Rice Bashes Venezuelan Leader, Politics,” Miami Herald, February 17, 2006; House International Relations Committee, Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007
International Affairs Budget, Testimony of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, February
16, 2006.</ref> In testimony before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee in February 2006, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte expressed concern that President Chávez "is seeking closer economic, military, and diplomatic ties with Iran and North Korea."<ref>Senate Select Intelligence Committee, Hearing on World Wide Threats, Testimony of Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, February 2, 2006.</ref> ran and Venezuela signed an agreement for a $200 million fund to finance joint investment and social projects, and commercial agreements in the early stages include plans for a cement factory, oil exploration in the Orinoco River belt, and a joint operation to build oil and liquid natural gas tankers.<ref>Steven Dudley, "Chávez’s Wooing of Iran Called Troubling," Miami Herald, March 2, 2006.</ref> During a visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Venezuela in mid-January 2007, the two countries announced they would use a $2 billion investment fund to finance projects in both countries and other countries as well.<ref>Simon Romero, ''Iranian President Visits Venezuela to Strengthen Ties,'' New York Times, January 14, 2007.</ref>

Some Members of Congress have expressed concerns about relations between Venezuela and Iran. In the 110th Congress, H.Res. 435 (Klein) would, among its provisions, express concern over national security implications of the relationship between the leaders of Iran and Venezuela.

According to the ''Washington Post'' Chavez has been accused of supplying weapons to Colombian rebels, of financing Bolivian and Ecuadorian groups seeking to establish "Marxist" states, and of being, with Cuban leader Fidel Castro's guidance, a "[[subversion (political)|subversive]]" everywhere else in the region.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501420.html?nav=rss_world/centralamerica ''Dealing With the Good and Bad Hugo Chavez''], Marcela Sanchez The Washington Post 25 August 2005.</ref>

==Expropriation==
[[Image:Hugo-chavez8.jpg|left|175px|thumb|Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez with Fidel Castro.]]

In typical socialist rhetoric, Chavez makes wild claims to fund the government by nationalizing foreign assets. Typical reasons include accusing companies of environmental damage and exploiting its workers. In 2010 alone, Chavez seized 195 companies. <ref>[http://english.eluniversal.com/2010/10/20/en_eco_art_a-total-of-195-busin_20A4631291.shtml A total of 195 businesses has been seized in 2010, El Universal, October 20, 2010]</ref> Spanish-owned farm supply and U.S.-based Ohio bottle company were recently taken over. Other recognized multi-national companies such ExxonMobil, steel maker Sidor, cement company CEMEX fell to the same fate. <ref>[http://wellsy.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/chavez-takes-over-venezuelan-plants-of-oh-company/ Chavez takes over Venezuelan plants of OH company, Wellsy's World, October 26, 2010]</ref> Venezuala is supposed to compensate the companies but nobody expects Chavez to provide other than peanuts for assets he steals.

Through Venezuela's state owned petroleum industry and membership in [[OPEC]], Chávez has now used powers granted to him by Parliament to increase oil prices, adding revenue for the Bolivarianist projects. Countries such as the United States have criticized Chávez for the increase in cost for crude oil. Chavez is at the forefront of wanting to set crude oil prices at $60 a barrel minimum, according to the ''Asia Times''<ref>[http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HL07Dj01.html ''Bush, OPEC and Chavez of Arabia''], Pepe Escobar, Asia Times, 7 December 2006.</ref>

==Anti-semitism==
Chavez is known to be fiercely [[Anti-semitism|anti-semitic]]<ref>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/hugo-ch-vez-s-jewish-problem-11455
</ref>, which is the likely reason for his friendship and political alliance with Iranian dictator and [[Holocaust denial|holocaust denier]] [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]]<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402428.html
</ref>. As a result of the anti-semitic policies of the Chavez regime and the wave of violent attacks on Venezuelan Jews that it has caused, the [[Jewish]] population of Venezuela has decreased by more than 50 percent since Chavez came to power.<ref>http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/venezuela.php</ref>

==Drug trafficking==
The ''Associated Press'' reported in July 2007 that since Chavez's ascension to power, illegal narcotics passing through Venezuela from [[Colombia]] has risen by as much as 30 tons a year and now accounts for roughly a third of the world's supply of [[cocaine]]. Mildred Camero who was in charge of Venezuela's anti-drug efforts stated, "[[Caracas]] is replacing [[Bogota]] as a center of everything related to drug operations." Camero was fired in 2005 after reporting high-level corruption. <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/01/ap3875048.html Venezuela Becomes Cocaine Conduit], By Ian James and Frank Bajak, ''Associated Press'', 1 July 2007. Retrieved from Forbes.com 8 July 2007.</ref>

==Religious==
Chavez demanded that [[Pope Benedict]] apologize for saying the Roman Catholic Church purified Indians in Latin America. Chavez called the treatment of Indians after [[Christopher Columbus]] landed in 1492 a "holocaust".<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1819661120070519 Chavez demands Pope apologize for Indian comments], Reuters, May 19, 2007</ref>

==2011 Health Crisis==
On June 30th, 2011, the 56 year-old President admitted, in a televised speech, of having cancer. <ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13991906]</ref>

==Quotes==
*On closure of RCTV, claiming the network's broadcasts amounted to a "permanent attack on public morals" with cartoons that were "poisoned with hatred, violence and even sex."

*"Private banks have to give priority to financing the industrial sectors of Venezuela at low cost...If banks don't agree with this, it's better that they go, that they turn over the banks to me."

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

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/Hugo Chavez|Articles about '''Hugo Chavez''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
* [[Kim Jong Il]]
* [[Idi Amin Dada]]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/] An in depth view on Venezuela under Hugo Chávez.
*[http://www.latinbusinesschronicle.com/app/article.aspx?id=706] An overview of articles on Venezuela's business under Hugo Chávez.
*[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_24_06_AVL.html ''Why The Left Should Cringe at The Mention of Hugo Chavez''], Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Independent Institute, February 24, 2006.
*[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmnew/is_200108/ai_kepm313968 ''Bolivar, Dictator or Paladin?''] Interview: Hugo Chavez talks about Venezuela, Maria Amparo Lasso, Newsweek, Aug 20, 2001.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Chavez, Hugo}}
[[Category:Venezuela]]
[[Category:Dictators]]
[[Category:Lunatics]]
[[Category:Anti-Semitism]]

Microelectronics

2011-07-02T14:19:39Z

LeonardO:

'''Microelectronics''' is a subfield of [[electronics]], and it deals with the design of electronic components which are very small; tiny [[transistor]]s are normally packed together on a single substrate or "chip". [[Microprocessor]]s are an example of microlectronics.
[[category:electronics]]

Microelectronics

2011-07-02T14:19:22Z

LeonardO:

'''Microelectronics''' is a subfield of [electronics], and it deals with the design of electronic components which are very small; tiny [[transistor]]s are normally packed together on a single substrate or "chip". [[Microprocessor]]s are an example of microlectronics.
[[category:electronics]]

Movement conservative

2011-07-02T14:15:11Z

LeonardO:

[[Category:Conservative]]A '''movement conservative''' is one who supports all or nearly all [[conservative]] principles with a coherent philosophy, and who advances broad [[conservative]] goals both individually and through teamwork. This is contrasted with [[Republican in name only|cafeteria]], or single-issue, or self-serving approaches. Movement conservatives, unlike cafeteria conservatives, understand that since conservative philosophy is a coherent whole, it is untenable to discard part of it without discarding all of it.

Put another way, a '''movement conservative''' is a conservative who seeks to help others, and the nation, by explaining, advocating and defending the logical and beneficial conservative approach. A movement conservative is not primarily seeking political gain for himself, but advocates the insights and values of [[conservatism]] for the benefit of others.

Examples of movement conservatives would include:

*[[St. Paul]]
*The late Senator [[Jesse Helms]]
*The late President [[Ronald Reagan]]
*The late Congressman [[John Ashbrook]]
*The late Congressman [[Larry McDonald]] who died on board of the [[KAL 007]] flight when it was shot down by Soviets.
*The late Journalist [[Robert Novak]]
*Activist [[Phyllis Schlafly]]
*Justice [[Clarence Thomas]]
*The late University President [[Jerry Falwell]]
*[[United Nations]] Ambassador [[John Bolton]]
*Columnist [[Thomas Sowell]]
*Talk-radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]]
*U.S. Representative for [[Minnesota]]'s 6th District [[Michele Bachmann]]
*Author and talk-radio host [[Mark Levin]]
*Former Governor of Alaska [[Sarah Palin]]

==See also==
*[[Conservative Movement]]

{{Conservatism}}

Michele Bachmann

2011-07-02T14:12:33Z

LeonardO: /* Liberal Criticisms */

{{Officeholder
|name=Michele Bachmann
|image=Michele Bachmann.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Marcus Bachmann
|religion=[[Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Minnesota
|district=6th
|terms=January 4, 2007 – Present
|preceded=Mark Kennedy
|former=
|succeeded=
}}
}}

'''Michele M. Bachmann''', born April 6, 1956 (age {{age|1956|04|06}}), is a [[conservative]] and the first [[Republican Party|Republican]] woman to be elected to the [[United States House of Representatives|U.S. House of Representatives]] from [[Minnesota]]. She represents the 6th District of Minnesota.

A [[movement conservative]], Michele Bachmann defeated a massive attempt by [[liberals]] to defeat her in 2008 and 2010. Prior to her election to [[Congress]], she served in the Minnesota state [[legislature]] since first being elected there in 2000.

Michele Bachmann, an [[attorney]], is a former tax litigator. She has five [[children]] and has also opened her home to 23 foster children.<ref>http://bachmann.house.gov/Biography/</ref>

Bachmann is [[pro-life]], [[pro-gun]],<REF>[http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2008/10/bachmann_gets_n.shtml Bachmann gets new campaign manager, NRA endorsement] MN. Public Radio, OCTOBER 3, 2008</REF> pro-religion and holds many other core conservative values. A search for her on [[Google]] turns up five positive sites for every 100 nasty liberal smear sites, like the [[Huffington Post]]. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has now officially put the outspoken Minnesota Republican in their sights with the bachmannwatch website.

== [[Liberal]] Criticisms ==

Liberals have been hysterical about some of the candid observations of Congresswoman Bachmann. She was targeted for comments made seeking an investigation into the [[Obama]]-[[William Ayers|Ayers]] connection, the "tolerant" liberal establishment even compared her to the Nazis.<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/10/21/hardball-gone-mad-congresswoman-compared-nazi-insisting-media-cover-obam Hardball Gone Mad: Congresswoman Compared to Nazi for Insisting Media Cover Obama-Ayers Connection], Tim Graham, ''Newsbusters'', October 21, 2008</ref> She deserves many compliments for her insight and courage. Congresswoman Rep. Bachmann "has shown an uncanny knack for infuriating critics with sometimes off-the-wall behavior and comments, all the while advancing her own political career." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/pub-michele-bachmann/ Outspoken But Not Outmaneuvered, Rep. Bachmann Manages Her Candor], Judson Berger, ''Fox News.com'', March 27, 2009</ref>

== See also ==
[[United States Presidential Election, 2012]]
[[File:Bachmann3.jpg|left|150px]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bachmann, Michele}}
[[Category: 110th United States Congress]]
[[Category: 111th United States Congress]]
[[Category:United States Representatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:2010 Midterm Elections]]
{{Conservatism}}
==External links==
*[http://www.michelebachmann.com/ Official Michele Bachmann For President website]
*[http://bachmann.house.gov/ Official Website]
*[http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/412216_michele_bachmann Open Congress]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thR-lVuztIY Video of Bachmann talking about the gangster government on the House floor]

Peter Falk

2011-07-01T17:24:45Z

LeonardO: Stub - feel free to expand

'''Peter Michael Falk''' (September 16th, 1927 - June 23rd, 2011) was an American actor, most famous for playing the lead role in the TV series [[Columbo]]. 
Falk had been diagnosed with [[Alzheimer's Disease]].

[[Category: Actors]]

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

2011-06-30T19:22:11Z

LeonardO:

==Red links==
I was thinking that since those liberal vandals listed no longer have user pages or talk pages that instead in linking them (pointless, as the links lead to basically nowhere) we could put them in bold instead??? Just a thought. --[[User:AmeliaJ|AmeliaJ]] 18:01, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:Done. Thanks for the suggestion. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:24, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I also agree very much. Great idea. [[User:AddisonDM]] 7 January 2009

== This page should be deleted. ==

The very existence of this page encourages vandalism. It becomes a motive for people to commit vandalism. --[[User:TimS|Tim]] [[User talk:TimS|Talk]]Formerly CPAdmin1 21:12, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:How so? [[User:JY23|JY23]] 13:50, 11 January 2009 (EST)
::Cause it's funny to read what some people have wrote. It's like reading bash.org conversations. [[User:JonathanG|JonG]][[User_talk:JonathanG|Tennisu no Boifriendo]] 19:56, 28 June 2009 (EDT)
::In the end, I don't think it matters. It's better if we do get a slight increase in vandalism, and be able to show everyone the utter moronic nature of it, like this essay is meant to do. It is very important that the average reader actually see the kind of junk these vandals post. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:01, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== Colbert vandals ==

Should we mention something about the recent Colbert-inspired vandalism? --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 14:19, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

== Warning? ==

Ok, it's just minor as the abuse and vulgarity could be worse, but maybe you should put a minor warning at the beginning of the article stating that the examples contain profanity and general unpleasantness. Just to be on the safe side :) --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 15:22, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website

2011-06-29T19:20:34Z

LeonardO: Minor changes; avoid repetition of "Richard Dawkins"

RichardDawkins.net (Also RichardDawkinsFoundation.org) Is a website run by/for [[Richard Dawkins]] through which he sells [[Richard Dawkins Books|books]], [[Richard Dawkins Videos| videos]], and various merchandise; as well as the home to his [[Richard Dawkins forum|forums]]. The website is cluttered and busy looking, with very little sense of direction. On the front page there is a banner across the top with a picture of Richard Dawkins and the name of the site. Below that there is a navigation bar, below that there is a second banner directing people to buy his latest book [[The Greatest Show on Earth]]; a list of videos for sale is available down the left hand side of the page, and a list of books down the right hand side. Framed by these commercial spaces is a narrow column with various [[atheist]] news pieces and a wide column with large graphics directing visitors to the site store and presenting them with an excerpt of his latest book and a large professional photograph of Richard Dawkins. In short, RichardDawkins.net is a commercial site for [[Narcissism|promoting]] Richard Dawkins and selling products to enrich him.

[[Category: Richard Dawkins]]

Nobel Peace Prize

2011-06-29T14:41:31Z

LeonardO:

[[File:Martin Luther King Jr nobel peace prize.jpg|thumb|[[Martin Luther King]] Jr., 1964 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.]]
The '''Nobel Peace Prize''' is one of the five [[Nobel Prize]]s; it is awarded in [[Norway]]. The other four, awarded in [[Sweden]], are in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine and Literature. Each laureate receives a gold medal, a diploma and a quantity of money.

The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of five persons who are chosen by the Norwegian Parliament. It has been awarded 91 times to 121 Nobel Laureates between 1901 and 2010. President [[Jimmy Carter]] won the award in 2002, and [[Nelson Mandela]] in 1993, together with Frederik Willem de Klerk.

Peace was the fifth and final prize area that [[Alfred Nobel]] mentioned in his will:
<blockquote>
“The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: /- - -/ one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” (Excerpt from the will of Alfred Nobel written in 1895.) [http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/]
</blockquote>

For the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize:
<blockquote>
The ''Norwegian Nobel Committee'' has received 241 valid nominations, among them, 188 individuals and 53 organizations. This is the highest number of nominations ever received. The previous record was 237 different candidates, in 2010. [http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/nomination/]
</blockquote>

[[File:Medal Nobel Peace Prizes.jpg|220px|left]]
{{Clear}}

== External links ==

*[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/ The Nobel Peace Prize.]
*[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/ All Nobel Peace Prizes.]
*[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/nomination/ Nomination and Selection of Peace Prize Laureates.]

[[Category:Nobel Prize]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace]]

NATO war in Libya

2011-06-29T14:39:07Z

LeonardO: We should find an agreement on the spelling of "Gaddafi" (Gadhafi? Qaddafi?), Benghazi (Bengazi?) and every other word translitterated from a foreign alphabet, for improved consistency.

[[File:Gaddafi and Mandela 1.JPG|thumb|right|250px|[[Nobel Peace Prize]] winner [[Nelson Mandela]] greets an old friend and ally, Muammar Gaddafi. ''[[Reuters]]'' reports President Obama secretly ordered support for [[al Qaeda]] terrorists seeking his ouster.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umgMDJIpkn0</ref>.]]
The '''Libyan War of 2011''' started as the '''Benghazi rebellion''', a series of protests in eastern [[Libya]] following uprisings in [[Tunisia]] and [[Egypt]]. The scale of the violence contrasts markedly with North Africa's largely peaceful uprisings. Eastern Libya has fallen to the uprising, which began on February 16, 2011 in the wake of revolutions which toppled the long-serving leaders of neighboring Tunisia and Egypt. The [[Islamist]] terror group [[Al-Qaeda]] in North Africa has vowed to do everything in its power to help the uprising against the Libyan [[secular]] strongman leader [[Muammar Gaddafi]].<ref> [http://www.dawn.com/2011/02/24/al-qaeda-in-n-africa-backs-libya-uprising-site.html Al Qaeda in N. Africa backs Libya uprising: SITE] </ref><ref> [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/07/libya-uprising-live-updates Libya uprising.] </ref> Journalist David Wood has reported,
{{Cquote|Eastern Libya has been described by U.S. diplomats as a breeding ground for Islamist [[extremism]]. In diplomatic cables released by [[Wikileaks]], the region’s young men were said to have "nothing to lose" by resorting to violence. Sermons in the local [[mosque]]s are "laced with phraseology urging worshippers to support [[jihad]]," one diplomat reported.<ref>http://91.214.23.156/cablegate/wire.php?id=08TRIPOLI120&search=</ref>}}
Wood added,
{{Cquote|extremist elements make up only a portion of the resistance to Gaddafi and have been present in every popular uprising in the region stretching from the [[Iran]]ian revolution to the [[Egypt]]ian people’s overthrow of [[Hosni Mubarak]].<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/extremists-among-libya-rebels_n_837894.html</ref>}}

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in [[Iraq]] are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime. <ref> [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links.] </ref> <ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/world/guantanamo-files-libyan-detainee-now-us-ally-of-sorts.html Libyan, Once a Detainee, Is Now a U.S. Ally of Sorts.]</ref>

An international coalition has intervened in what many describe as an "illegal war"<ref>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/01/obamas_illegal_war</ref> led by the [[North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] (NATO), whose own leaders have publicly questioned what the value, purpose, and reason for existence of the NATO organization is. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/world/europe/14iht-letter14.html</ref><ref>http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_58ebd6cf-0558-5ee2-bd8d-cf27c1af7630.html</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/12/nato-usa</ref>

__TOC__
It was reported on February 24, 2011, an emergency meeting of the [[United Nations Human Rights Council]] on Libya would take no action or make no recommendation to the [[UN General Assembly]] to remove Libya from holding its seat on the UN Human Rights Council for alleged human rights abuses.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human</ref> The [[United Nations Security Council]] (UNSC) voted on March 17, 2011, to pass Security Council resolution 1973 proposed by [[France]], along with its [[British]] and [[Lebanese]] partners, initiating a use of force doctrine in Libya. [[China]], [[Russia]], [[India]] and [[Brazil]] (the so-called BRIC nations) all abstained from the vote. The [[Obama administration]] called for Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi to step aside and has given assistance to the insurgent anti-Gaddafi forces. However, US Congressional leaders were not consulted prior to the commitment of U.S. forces,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262921/boehner-obama-libya-many-other-members-house-representatives-are-troubled-robert-costa</ref> nor did the Congress authorize the use of force in Libya.

Military and intelligence experts in France, Britain, and the United States warned about uncertainties but were overruled by political leaders. The end result was a set of decisions that focused on short term considerations and gambled on the outcome. French, British, and US leaders did not fully coordinate but, according to Anthony Cordesman, it became clear,
{{Cquote|they sought and got international cover from the UN by claiming a no fly zone could protect civilians when their real objective was to use force as a catalyst to drive Qaddafi out of power.}}
[[Sarkozy]], [[Cameron]], and [[Obama]] seem to have assumed that a largely unknown, divided, and fractured group of insurgents could win through sheer political momentum and could then be turned into a successful government. One month later it was obvious a "weak, divided, poorly led, and badly equipped and supplied set of rebel forces can only hang on with the present level of air support" provided by the [[United Nations]].

<blockquote>
The assault on Libya has set off a frenzy of speculations about the real motive behind the war in the oil-rich country, with many analysts saying that under the guise of protecting civilians, as enshrined in the UNSC Resolution 1973, which permitted the use of force against the Libyan regime, Washington and its Western allies are basically after the North African country’s vast oil reserves. <ref>[http://2012indyinfo.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/presstv-germany-slams-nato-mission-in-libya/ Germany slams NATO mission in Libya.]</ref>
</blockquote>

== Libya before the 2011 uprising ==
[[File:Libya Irrigation project.jpg|thumb|330px|Satellite view is showing irrigated farming projects at Al Khufrah Oasis in southeast Libya. Part of the "Great Man Made River Project" ($33 billion), where fossil water is mined from vast underground aquifers. This water is transported about 800 km (500 mi) to the coastal cities of Libya by means of the world's largest underground network of pipes.]]
In 1951 Libya was officially the poorest country in the world. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,864742,00.html] Before the 2011 uprising Libyans living standards were considered the highest in Africa. The GDP per Capita was more than the double of that in Egypt, and above that in Russia. All people have access to doctors, hospitals, clinics and medicines, completely free of all charges; but more than the advances in housing, agricultural, industry, health care, education, is the advance in direct popular democracy. [http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/libfacts.htm] [[Condoleezza Rice]] praised Libya for its "excellent co-operation" in the US-led war on terror. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4773617.stm] (BBC News).

<blockquote>
The living standards of Libyans have improved significantly since the 1970s, ranking the country among the highest in Africa. Urbanization, developmental projects, and high oil revenues have enabled the Libyan government to elevate its people's living standards. The social and economic status of women and children has particularly improved. Various subsidized or free services (health, education, housing, and basic foodstuffs) have ensured basic necessities. The low percentage of people without access to safe water (3 percent), health services (0 percent) and sanitation (2 percent), and a relatively high life expectancy (70.2 years) in 1998 indicate the improved living standards. Adequate health care and subsidized foodstuffs have sharply reduced infant mortality, from 105 per 1,000 live births in 1970 to 20 per 1,000 live births in 1998. The government also subsidizes education, which is compulsory and free between the ages of 6 and 15. The expansion of educational facilities has elevated the literacy rate (78.1 in 1998). There are universities in [[Tripoli]], Benghazi, Marsa el-Brega, Misurata, Sebha, and Tobruk. [http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/Libya-POVERTY-AND-WEALTH.html] (SOURCE: Handbook of the Nations; CIA World Factbook.)
</blockquote>

[[Nobel Peace Prize]] recipient [[Nelson Mandela]] warned of the machinations of outside influences in a speech praising Gaddafi and his leadership in Africa:
{{Cquote|In a world where the strong may seek to impose upon the more vulnerable; and where particular nations or groups of nations may still seek to decide the fate of the planet - in such a world respect for multilateralism, moderation of public discourse and a patient search for compromise become even more imperative to save the world from debilitating conflict and enduring inequality. When we dismissed criticism of our friendship with yourself, My Brother Leader, and of the relationship between [[South Africa]] and Libya, it was precisely in defence of those values.<ref>http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71656?oid=222537&sn=Detail</ref>}}
[[File:Benghazi shopping center Libya.JPG|thumb|Benghazi shopping center.]]
At present Gaddafi is not well seen in the EU and USA but the Libyan people seem to be thriving with him as leader. A delegation of medical professionals from [[Russia]], [[Ukraine]] and [[Belarus]] wrote in an appeal to "Russian President [[Medvedev]] and Prime Minister [[Putin]] that after becoming acquainted with Libyan life, it was their view that in few nations did people live in such comfort". Libya today is not a highly polarized society divided between extremes of wealth and poverty.

On February 24, 2011, no threat was seen to Libya’s Seat on top U.N. Human Rights Body. A European Union-proposed draft resolution for a subsequent session “strongly condemns” human rights violations committed in Libya amid turmoil sparked by protesters, rather than condemning Gaddafi or the regime for committing them. [http://www.cnsnews.com/public/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human]
<blockquote>
The "United Nations Development Program (UNDP) confirms that the country had excellent prospects for achieving United Nations development goals by 2015. NATO's war will have already dashed those hopes. A collapse like the one in Iraq now threatens the country. [http://www.newsfrommiddleeast.com/?new=77210]
</blockquote>
<center>
[[File:View to Tripoli Libya.jpg|380px|thumb|center|Tripoli, 2009.]]
</center>

==Libya under Gaddafi ==
===Petrodollars and oil===
According to a Russian article titled ''Bombing of Lybia - Punishment for Qaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar,'' Gaddafi initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the [[euro]] as payment for crude oil shipments, and called on [[Arab]] and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Gaddafi proposed establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. The initiative was viewed negatively by the United States and the [[European Union]], with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Gaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa.

In the wake of the global [[financial crisis of 2008]], which forced the US economy into [[recession]], both China and Russia have called for the dollar’s role in the financial system to be diluted. In September 2010 ''Bloomberg News'' reported China and Russia plan to start trading in each other’s currencies as the world’s second-biggest energy consumer and the largest energy supplier seek to diminish the dollar’s role in global trade. Bhanu Baweja commented,
{{Cquote|Given the risk to the dollar and U.S. assets from their fiscal position they want to reduce their dependence on the dollar as an invoicing currency....It makes sense for two large economies to exclude a third, overly dominant economy from their trading equation.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-08/china-russia-push-yuan-ruble-trading-to-diminish-dominance-of-u-s-dollar.html</ref>}}

===African Satellite Control Center===
An observer spelled out one of Gaddafi’s motivations for proposing an African Union:
{{Cquote|It began in 1992, when 45 African nations established RASCOM (Regional African Satellite Communication Organization) so that Africa would have its own satellite and slash communication costs in the continent. This was a time when phone calls to and from Africa were the most expensive in the world because of the annual US$500 million fee pocketed by Europe for the use of its satellites like Intelsat for phone conversations, including those within the same country.

An African satellite only cost a onetime payment of US$400 million and the continent no longer had to pay a US$500 million annual lease. Which banker wouldn't finance such a project? But the problem remained – how can [[slave]]s, seeking to free themselves from their master’s exploitation ask the master’s help to achieve that freedom? Not surprisingly, the [[World Bank]], the [[International Monetary Fund]], the USA, Europe only made vague promises for 14 years. Gaddafi put an end to these futile pleas to the western ‘benefactors’ with their exorbitant interest rates. The Libyan guide put US$300 million on the table; the African Development Bank added US$50 million more and the West African Development Bank a further US$27 million – and that’s how Africa got its first communications satellite on 26 December 2007.<ref>http://www.vtcommons.org/blog/2011/04/21/ethan-allen-qaddafi</ref>}}

===Libyan Central Bank===
In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:
{{Cquote|One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned.... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a [[sovereign]] nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.<ref>Eric Encina,''[http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27208.html Globalists Target 100% State Owned Central Bank of Libya,]'' Market Oracle.</ref>}}
Ellen Brown adds,
{{Cquote|Libya not only has oil. According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS (Bank of International Settlements), the IMF and their rules.<ref>Ellen Brown, ''[http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/289-134/5625-libya-all-about-oil-or-all-about-banking Libya: All About Oil, or All About Banking,]'' Reader Supported News, April 15, 2011.</ref>}}
Gaddafi’s proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa contravenes IMF rules and is designed to bypass them.

=== Italian Friendship treaty ===
"We signed a friendship treaty with Libya, that includes a nonaggression clause, but when the counterpart '''no longer exists''' — in this case the Libyan state — the treaty cannot be applied”. [[Italy]]’s foreign minister, Franco Frattini on February 26, 2011 (the uprising began on February 16, 2011).
{{Cquote|Italy’s treaty with Libya, signed by Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] in August 2008, calls on Italy to pay Libya $5 billion over 20 years in reparations for its colonial past there. In return, Libya pledged to help block the flow of illegal immigrants to Italy and grant favorable treatment for Italian companies seeking to do business in Libya. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/28/world/europe/28military.html]</ref>}}

== National Transitional Council ==
The National Transitional Council of the Libyan Republic announced its official establishment in early March 2011 in the city of Benghazi. The stated goal was to liberate Libya from Mu’ammar Gaddafi.<ref>http://ntclibya.org/english/</ref> It has been recognized by France, [[Qatar]], Italy, [[Kuwait]], [[Maldives]] and [[Gambia]]. They have proceeded to form a transitional government for the post-Gaddafi era. Before forming a goverment they robbed about $505 million from the Central Bank of Libya in Benghazi.
[[File:Libya Rebels Gaining Momentum.jpg|thumb|Anti-Gaddafi forces in March, 2011 (Photo:Reuters).]]
{{Cquote|The top leaders of the “revolutionary” masses in Benghazi are two recent defectors of what the Left dubs Gaddafi’s “murderous regime”, Mustafa Abdul Jalil a former Justice minister (who prosecuted dissenters up to the day before the armed uprising), Mahmoud Jebril a top Gaddafite neo-liberal prominent in inviting multi-nationals to take over the oil fields (FT, March 23, 2011, p. 7) and Ali Aziz al-Eisawa, Gaddafi’s former ambassador to India who jumped ship when it looked like the uprising would succeed. These self-appointed leaders of the “rebels” are staunch backers of Euro-US military intervention just as they previously were long-term backers of Gaddafi’s dictatorship and promoters of MNC takeovers of oil and gas fields. The heads of the “rebels” military council is Omar Hariri and General Abdul Fattah Younis former head of the Ministry of Interior, both with long histories (since 1969) of repressing any democratic movements.<ref>http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/euro-us-war-on-libya-official-lies-and-misconceptions-of-critics/</ref>}}
The root base of the armed uprising is Benghazi, a hotbed of tribal backers and clients of the deposed King Idris who ruled with an iron fist over a semi-feudal backward state.

In May, 2011, NATO and Arab countries agreed in Rome to set up a fund to manage donations to help areas controlled by the rebels; they announced a financial mechanism to assist the opposition in Libya. This would include a partial unfreezing of the Gaddafi regime assets in banks that would go into a temporary fund to be managed by the U.N. Sanctions Committee. And it would help the rebels with their immediate needs to cover food, medicine and hospital costs;<ref>http://www.npr.org/2011/05/05/136011941/diplomats-discuss-aid-to-libyan-rebels</ref> They could have access to a special $3 billion (£1.8 billion) trust fund established by its Western backers to finance the breakaway regions fighting Col Muammar Gaddafi;<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8492745/Libyan-rebels-to-receive-1.8-billion-trust-fund.html</ref> the Transitional National Council is planing to use money pledged for humanitarian and reconstruction needs to buy weapons.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/amnesty-international-accuses-gaddafi-regime-of-war-crimes-in-misurata/2011/05/06/AFbPjw6F_story.html?hpid=z2</ref>
[[File:Rebel fighters hoist the former Libyan monarchy flag on the outskirts of Benghazi.jpg|thumb|Rebel fighters hoist the former Libyan monarchy flag on the outskirts of Benghazi. Modern urbanization and equipments may be clearly seen there.]]
<blockquote>
Rebel commanders have created a wanted list and placed suspects under round-the-clock surveillance. Secret militia units raid houses without court warrants and often interrogate suspects for hours. Those released have to sign a document stating their loyalty to the revolution. As many as 30 civilians are being held at various rebel military bases around Benghazi without due process of law, said human rights activists, judges and prosecutors. In recent weeks, at least seven former members of the internal security police have turned up dead, their bodies riddled with bullets. Although it is not known who killed them, many suspect that they died at the hands of rebel-affiliated death squads. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/libyan-rebels-accused-of-reprisal-attacks/2011/05/20/AFaeAh8G_story.html?hpid=z4]
</blockquote>

On May, 26, the deputy leader of Libya's rebel administration said it could take up to two years to organize elections, backtracking on promises of a six-month transition to democracy. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110526/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_libya]

==French intervention==

A report from Congressman [[Dennis Kucinich]] corroborated the claim of Franco Bechis<ref>''[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RkUoFsgEwm8J:www.voltairenet.org/article169069.html+French+plans+to+topple+Gaddafi+on+track+since+last+November&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com French plans to topple Gaddafi on track since last November]'', by Franco Bechis, VoltaireNet, March 26, 2011.</ref> in Italy that "plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010."<ref>http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24347</ref> On March 10, 2011, France became the first and only country to recognize the Libyan Transitional National Council “as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.”<ref> “Sarkozy’s Libyan Surprise,” ''The Economist'', March 14, 2011.</ref> "France recognises states, not parties", said a senior official on March 9th. After a meeting arranged by [[Bernard Henri Levy|Bernard-Henri Lévy]] the next morning, on March 10th, two representatives of the Libyan opposition emerged from President Sarkozys office at the Elysée Palace to announce that "France recognizes the Libyan Transitional National Council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people". <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2</ref><ref>http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2011/03/france_and_libya</ref>

On March 19, two days after passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1973,<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278685</ref> French President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] convened an emergency meeting of allied and Arab leaders in [[Paris]] which endorsed the immediate deployment of military aircraft to stop an assault by Gaddafi forces on Benghazi and the establishment of a no-fly zone in the country. Before the end of the meeting, French fighter planes had attacked armored vehicles and tanks outside Benghazi. Some participants at the Paris meeting were critical of the French government both for insisting on convening the meeting before agreeing to endorse air strikes, and then for launching air strikes before the meeting was over.<ref>Allies Open Air Assault on Qaddafi’s Forces in Libya, ''New York Times'', March 19, 2011.</ref> French officials claim that meeting participants were informed of the operation beforehand. The strikes had clearly been planned and coordinated with the knowledge of key allied militaries, including the [[United States]].<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service'', March 30, 2011, p. 19 pd.</ref>

[[National Public Radio]] (NPR) reports Sarkozy has enjoyed a "burst of public support"<ref>http://wap.npr.org/story/134855539</ref> while the ''[[London Guardian]]'' writes Sarkozy's actions may save him from "electoral humiliation."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/libya-crisis-nicolas-sarkozy-electoral</ref> Several analysts speculate Sarkozy has used the crisis to propel France into a Superpower role, usurping the global leadership of the United States abrogated by [[President Obama]].<ref>http://www.businessandpolitics.org/?p=4651</ref> Columnist Jim Hoagland of the ''[[Washington Post]]'' observes,
{{Cquote|France is a country that has a past being involved in world affairs, wanting to count in world affairs, and being willing to pay its way for defense forces and to use those forces abroad. So, France plays a natural role in that. At a time when governments are slashing defense spending and reducing troops, France still wants to occupy an important role in world affairs....the reason you're seeing France taking on such a much larger role is that other countries, including the United States, are not willing to do it anymore. And Sarkozy is trying to fill that vacuum.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/france2_04-07.html</ref>}}

Sarkozy's approval rating stood at 30% prior to the intervention.

===Legality of French actions===
On May 29, two French lawyers said they planned to initiate legal proceedings against French President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] for crimes against humanity over the [[NATO]]-led military campaign in [[Libya]]... Dumas, a former French minister, said the NATO mission, which was meant to protect civilians, was in fact killing them."<ref>http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=46395</ref>

==Security Council Res. 1973 and NATO==
UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 of March 17, 2011 followed on the heels of Gaddafi’s public threat on March 2 to throw western oil companies out of Libya, and his invitation on March 14 to Chinese, Russian, and Indian firms to produce Libyan oil in their place.<ref>''[http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/7661/Business/Economy/Gaddafi-offers-Libyan-oil-production-to-India,-Rus.aspx Gaddafi offers Libyan oil production to India, Russia, China,] Agence France-Presse, March 14, 2011.</ref> China, Russia, India and Brazil all abstained on UNSC Resolution 1973.

Despite France taking the lead role in the intervention, the Congressional Research Service reports, "Only the United States and NATO possess the command and control capabilities necessary for coalition operations enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya." France only recently rejoined the NATO alliance, in 2008, after a 40 year absence. The Congressional Research Service, which analyzes information and prepares reports for members of Congress, also states,
{{Cquote|In spite of statements underscoring NATO unity on steps announced to date, the initial planning and operational phases were also marked by significant levels of discord within Europe and [[NATO]] on the aims and future direction of the mission. A key point of contention was reportedly the amount of flexibility that NATO forces would be granted to protect civilians and civilian areas, as called for in paragraph 4 of UNSCR 1973. Reports indicate that French officials insisted on maintaining the ability to strike ground forces that threatened civilian areas, while their [[Turkish]] counterparts vocally opposed any targeting of ground forces. Adding to the strain within NATO, NATO ally [[Germany]] abstained from UNSCR 1973 and, opposed to any potential [[combat]] operation, on March 23, withdrew its naval assets in the [[Mediterranean]] from NATO command. Throughout the first week of operations, other European allies contributing to the mission, including Italy and Norway, expressed increasing frustration with the lack of agreement within NATO, with Norway refusing to deploy its fighter jets unless under they were under NATO command and control.<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya):
Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service,'' March 30, 2011, p. 20 pdf.</ref>}}

Of NATO's 28 members, 14 are said to be "actively participating," but only 6 provided military support. By June Norway announced its intention to quit the coalition<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/norway-quit-libya-operation-august</ref> and French and British leaders expressed concerns over being able to meet the costs of a war they dragged the United States into.<ref>http://hosted2.ap.org/COGRA/2e515285f07040df999bd6b670db791c/Article_2011-06-14-EU-NATO-Libya/id-f6d2287c00ba4816924c082ed9cc12fa</ref> Of the 22-country [[Arab League]], whose appeal prompted the United Nations to vote on intervention, only [[Qatar]] and the [[United Arab Emirates]] are involved. Of the 192 members of the [[UN General Assembly]], who all have a legal "responsibility to protect" civilians attacked by their own governments, only [[Sweden]] has responded.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref> After the authorization and commitment of NATO and U.S. forces, Secretary Gates announced,
{{Cquote|The mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country, yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.}}
and warned
{{Cquote|The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the American body politic writ large—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.<ref>http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/10/robert_gates_nato_defense_secretary_questions_future_of_the_alli.html</ref>}}

===Exceeding UN mandate===
Resolution 1973 authorized strict limitations, according to international law, on NATO as the organization with responsibility for the implementation of the resolution. Particularly, it provides only for a naval blockade enforcing the arms embargo, and enforcement of a no-fly zone. On March 29, 2011, Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin commented after a meeting with NATO officials in [[Brussels, Belgium]], that Russia expressed deep concern over the interpretation of the Security Council’s resolution, as some countries have effectively turned it into an approval for ground operations.
{{Cquote|[[Moscow]] has many questions about how the UN Security Council’s resolution is being carried out...First of all, there are reports that civilians have been killed in the air strikes. This is odd if you consider the message of the resolution, which says that the foreign forces’ actions should protect civilians. So it’s hard to comprehend how you can protect civilians by killing them....we demanded that the UN Security Council be fully informed about the actions of the alliance in Libya at all times... We have reports of air strikes against convoys far from the front line. This is a far cry from the UN Security Council resolution.<ref>http://rt.com/news/coalition-libya-nato-russian-envoy/</ref>}}
[[File:Bombing Tripoli Libya.jpg|right|Bombing Tripoli, Libya.]]
NATO planes and ships have been striking cities and military installations in Libya since mid-March, 2011. Allied military officials have spoken in recent weeks of the need for escalation to help protect Libyan civilians and have called for Gaddafi to step down. Libyan officials have said that NATO is picking sides in a civil war and complained that strikes on Gaddafi’s Tripoli compound are attempts to assassinate the leader of a sovereign country. NATO launched its largest airstrike against Moammar Gaddafi’s regime on May, 24, 2011, with at least 15 massive explosions rocking the Libyan capital. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/french-officials-france-and-britain-to-use-attack-helicopters-in-libya/2011/05/23/AFTF909G_story.html?hpid=z2]
<blockquote>
On May 15, two months into the NATO bombing campaign against loyal Gaddafi’s forces, Britain’s top military commander has said that the Libyan leader could remain “clinging to power” unless NATO broadened its bombing targets to include the country’s infrastructure. [http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html]
</blockquote>

The French and the British described plans for a wargames exercise for an attack on Libya last November, in the end they used those military assets that had been mobilized for the real thing 3 months ago. We know that NATO doesn’t just go and bomb a country over night, these things are planned far in advance, and in this case there is conclusive evidence that there have been plans for this for many many years. <ref> [https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend] June 4, 2011. </ref>
<blockquote>
On Jun 18, Prime minister of Libya Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi accused [[NATO]] of a "new level of aggression" over the past 72 hours in which he said the military alliance intentionally targeted civilian buildings, including a hotel and a university. "It has become clear to us that NATO has moved on to deliberately hitting civilian buildings. ... This is a crime against humanity," he told reporters in the capital. Libya's Health Ministry released new casualty figures that put the number of civilians killed in NATO air strikes through to June 7 at 856. <ref> [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/gaddafi-rages-at-nato-after-bombing-2299509.html Gaddafi rages at NATO after bombing.] </ref>
</blockquote>
[[File:Women with Gaddafi Libya.jpg|thumb|280px|Lizzie Cocker with mum and two daughters from Sudan who have been living in Libya for 17 years. They had to flee from Misrata to Tripoli following the vicious atrocities committed by the pro-NATO rebels against black skinned peoples. They are firmly standing behind their leader Moammar Gadaffi. The sisters have written on the poster, on the left: "King of Kings of Africa" and on the right: "Our souls are for you".]]
==== Italy - Berlusconi ====
[[Italy]] called for a suspension of hostilities in [[Libya]] on June 22 in the latest sign of dissent within [[NATO]] as the civilian death toll mounts and [[Muammar Gaddafi]] shows no signs of quitting power. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110622/ts_afp/libyaconflictnatoitalydiplomacy]

===African response to UN & NATO intervention===
NATO's Libyan intervention has proven fractious in black Africa; in March [[Nigeria]]'s Foreign Minister Odein Ajumogobia commented, "The contradictions between principle and national interest ... have enabled the international community to impose a no-fly zone over Libya ostensibly to protect innocent civilians from slaughter, but to watch seemingly helplessly (in [[Ivory Coast]]) as ...men, women and children are slaughtered in equally, even if less egregious, violence."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-503543_162-503543.html?keyword=ivory+coast</ref>

<blockquote>
Amr Moussa, the outgoing head of the Arab League and a front runner to become president of a democratic Egypt, has voiced reservations about NATO's bombing campaign in Libya, calling for a ceasefire and talks on a political settlement while Muammar Gaddafi remains in power. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/21/arab-league-chief-libya-air-strikes]
</blockquote>

The Arab League, which in March asked the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians, condemned the loss of life in bombing incidents.

<blockquote>
"When the Arab League agreed on the idea of having a no-fly zone over Libya it was to protect civilians but when civilians get killed this has to be condemned with the harshest of statements," said Deputy Secretary-General Ahmed Ben Helli.
</blockquote>

The Libyan leader says the Western-led military campaign is an act of colonial aggression designed to steal Libya's oil. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110620/wl_nm/us_libya]

==United States intervention==
[[File:Treaty of Tripoli PD LC.jpg|thumb|Treaty of Tripoli, Libya was one of the first nation to recognize the US in 1796.]]
===Frozen assets===
President Obama moved swiftly to support French plans to frustrate Gaddafi’s proposal for an African Union with his unilateral declaration of a national emergency in order to freeze all of the Bank of Libya’s $30 billion of funds to which America had access. This was reported in the U.S. press as a freeze of the funds of "Colonel Qaddafi, his children and family, and senior members of the Libyan government.<ref>''New York Times'', February 27, 2011.</ref> The second section of Obama’s decree explicitly targeted "All property and interests… of the Government of Libya, its agencies, instrumentalities, and controlled entities, and the Central Bank of Libya.<ref>Executive Order of February 25, 2011, citing International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, seizes all Libyan Govt assets, February 25, 2011, link. The authority granted to the President by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act "may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose" (50 U.S.C. 1701).</ref> The consequences of the $30-billion freeze for [[Africa]], as well as for Libya, have been spelled out by an African observer:
{{Cquote|The US$30 billion frozen by Mr Obama belong to the Libyan Central Bank and had been earmarked as the Libyan contribution to three key projects which would add the finishing touches to the African federation – the African Investment Bank in Syrte, Libya, the establishment in 2011 of the African Monetary Fund to be based in Yaounde with a US$42 billion capital fund and the Abuja-based African Central Bank in Nigeria which when it starts printing African money will ring the death knell for the CFA franc through which Paris has been able to maintain its hold on some African countries for the last fifty years. It is easy to understand the French wrath against Gaddafi.}}

===War Powers Act===

Under the [[War Powers Act]] of 1973 the U.S President has limited authority to use military force without Congressional authorization when there is an imminent [[national security]] threat, however President Obama made clear that he ordered the use of force for other reasons. Members of Congress of both parties have expressed concern the President may have violated the law in doing so.<ref>http://rooney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3190:rooney-resolution-president-should-obtain-congressional-authorization-or-end-military-campaign-in-libya-&catid=48:2011-press-releases</ref> The War Powers Act specifically states that the President’s power to introduce forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities can only be exercised pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. The War Powers Act requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific Congressional authorization. None of these prerequisites have been met.

On March 21, 2011, President Obama publicly announced U.S. military forces commenced no fly-zone operations in Libya two days earlier, on March 19, "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe" and cited UN Resolutions as giving him the authority to do so. Secretary of Defense [[Robert Gates]] warned establishment of a no-fly zone meant attacking Libaya.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20038391-503544.html</ref> Officials as National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough also opposed to attacking Libya; but "[[Hillary Clinton]] won the bureaucratic battle to use DOD resources to achieve what's essentially the State Department's objective... and Obama let it happen". <ref>[http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/18/how_obama_turned_on_a_dime_toward_war How Obama turned on a dime toward war.] </ref> The Charter of the [[United Nations]], in Article 2(4), prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of a member state, and many observers have wondered whether the establishment of a no-fly zone would constitute a violation of this prohibition. The Congressional Research Services advised that a no-fly zone imposed against a state that has not carried out an attack on its neighbors may consider the imposition of a no-fly zone an “armed attack.” CRS warned that even if no-fly zone operations in a given state do not constitute an “armed attack",
{{Cquote|that state, and other members of the international community, might consider them a violation of the prohibition of the “threat or use of force,” as well as of the customary duty of non-intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states.}}

NATO's Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee days before President Obama publicly admitted to intervention that U.S. intelligence knew of [[al Qaeda]] and [[Hezbollah]] elements among the Libyan insurgents.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8414583/Libya-al-Qaeda-among-Libya-rebels-Nato-chief-fears.html</ref> A document published by the U.S. [[West Point]] Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center reveals that Libya sent more fighters to the [[Operation_Iraqi_Freedom#InsurgencyIraq|Islamic insurgency]] than any other [[Muslim]] country (from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah.).<ref>[http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/pdf/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf The Sinjar documents], a collection of al Qaeda computer data captured by Americans in 2007 in a predawn raid near Sinjar, Iraq, six miles from the Syrian border. The documents included background information on around 750 foreign fighters, who migrated to Iraq to kill American soldiers, many of those fighters coming from among the very people we are now pledging to protect. David Wood wrote: "Almost one in five foreign fighters arriving in Iraq came from eastern Libya, from the towns of Surt, Misurata and Darnah. On a per capita basis, that’s more than twice as many than came from any other Arabic-speaking country, amounting to what the counter terrorism center called a Libyan “surge” of young men eager to kill Americans."</ref> This set off a fierce debate in the [[Obama administration]] over the wisdom of arming terrorists.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/africa/30diplo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss</ref> It is now known however, that sometime prior to March 31, 2011,<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31intel.html?_r=2&hp</ref> President Obama signed a secret Presidential Finding authorizing support for the insurgents.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref> Direct arms support would violate the arms embargo imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1970 on February 26, 2011.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330</ref>

Public opinion initially was divided on support for President Obama's actions, within 30 days however, opposition rose 15%<ref>http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/americans-rapidly-turn-against-obama-over-handling-of-libyan-intervention.php</ref> as the reality of the intervention set in.

===Legality of U.S. military actions===
The ''[[Washington Post]]'' reported on May 20, 2011 President Obama missed the legal deadline set in the 1973 law that required him to obtain Congressional approval for U.S. military operations in Libya. Under the [[Nixon]]-era War Powers Resolution, the president must obtain Congressional authorization of military action within 60 days, or else begin withdrawing forces.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-likely-to-miss-deadline-for-congressional-approval-of-libya-operations/2011/05/19/AFFLKn7G_story.html</ref> Sen. [[Richard Lugar]] of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations warned President Obama,
[[File:NATO strike Libya.jpg|right|220px|NATO strike, Libya.]]
{{Cquote|U.S. military operations in Libya have assumed a different character than you suggested when you announced the decision to initiate them. In your March 21 letter to the Congress, you indicated that these operations would be limited in their nature, duration, and scope, and focused on protecting civilians and civilian populated areas from attack. Two months into these operations, your Administration is unable to specify what limits will apply to the duration of the operations, and the coalition in which we are participating appears to have expanded its objectives to weakening the Gaddafi regime’s hold on power through strikes on leadership targets and, potentially, infrastructure targets.<ref>http://lugar.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=332967&</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-obama-above-the-law/2011/05/26/AGL5zyCH_story.html</ref>}}

The evidence is President Obama’s war in Libya is illegal and unconstitutional. Columnist George Will laid out the case in, “Is Obama Above the Law?” The war is a violation of the War Powers Act, which says the president can go to war without Congressional approval only if there is an imminent threat to the U.S. and there is a 60-day deadline for the withdrawal of forces. [http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2467]

The law states that “The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States , its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Since there was no declaration of war or statutory authorization for the Libya action, there has to be a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S. There was none in the Libya case.<ref>http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2458 Conservative Truth.</ref> A [[bipartisan]] group of legislators have begun action against what they percieve to be President Obama's unconstitutional misuse of power.<ref>http://thehill.com/homenews/house/166577-kucinich-jones-sue-white-house-over-libya-war</ref>

=== 10 Reasons to Oppose the War in Libya ===

According to Rep. [[Dennis Kucinich]]:

* '''It is unconstitutional''', violating Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which gives the power of declaring war to the Congress.
* '''It is illegal''', as the War Powers Resolution was exploited out of context in order to declare war.
* '''American public opinion is against it''', as 6 Americans out of 10 oppose the war.
* It '''distracts''' the President from more immediate concerns, such as the dire state of the economy.
* It '''costs''' funds that should be used for other purposes.
* Although the war was declared by Britain and France, '''America is paying more than other NATO allies'''.
* '''Civilians are being killed''' by the same powers that are supposed to protect them.
* '''The U.N. Resolution that authorized limited military action did not allow for regime change'''
* '''Public support of the war is eroding even in other allied countries.'''
* '''The situation is a stalemate''' that ought to be solved by political, not military means.

See more at: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-dennis-kucinich/10-reasons-to-oppose-the_b_881554.html 10 Reasons to Oppose the War in Libya.]

=== Opposition of [[Ron Paul]] ===

<blockquote>
Why did the US intervene in a civil war in a country that has neither attacked us nor poses a threat? We are told this was another humanitarian intervention, like Clinton’s 1999 war against [[Serbia]]. But as civilian victims of the US-led coalition bombing continue to add up, it is getting difficult to determine whether the problem we are creating on the ground is worse than the one we were trying to solve. [http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-03-28/ron-paul-end-the-libyan-war/]
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, explained in a recent article that there is plausible reason to believe the rebels are current or former Islamist mujahedin, eager to engage in jihad. Indeed, Gaddafi has fought against Libyan Islamists for years and is seen by them as a bitter enemy. Astoundingly, it may well be that we are assisting al Qaeda in this new war! [[Ibidem]]
</blockquote>

==Role of China==
In the first decade of the Twenty-first century China quietly has overtaken the United States to become Africa's largest trading partner, particularly in oil, which accounts for 73 percent of all African exports. According to the Chinese government's first white paper on its economic and trade cooperation with Africa, China's trade with Africa has soared to $114.81 billion in the first 11 months of 2010. China uses about 8 million barrels per day (bpd), a demand that is projected to rise to 11.3 million bpd by 2015 and now receives 28 percent of its oil imports from Africa. China's top oil suppliers are [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Iran]], [[Angola]], Russia, [[Oman]] and [[Sudan]]. Saudi Arabia is China's top oil supplier (1.1 million bpd.) China is also buying oil from [[Chad]], [[Gabon]] and [[Nigeria]] as well. China's top African oil suppliers are [[Angola]], [[Sudan]] and [[Nigeria]]. The [[International Monetary Fund]] reports, oil now accounts for 99 percent of Sudanese exports, with China absorbing for 65 percent of them. Energy is Angola's sole export hard currency earner, with China now accounting for 35 percent of Angolan exports.<ref>http://mammutcapital.blogspot.com/2011/06/upcoming-us-china-struggle-for-african.html</ref>

===Competition for resources===
After hostilities began China evacuated over 36,000 of its energy and construction workers and shut down operations of Chinese companies with over $18.8 billion of Chinese investments in Libya.<ref>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/1119924/1/.html</ref> China alone is expected to invest on a scale of $50 billion a year in Libaya and Africa by 2015, a figure - funded by America’s [[trade deficit]] with China - which the Western powers and NATO cannot match.<ref>Leslie Hook, ''China’s future in Africa, after Libya,'' March 4, 2011. The U.S trade deficit with China in 2010 was $273 billion.</ref> China, Libya's largest Asian oil customer, called for an immediate ceasefire.

Dr. [[Paul Craig Roberts]], former Assistant Secretary of US Treasury in the [[Reagan administration]] observed the joint French, British, and US coalition's objective is
{{Cquote|to eliminate China from the [[Mediterranean]]. China has extensive energy investments and construction investments in Libya. They are looking to Africa as a future energy source. The US is countering this by organizing the United States African Command (USAC), which Qaddafi refused to join. So that's the second reason for the Americans to want Qaddafi out.}}
Roberts observes
{{Cquote| the protests in Libya are different from the ones in Egypt or [[Yemen]] or [[Bahrain]] or [[Tunisia]] and the difference is that this is an armed rebellion...these protests originated in the eastern part of Libya where the oil is - they did not originate in the capital city. And we have heard from the beginning credible reports that the CIA is involved in the protests, and there have been a large number of press reports that the CIA has sent back to Libya its Libyan asset<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/26/111109/new-rebel-leader-spent-much-of.html</ref> to head up the Libyan rebellion... China has 50 major investment projects in eastern Libya.<ref>http://www.presstv.ir/detail/175076.html</ref>}}

Whatever Washington’s ulterior motives, there is no doubt that NATO’s military operations in Libya are harming China’s fiscal interests. According to information from China’s Ministry of Trade, by March, when the military operation began, there were 75 major Chinese companies operating in Libya, and they had concluded $18 billion in contracts. Because of the NATO operations in Libya, the Chinese companies are expecting gigantic losses. <ref> [http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ Washington Using NATO For Proxy Conflict With China In Libya.] </ref>

==Mission creep==
UN Security Council Resolution 1973, passed in March 2011, does not authorise participating members to support the anti-Gaddafi forces, to defend armed groups, or to oust Gaddafi. Nor does it authorise a ground invasion or military occupation. Strategic analyst Anthony Cordesman notes the similarities between Libya and Iraq and the loose uncoordinated coalitions "failure to plan for the decisive and lasting use of force, failure to plan for the civil side of military operations and to support stability operations, and focus on short term goals without a realistic plan for a successful strategic and post-conflict outcome." Cordesman notes,
{{Cquote|the lives and futures of some 6.6 million Libyans are at stake. The Franco-Anglo-American gamble now seems far too likely to fail at their expense. Moreover, it seems likely to drag the other nations that support the operation into their failure -- along with part of the reputation of NATO and credibility of the UN.... gambling on Qaddafi caving in has created a far more serious humanitarian crisis for the Libyan people than would ever have occurred if the Coalition had acted decisively from the start ...The humanitarian cost of humanitarian restraint is all too clear: Hundreds of Libyan and foreign workers have been killed...hundreds of thousands lack jobs, security, and safe conditions of life....an enduring war of attrition will turn a minor humanitarian crisis into a major one ...This kind of operation cannot be “surgical’ – if “surgical” now means minimizing bloodshed regardless of whether the patient dies. Hard, and sometimes brutal, choices need to be made between limited civilian casualties and collateral damage during the decisive use of force and an open-ended war of attrition that will produce far higher cumulative civilian casualties and collateral damage.<ref>http://csis.org/publication/libya-will-farce-stay-us-and-france-and-britain</ref>}}
Cordesman notes mission creep and boots on the ground ultimately lead to [[nation building]]:
{{Cquote|France, Britain, and the US now have a special obligation to both finish what they started in military terms, and deal with the aftermath. A post-conflict Libya will need extensive help in building a workable political system, in rebuilding the capability to govern, in both rebuilding the existing economy and correcting for decades of Qaddafi’s reckless and constantly shifting eccentricities.}}
On April 19, 2011, one month after Sarkozy, Cameron, and Obama asked the UN Security Council for authorization for a limited use of force, the UK ''[[Guardian (UK)|Guardian]]'' reported,
{{Cquote|Britain is now publicly doing what it expressly said it would not do when the no-fly intervention began: putting boots on the ground in Libya. France is taking similar action. Given that the rebel forces have convincingly demonstrated their inability to win on their own, given the sizable negatives for David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy of an open-ended, inconclusive conflict, and given Barack Obama's flat refusal to do any more, the question now is: how many more British and French boots will follow, sooner or later, in the advisers' fateful footsteps?....By encouraging and assisting rebel resistance, as [[George H. W. Bush|George Bush Snr]] did with the [[Shia]]s of southern [[Iraq]] in 1991, Britain and France risk worsening the plight of the Libyan civilians they are primarily pledged to defend. The UN and concerned aid agencies all agree the humanitarian situation is growing steadily worse, the longer the conflict continues. ..<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref>}}

<blockquote>
Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, in particular, has been scathing about Western intervention in Libya, comparing the Resolution 1973 to “a medieval call to the crusades” and saying “the so-called civilized community, with all its might, pounces on a small country, and ruins infrastructure that has been built over generations.” Mr. Putin returned to the subject of Libya repeatedly, despite acknowledging that foreign policy decisions were not within his portfolio as prime minister. [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/world/europe/28russia.html?hp]
</blockquote>

===Manufacturing Consent===

"On how the western media makes the case for war. Our consent has been manufactured by the criminalization of Gaddafi and his government, and the Libyan people cannot believe it when I tell them what is said about him in the west. And if only you could see how they live, they are far more free than us in England in many ways, this does not fit in with the oppressive image of Gaddafi portrayed in the west.

So for example, I have had Libyans coming up to me asking me about a report in the popular French newspaper Le Figaro that came out about 3 days ago saying 10,000 people have been killed in Tripoli over the past 3 months by government forces. They are astonished, because this is complete and utter lies. " [https://lizziesliberation.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/letter-from-libya-to-a-close-friend/ Letter from Libya to a close friend.]

==External links==
[[File:Tripoli NATO bombing Libya.jpg|thumb|Tripoli, NATO bombing.]]
*[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyas-rebels-2234227.html America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels.] ''The Independent'', UK.
*[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2055251,00.html Why Libya's Uprising Is Bad for the World Economy.]
*[http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-14/bostonglobe/29418371_1_rebel-stronghold-civilians-rebel-positions False pretense for war in Libya?]
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-nato-civil-war-cameron These humanitarians come to Libya with missiles, and an agenda.] by [[Simon Jenkins]].
*[http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=24188 The West's War Against Gaddafi. Yet another long-lasting, tragic crime against humanity.]
*[http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama%E2%80%99s-war-in-libya-is-illegal-and-unconstitutional/ Obama’s War in Libya is Illegal and Unconstitutional.] by Cliff Kincaid.
*[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/30/us-libya-school-idUSTRE73T24620110430 Libya disabled children school hit in NATO strike.] Reuters.
*[http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/06/08/natos-alternate-universe-in-libya.html NATO's "Alternate Universe" in Libya.]
*[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reese-schonfeld/are-the-lessons-of-kosovo_b_868281.html Are The Lessons of Kosovo Spreading to Libya?]
*[http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/article/2011/06/22/le-patron-de-la-ligue-arabe-fait-part-de-scrupules-sur-la-libye_1539111_1496980.html#ens_id=1481986 The head of the Arab League expressed "qualms" about Libya.] In French.

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Libya]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:War]]

Talk:Thomas Edison

2011-06-29T14:22:20Z

LeonardO:

I question that rollback by MountainDew, whom I rarely question. He's right that Edison professed at times to be agnostic, probably more so later in life. But consistent, dedicated, lifelong agnostics are rare. It wouldn't surprise me if Edison did credit God for his inventions earlier in life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Possibly true, but is this "encyclopedia" a place for suppositions? Sadly, it seem it is.
-Gasmonkey

: Certainly not. But the rollback was not based on lack of citation, but on alleged falsity of the claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::I didn't realize that Edison was not a lifelong agnostic and drop my objection. Maybe a cite would be even better. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Added Religious Viewpoints==
Added info regarding the Deistic religious beliefs of Thomas Edison.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 13:39, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==The Greatest Inventor in History==
Hello, 
I believe that the expression "The greatest/best _____ ever/in history" is not really encyclopaedic, as it states something which cannot be directly measured. I agree that Edison was probably the best inventor or at least in the top 5 of all time, but I suggest that we find a more "objective" way of saying it. If we cannot find such a way, we should at least clearly state the criteria by which we consider him to be "the greatest", making our claim less generic. We cannot claim he was the "most prolific", as in sheer number of patents he is surpassed by Kia Silverbrook and Shunpei Yamazaki - but of course Edison's inventions had a much greater impact on mankind. 
Anyway, to sum up my point - I agree with your assessment of Edison, but I believe that we should find, together, a more objective way of stating it, so that it sounds less "opinion" and more "fact". 
Best regards,
:[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 10:21, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Thomas Edison

2011-06-29T14:21:04Z

LeonardO:

I question that rollback by MountainDew, whom I rarely question. He's right that Edison professed at times to be agnostic, probably more so later in life. But consistent, dedicated, lifelong agnostics are rare. It wouldn't surprise me if Edison did credit God for his inventions earlier in life.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Possibly true, but is this "encyclopedia" a place for suppositions? Sadly, it seem it is.
-Gasmonkey

: Certainly not. But the rollback was not based on lack of citation, but on alleged falsity of the claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::I didn't realize that Edison was not a lifelong agnostic and drop my objection. Maybe a cite would be even better. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Added Religious Viewpoints==
Added info regarding the Deistic religious beliefs of Thomas Edison.
[[User:Intranetusa|Intranetusa]] 13:39, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==The Greatest Inventor in History==
Hello,
I believe that the expression "The greatest/best _____ ever/in history" is not really encyclopaedic, as it states something which cannot be directly measured. I agree that Edison was probably the best inventor or at least in the top 5 of all time, but I suggest that we find a more "objective" way of saying it. If we cannot find such a way, we should at least clearly state the criteria by which we consider him to be "the greatest", making our claim less generic. We cannot claim he was the "most prolific", as in sheer number of patents he is surpassed by Kia Silverbrook and Shunpei Yamazaki - but of course Edison's inventions had a much greater impact on mankind.
Anyway, to sum up my point - I agree with your assessment of Edison, but I believe that we should find, together, a more objective way of stating it, so that it sounds less "opinion" and more "fact".
Best regards,
--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 10:21, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

Ronald Wilson Reagan

2011-06-29T00:19:07Z

LeonardO: Undo revision 884084 by Gunnut2000 (talk)

{{Officeholder
|name=Ronald Wilson Reagan
|image=Reagan large 4.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse= Jane Wyman Nancy Davis Reagan
|religion=[[Presbyterian]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=40th
|terms=January 20, 1981 – January 20, 1989
|vp=[[George H. W. Bush]]
|preceded=[[Jimmy Carter]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[George H. W. Bush]]
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=33rd
|state=California
|terms=January 2, 1967 – January 6, 1975
|preceded=Edmund G. "Pat" Brown, Sr.
|former=y
|succeeded=Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown, Jr.
}}
}}
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan''' (February 6, 1911 - June 5, 2004), served as the 40th [[President of the United States of America]] from 1981 to 1989. He was the 33rd Governor of [[California]] (1967–1975), following a successful career in film and television. He has been widely recognized as one of the greatest American Presidents and the main inspiration for the conservative movement from the 1970s to the present.

Reagan was an intellectual leader of American conservatism, and succeeded in moving the nation to the right in terms of reducing federal regulation and lowering taxes--and indeed in promoting the conviction that government was the problem and private enterprise the solution. He cut taxes but despite his proposals, spending and the federal deficit went up. After a short sharp recession early in his first term, the economy was strong by 1984. Proclaiming "It's Morning Again in America", Reagan carried 49 of 50 states to win reelection. He moved the [[Supreme Court]] and the federal courts to the right with his appointments.

Reagan's supply-side economic policies were based on the libertarian ideas of [[Milton Friedman]] and the [[Chicago School of Economics]]. "Reaganomics" was based on the idea that tax cuts will spur savings and investment. Reagan was strongly opposed to the concept of big government, advocating a reduction in the size and budget of the federal government. During his terms in office, he faced a divided Congress split between Republican and Democratic control for six of his eight years as President. Reagan was known for forging alliances with "Blue Dog" (conservative) Democrats to overcome the apparent majority led by Democratic Speaker [[Tip O'Neill]].

In foreign affairs Reagan rejected détente with the [[Soviet Union]], but not with [[China]]. His massive defense buildup forced the Soviets to confront their crumbling financial base. He rejected the legitimacy of Communism and in the [[Reagan Doctrine]] systematically challenged and eventually destroyed Soviet strength in the Third World. After 1986 the new leadership of [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] who tried desperately to rescue Communism by cutting its losses; they came to terms with Reagan; the Communist empire collapsed in 1989 a few months after Reagan left office, and Communism was abolished (and Gorbachev repudiated) by Russia in 1991. Reagan is thus credited with achieving victory in the Cold War.<ref> Knopf (2004)</ref>

Always distrustful of nuclear weapons, Reagan proposed SDI, a space-based system to defend against nuclear missiles. The inability of the Soviet Union to match this new technological breakthrough forced it to agree to Reagan's terms for ending the Cold War. In leading the rollback of Communism in Europe, he battled powerful liberal forces that called instead for détente (peaceful relations) with Communism. As the Soviet system faltered and Gorbachev accepted Reagan's terms, ensured an unprecedented level of nuclear disarmament. His signature phrase in dealing with Communists was "trust, but verify."

In his most famous challenges to Communism, Reagan went to the Berlin Wall and gave the Soviets the American terms for ending the Cold War: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" The Soviets were forced to agree, and watched their empire collapse overnight in late 1989, a few months after Reagan was succeeded as president by his Vice President [[George H.W. Bush]].

As a great communicator, and leader of the Republican party, he added a new base of "Reagan Democrats" (blue collar workers who were social conservatives), religious evangelicals, and neoconservative intellectuals; his success became the model for Republicans into the 21st century.

== Reagan's Conservatism ==
In a speech, immediately after assuming the presidency in 1981, he outlined his philosophy to his compatriots. After listing "intellectual leaders like Russell Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, James Burnham, Ludwig von Mises" as the ones who "shaped so much of our thoughts," he discussed only one of these influences at length:

*It's especially hard to believe that it was only a decade ago, on a cold April day on a small hill in upstate New York, that another of these great thinkers, [[Frank Meyer]], was buried. He'd made the awful journey that so many others had: He pulled himself from the clutches of "The [communist] God That Failed,'' and then in his writing fashioned a vigorous new synthesis of traditional and libertarian thought -- a synthesis that is today recognized by many as modern conservatism.

*It was Frank Meyer who reminded us that the robust individualism of the American experience was part of the deeper current of Western learning and culture. He pointed out that a respect for law, an appreciation for tradition, and regard for the social consensus that gives stability to our public and private institutions, these civilized ideas must still motivate us even as we seek a new economic prosperity based on reducing government interference in the marketplace.

*Our goals complement each other. We're not cutting the budget simply for the sake of sounder financial management. This is only a first step toward returning power to the States and communities, only a first step toward reordering the relationship between citizen and government. We can make government again responsive to the people by cutting its size and scope and thereby ensuring that its legitimate functions are performed efficiently and justly. <ref>[http://acuf.org/issues/issue13/040606news.asp Ronald Reagan's Conservative Legacy, ACUF]</ref>

==Early Life==
[[File:Reagan_graduation.jpg|right|160px|thumb| 1932 photo taken after his graduation from Eureka College]]
Reagan was born in Tampico, [[Illinois]], the second son of John (Jack) Edward and Nelle Wilson Reagan. The family finally settled in Dixon, Illinois in 1920 after years of moving from town to town. Jack Reagan nicknamed his younger son “Dutch", claiming he looked like “a fat little Dutchman.”<ref> http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/facts.html</ref> Reagan's father was a working class Irish Catholic, and an active Democrat. Unemployed during the [[Great Depression]], Jack Reagan held a minor position in the [[WPA]] during the [[New Deal]]. Reagan recalled numerous alcoholic episodes that cost his father many job opportunities. Nelle Reagan, a devout member of the [[Disciples of Christ]], greatly influenced her son, who remained a lifelong Protestant.

He attended [[Eureka College]], a small Disciples school where he developed a reputation as a "jack of all trades", excelling in campus politics, sports and theater. Reagan was a member of the football and track teams, the basketball cheerleading squad, captain of the swimming team, yearbook editor and was elected student body president. Reagan was a political liberal at that point and led a student revolt against the college president. In his first year at Eureka, the president of the college tried to cut back the faculty. Reagan helped organize a student strike. He received his degree in economics in 1932.

To pay for college, Reagan worked many low wage jobs such as cooking hamburgers and washing tables. He also worked as a lifeguard at Lowell Park on the Rock River in Dixon for seven summers, where he saved seventy-seven swimmers from drowning.<ref> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/reagan/ Timeline of Ronald Reagan’s Life</ref>

After college Reagan became a radio sports announcer in Iowa. Although he was originally only hired to announce the [[University of Iowa]] football games, he became so popular in the Midwest he began covering Chicago Cubs baseball games at Wrigley Field. He also wrote sports columns in the Des Moines ‘’Dispatch’’.

===Reagan as Disciple===
Reagan took religious values into the presidency that he learned from his [[Disciples of Christ]] background at home and at Eureka College, a Disciples school. He was strongly influenced by Ben Hill Cleaver, the minister of the First Christian Church<ref>The formal name of the denomination is the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).</ref> in Dixon, Illinois, during the 1920s, and by Reagan's mother, Nelle, an active member of the church. At many points the positions taken by the Disciples Church of Reagan's youth coincided with the words, if not the beliefs of the latter-day Reagan. These positions included faith in Providence, the association of America's mission with God's will, belief in progress, trust in the work ethic and admiration for those who achieved wealth, an uncomfortableness with literature and art that questioned the family or challenged notions of proper sexual behavior, the presumption that poverty is an individual problem best left to charity rather than the state, sensitivity to problems involving alcohol and drugs, and reticence to use government to protect civil rights for minorities. Reagan's experiences in the church and with the Cleavers provided early training in public speaking and offered a way of learning in which acting played a central part. Reagan's use of the jeremiad and his fusing of Judeo-Christianity and patriotism into a civil religion also have their roots in this early period. For her part, Nelle was a pillar of the church and the one who provided stability to the shaky Reagan family when the head was drunkard and a poor provider. She helped spark her son's interest in acting and believed the stage could be a force for noble purposes.<ref> Stephen Vaughn, "The Moral Inheritance of a President: Reagan and the Dixon Disciples of Christ." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 1995 25(1): 109-127. 0360-4918 </Ref>

==Hollywood==
[[File:Reagan1953.jpg|thumb|left|250px|1953 film starring Reagan and Dorothy Malone]]
In 1937 Reagan traveled to [[Hollywood]] to cover the Chicago Cubs's spring training games and look at prospects in the film industry. Warner Brothers studio offered him a one year contract with a starting salary of $200 a week. He then became famous starring in numerous "B" movies, where he typically played a supporting character rather then the leading role. In 1941 Reagan gave a well received performance in the [[Academy Award|Oscar]] nominated film ''Kings Row''. During the war Reagan was in the Air Force; he was assigned to make training films. He resumed his Hollywood career on release in 1946.

Reagan's movie career faded in the late 1940s but he made a successful transition to television, especially as a host, and became a celebrity on the speakers' circuit. He traveled the country as a motivation speaker for General Electric, attracting highly appreciative audiences for his polished, witty speeches based on a wide reading in current events and libertarian economic principles. Reagan also starred in the 1960s television series Death Valley Days. By 1964 he had appeared in over 50 films.

===Union president===
Reagan jumped into union politics, and was elected to five terms as president of the [[Screen Actors Guild]], a labor union for movie actors and part of the [[AFL]]. As SAG President he traveled across the country giving speeches on behalf of actors. Until the 1950s Reagan was an avid liberal Democrat who strongly supported the [[New Deal]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] and the [[Fair Deal]] of [[Harry S. Truman]]. He often campaigned on behalf of the [[New Deal Coalition]]. There was talk of running Reagan for president of the AFL itself.<ref> Ronald Reagan, [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743400259/ref=sib_dp_srch_bod?v=search-inside&keywords=truman ''An American Life'' (1990) p 132]</ref>

Reagan was thus the only president to lead a [[labor union]], a bastion of liberalism. Reagan himself was a registered Democrat well into the 1950s, but as head of the Screen Actors Guild he fought against Communist infiltration. In 1947 he testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Peggy Noonan wrote, "Even in his zeal to purge the communist influence from [[Hollywood]], he fought those who engaged in witch hunts and defended those who had been falsely accused of involvement."

While remaining a Democrat Reagan became increasingly conservative in the 1950s. After actively supporting [[Richard Nixon]]'s campaign for president in 1960, Reagan switched political parties and officially became a Republican in 1962. He realized that he had diverged greatly from the tax-and-spend liberalism of the Democratic Party.

[[Image:Reagantheater.jpg‎|right|thumb|225px|Ronald Reagan and General Electric Theater. 1954-62.]]

==1964==

Conservatives nationwide saw Reagan as their new star when his campaigning for Senator [[Barry Goldwater]] in 1964 was better received than Goldwater's own speeches. He raised an unprecedented eight million dollars for Goldwater. Despite Goldwater's defeat, Reagan's 1964 "[[Time for Choosing]]" speech helped launch his political career and made him became a probable candidate for governor of California.

==Governor of California (1967-1975)==

[[Image:Reagangovernor.jpg‎|left|thumb|275px|Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan at the Victory celebration for California Governor at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles, California 11/8/66.]] In the 1966 gubernatorial campaign, conservatives generally supported Reagan over George Christopher, the Republican mayor of [[San Francisco]]. Reagan defeated Christopher, and incumbent [[liberal]] [[Democrat]] [[Pat Brown]] in the general election, taking fifty-three of California's fifty-eight counties. Reagan's strategists wanted to emphasize libertarian support for smaller government and less taxation, as the state verged on a revolt against high property taxes. As student and black unrest exploded in the headlines, Reagan's call for [[Law and order]] won the votes of former liberals. Reagan's victory marked the end of New Deal liberalism in California.<ref> Dallek, Matthew. "Liberalism Overthrown." ''American Heritage'' (1996) 47(6): 39+ Fulltext online at Ebsco </ref>

Reagan inherited an enormous budget deficit from the Brown administration. In his first year as Governor, Reagan froze government spending and cut ten percent of the spending budget in each department of the government. At the end of his two terms the $194 million deficit had been transformed into a $550 million dollar surplus. The ''San Francisco Chronicle'' editorialized, "We exaggerate very little when we say that Reagan has saved the state from bankruptcy.<ref>http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1980</ref>

When coming into office there was a growing number of anarchist protesters at the University California at Berkeley over the United States' involvement in the [[Vietnam War]]. The protests would become violent. Reagan sent the state police and later the national guard to handle the riots. It allowed him to showcase his populist themes of morality, [[Law and order]], strong leadership, and defense of traditional values. Reagan was reelected in 1970, after firing the president of the state university and sending in armed force to confront student demonstrators. Reagan's handling of this crisis helped to make him into a national politician known for strength and courage. <ref> Gerard DeGroot, "Reagan's Rise." ''History Today'' (1995) 45(9): 31-36. Issn: 0018-2753 Fulltext online at Ebsco</ref>

Governor Reagan briefly tested the presidential waters in 1968, but drew back when he saw [[Richard Nixon]]'s strength.

Welfare spending was a major issue in the 1970 election; with 10% of the nation's population, California had 16% of its welfare recipients. Reagan promised to cut the welfare spending by rooting out fraud and abuse, by requiring recipients to take jobs, and by collecting from dead-beat fathers. Democrats in the legislature supported a much more liberal bill, which advocated the welfare rights of the poor. Reagan personally worked out a compromise that passed and won considerable praise and some criticism. Its savings to taxpayers proved small, but it represented an important political achievement for both parties. Reagan benefited as well, emerging from the compromise as a more experienced and effective politician.<ref> Burbank (1991)</ref>

Reagan supported and signed laws to liberalize [[abortion]] in California (before the Supreme Court issued ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''), but later turned strongly against abortion.

Reagan's gubernatorial style, which carried over into his presidency, was expansive in looking only at the big picture, and choosing talented staffers who were given the power to handle all the details. Reagan seldom paid attention to the minute details of his own policies. Reagan was a powerful communicator, through press conferences and public appearances, with an uncanny knack for precise timing to make the maximum impact.<ref> Hamilton and Biggart, (1984); Ritter (1992)</ref>

Liberals across the country were puzzled by Reagan, and decided that he was a weak reactionary who would be easy to defeat if he ran for president. California liberals explained they were all wrong, that Reagan was the most formidable Republican since Eisenhower.

In 1970, he was re-elected by a landslide. But in 1974, he chose not to seek a third term and was succeeded by liberal Democrat [[Jerry Brown]].

===Highlights as governor===
*Called in the [[National Guard]] to restore order when People's Park protesters began attacking police, and restored order to California's chaotic university campuses.<ref>http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048</ref> Reagan authorized the use of violent force against the peaceful protesters in Berkeley,<ref>University of California, Berkeley - Police Department. [http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048 History Topic: People's Park] August 2006</ref> saying, "If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with."<ref> ''San Francisco Chronicle'', early morning edition, May 15 1969</ref> In the resulting chaos, police fired buckshot into the crowd, fatally wounding one bystander and blinding another, and injuring hundreds of others.

*Led a comprehensive and far-reaching revision of California's massive public assistance programs, actually increasing benefits to the truly needy.

*Worked well with the Democrats to forge consensus on a variety of issues.

==Presidential Campaigns==

===1976===

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1976]]''

After [[Richard Nixon]]'s resignation in 1974, the weak [[Gerald Ford]] became president, and Reagan challenged him in the 1976 Republican Party primaries. The main issue was détente with the Soviets as promoted by Ford and Secretary of State [[Henry Kissinger]]. Ford won the first 13 primaries, then Reagan came roaring back. He criticized the federal government and politicians for being too large, too powerful, and too involved in American society. Reagan, however, named liberal eastern Senator Richard Schweiker as his running mate. Control of the convention came down to the Mississippi delegation, which swung the nomination to Ford. However, given how difficult it is to run against an incumbent President in a Primary, Reagan's campaign was surprisingly strong. After Ford was defeated in the general election, Reagan retired to his ranch in California and continued to give speeches across the country. There was little doubt that Reagan was the dominant Republican for the next election, and he easily won the nomination in 1980.

===1980===

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1980]]''

Before the general election, Reagan faced a Republican primary challenge from the more moderate [[George H. W. Bush]]. Bush was highly established and respected as having served as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, ambassador to People's Republic of China and the United Nations, former chairman of the National Republican Committee, and two-term Congressman from [[Texas]]. Bush referred to Reagan's economic policies as "voodoo economics." After Bush won a surprising victory in the [[Iowa]] State primary, Reagan surged ahead after he outwitted Bush in the New Hampshire debate. He later won the primary, and ironically named George H. W. Bush as his running mate.

Reagan was able to crusade against the failures of incumbent Democrat, President [[Jimmy Carter]]. There was runaway [[stagflation]], soaring [[interest rates]], persistent [[unemployment]], a series of humiliations abroad, and a weakened [[military]] in the face of growing Soviet superpower. As Reagan put it, "I'm told I can't use the word depression. Well, I'll tell you the definition. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." The most pressing foreign policy crisis was that [[Iran]]ian President [[Ayatollah Khomeini]] was holding fifty- two Americans hostage. All of Carter's diplomatic attempts had failed.

Reagan feared that the [[Soviet Union]]'s military had become much more powerful then the United States'. He proposed stronger defense systems and a larger military. Carter fought back, lashing out at Reagan as a dangerous radical who would unleash nuclear war. A liberal Republican [[John Anderson]] ran a third party campaign which received 7% of the popular vote. Reagan won a landslide victory - receiving 51% of the popular vote and winning 44 of 50 states. In the 20th century, only two presidents received a larger electoral majority: Franklin Roosevelt in 1936 and Richard Nixon in 1972. <ref>[http://www.trivia-library.com/c/biography-of-us-president-ronald-reagan-part-8-campaign.htm Biography of U.S. President Ronald Reagan]</ref> His long coattails brought in the first Republican Senate in years, but the Democrats still controlled the House. The election marked the last hurrah of the New Deal era, the final collapse of the [[New Deal Coalition]] and indeed the end of liberalism as a coherent policy.<ref> Busch 2005</ref>

==Presidency (1981-1989)==
[[Image:Reaganfamily-red-rr-.jpg|right|thumb|325px|President & Mrs. Reagan with their extended family.]]

Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the 40th President of the United States on January 20, 1981. On that same day Ayatollah released the hostages after keeping them in captivity for 444 days.

Once in office, Reagan showed he was playing hardball. When the Federal [[Air Traffic Controllers]] struck illegally, Reagan gave them 48 hours before he fired all who hadn't gone back to work (11,359).

Reagan rebuffed librals who complained he was killing the New Deal. Noting that he voted for FDR in 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944, as well as Truman in 1948, Reagan said he was trying to repeal the "[[Great Society]]'' enacted by liberals in the mid-1960s.<ref>David Gergen, [http://books.google.com/books?id=68rBxuO7EsMC&pg=PA351&dq=reagan+%22great+society%22+roosevelt+truman&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES ''Eyewitness to Power'' (2000) p 351]</ref>

===Administration===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Office
! Name
! Term
|-
| [[President]]
| Ronald Reagan
| 1981-1989
|-
| [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]]
| [[George H.W. Bush]]
| 1981-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of State]]
| [[Alexander Haig]]
| 1981-1982
|-
|
| [[George Shultz]]
| 1982-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Treasury]]
| [[Donald Regan]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[James Baker]]
| 1985-1988
|-
|
| [[Nicholas Brady]]
| 1988-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Defense]]
| [[Caspar Weinberger]]
| 1981-1987
|-
|
| [[Frank C. Carlucci]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Attorney General]]
| [[William Smith]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[Edwin Meese III]]
| 1985-1988
|-
|
| [[Richard Thornburgh]]
| 1988-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of the Interior]]
| [[James G. Watt]]
| 1981-1983
|-
|
| [[William P. Clark, Jr.]]
| 1983-1985
|-
|
| [[Donald Hodel]]
| 1985-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Agriculture]]
| [[John Rusling Block]]
| 1981-1986
|-
|
| [[Richard E. Lyng]]
| 1986-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Commerce]]
| [[Howard M. Baldrige, Jr.]]
| 1981-1987
|-
|
| [[C. William Verity, Jr.]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Labor]]
| [[Raymond J. Donovan]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[William E. Brock]]
| 1985–1987
|-
|
| [[Ann Dore McLaughlin]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Health and Human Services]]
| [[Richard S. Schweiker]]
| 1981–1983
|-
|
| [[Margaret Heckler]]
| 1983-1985
|-
|
| [[Otis R. Bowen]]
| 1985-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Education]]
| [[Terrel Bell]]
| 1981-1985
|-
|
| [[William Bennett]]
| 1985-1988
|-
|
| [[Lauro Cavazos]]
| 1988-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Housing and Urban Development]]
| [[Samuel R. Pierce, Jr.]]
| 1981-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Transportation]]
| [[Drew Lewis]]
| 1981-1983
|-
|
| [[Elizabeth Dole]]
| 1983-1987
|-
|
| [[James H. Burnley IV]]
| 1987-1989
|-
| [[Secretary of Energy]]
| [[James B. Edwards]]
| 1981-1982
|-
|
| [[Donald Paul Hodel]]
| 1982-1985
|-
|
| [[John S. Herrington]]
| 1985-1989
|-
|}

===Assassination Attempt===

On March 30, 1981, Reagan was shot near the heart after giving a routine speech.<ref> The assassin was John Hinckley, a mentally disturbed man who didn't shoot Reagan for political reasons, but instead did to impress an actress he had never met.</ref> Surgeons at George Washington University Hospital saved his life and despite his age he recovered quickly. White House Press Secretary [[James Brady]] was shot in the head, became permanently disabled; Brady then became an icon of the anti-gun movement.

The assassination attempt came at a critical moment and disarmed the opposition in Congress, enabling Reagan to pass his major legislation even though the Democrats controlled the House.

===1984 Reelection===

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1984]]''

In 1984, Reagan was re-elected in a landslide, winning every state except Mondale's home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia, creating a record 525 electoral vote total (of 538 possible), and received 58.8%. of the popular vote. <ref>[http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/scores.html#1984 National Archives]</ref> <ref>[http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1984 Leip, David: 1984 Presidential Election Results.]</ref>

During his second term, he helped end the Cold War with the help of Margaret Thatcher and some assistance from Pope John Paul II and Mikhail Gorbachev by recognizing the weakness of the Soviet economy, and spent them out of existence by their not being able to compete with defense spending.

==Domestic policy==
===Economy===
[[Image:Reagan_desk.jpg‎|left|thumb|275px|President Reagan working at his desk in the oval office, 05/06/82.]]
As President, Ronald Reagan enacted his theory of "[[Reaganomics]]." His four major policy objectives were the following<ref>http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html</ref>:

*Reduce the growth of government spending.
*Reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital.
*Reduce government regulation of the economy.
*Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

Fueled by an over spending [[Congress]] that steadfastly refused Reagan's budget proposals, the national debt increased 160% during his two terms in office. However, the economic growth that resulted from tax cuts made deficits as a percentage of [[GDP]] lower than what they had been in during the previous decade of stagflation. The period of high [[inflation]] and [[unemployment]] when Reagan took office was over after eight years of his Presidency. In 1986 Reagan signed the [[Tax Reform Act]], which obtained an overhaul of the income tax code and eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. The [[income tax]] rates of the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without [[recession]] or [[depression]].<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html</ref>

====PATCO Strike====
[[File:Time-8-17-81.jpg|thumb|250px| ''Time'' Aug 17, 1981. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949316,00.html read story]]]On 3 August 1981, 13,000 air traffic controllers, members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), walked off the job. PATCO had supported Reagan in the 1980 election but now was making exorbitant demands regarding high raises, early retirement, and reduced hours. The Federal Aviation Administration made a generous offer but PATCO said no and called a strike. PATCO assumed it would shut down all air traffic and paralyze the economy, forcing the government to surrender, but they misjudged Ronald Reagan. Under federal law, the strike was illegal. Reagan ordered the strikers as a group to return to work. Some returned but most did not; he ordered individual strikers to return, and again most refused. Reagan was ready; secretly the Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis had readied military replacements. It was the first time in over 50 years in a major strike that replacements were used. Two days later, the president fired 11,000 strikers, and they never were rehired. The planes were flying and labor unions suffered their worst defeat since the 1920s. Reagan's dramatic action energized corporations to resist union demands, and speeded up the rapid decline in union membership and the political power of union bosses.<ref>"Turbulence in the Tower," [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949316,00.html ''Time'' Aug. 17, 1981]; Paul L. Butterworth, et al., "More than a Labor Dispute: The PATCO Strike of 1981," ''Essays in Economic & Business History'' 2005 23:125-139</ref>

===Social Security Reform 1983===
Mounting concerns that rising Social Security benefits were causing a long-term deficit and were growing too fast resulted in a bipartisan compromise in 1983. Brokered by conservative [[Alan Greenspan]] and liberal [[Claude Pepper]], the agreement lowered benefits over the next 75 years and brought the system into balance. Key provisions included a gradual increase over 25 years in the retirement age from 65 to 67, to take account of longer life expectancy. (People could retire younger, but at a reduced rate of benefits.) Millions of people were added to the system, especially employees of state governments and of nonprofit organizations.<ref> 1983 Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform (1983) [http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/gspan5.html online version]; "Claude Pepper and Social Security Reform - 1981-1983," [http://www.claudepeppercenter.fsu.edu/webexhibits/socialsecurityreform/socialsecurityreform1981to1983.htm online exhibit]; Paul Charles Light, ''Artful Work: The Politics of Social Security Reform'' (1985)</ref>

===Supreme Court Appointments===
Reagan had maintained the promise he made in his 1980 presidential campaign to appoint the first women to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. On July 7, 1981, he named little-known Arizona judge [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Liberals, who had been ready for a knock-down battle, were stunned and meekly voted for her. Some Pro-Life groups were worried about her abortion position, which was unknown. She was confirmed by the Senate by a 99–0 vote on September 21 and took her seat September 25.

In 1987, Reagan nominated conservative judge [[Robert Bork]] to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice [[Lewis Powell]]. Senate liberals attacked Bork as being too conservative. Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] criticized him, saying,
:''"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy."''<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5DF1E3EF936A35754C0A961948260</ref>

The U.S. Senate rejected Bork's confirmation on a 42-58 vote. Reagan turned to the much less controversial Californian [[Anthony Kennedy]] he was confirmed on a 97-0 vote.

===War on Drugs===
As President, Reagan declared a "war on drugs", which would be policies put forward by the United States and other countries to reduce illegal drug trade. In 1986, President Reagan signed the very prominent Anti-Drug Abuse Act which granted $97 million to build new [[prison]]s, $200 million for drug [[education]] and $241 million for treatment. Overall, $1.7 billion to fight the drug crisis.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/</ref> First Lady [[Nancy Reagan]] started a slogan, "Just Say No" to drug use. The term was used in television advertising, and today there are many "Just Say No" drug clinics. As a result of the policies, [[marijuana]] use dropped from 33% of high-school seniors in 1980 to 12% in 1991.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/interviews/kleber.html</ref>

==Foreign policy==

===Strategic Defense Initiative===

Reagan's 1983 [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] became popularly known as "[[Star Wars]]", the name given to it by critics because they thought it was pure fantasy like the popular [[George Lucas]] films. This plan was never fully instituted. Although billions of dollars were spent on development, no space-based missile defense was tested successfully during Reagan's terms in office. However, the main goal was achieved of forcing the Soviets to realize they could no longer compete in the Cold War.

The threat the Soviet Union felt from the SDI initiative forced them to negotaite an end to the arms race, according to many involved with diplomacy at the time and can be seen by following Gorbachev's repeated public insistences that the SDI program be discontinued. [[Henry Kissinger]] wrote:
:''I know it's an axiomatic view of the Left around the world that missile defense is sinful, and that it's desirable to keep each nation as vulnerable as possible. But that's a debatable premise. The U.S. must defend itself against ''whoever'' has missiles that would threaten the United States. And you don't have to be able to name an enemy.''<ref>[http://www.doublestandards.org/dreifus1.html]</ref>

Reagan was president at the time of the shooting down of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]. He termed the shootown of an innocent straying passenger plane with 269 passengers and crew, including Congressman [[Larry McDonald]], a "massacre" and the ensuing rage over the tragedy both world-wide and in the U.S. provided support for the deployment of cruise and Pershing ll missiles in West Europe- just six minutes flying time from Moscow.

===Soviet Union===
Shortly after taking office in 1981 Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 11-82, (NSDD 11-82), that explicitly made U.S. defense spending a form of economic warfare against the Soviets. The directive was known more unofficially as the Reagan Initiative.
[[Image:Photo 4 250.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Reagan and Gorbachev at Reykjavik]]
The United States would "exploit and demonstrate the enduring economic advantages of the West to develop a variety of [arms] systems that are difficult for the Soviets to counter, impose disproportionate costs, open up new areas of major military competition and obsolesce previous Soviet investment or employ sophisticated strategic options to achieve this end. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI), or "Star Wars" as the media referred to it, was a costly high tech research and development program designed to make arms spending a "rising burden on the Soviet economy."<ref>Peter Schweizer , [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28929.html ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism''], New York: Doubleday, 2002.</ref>
The Reagan Initiative was also concerned with aiding nations in active conflict with the Soviet Union. One such group was the [[mujahideen]] of Afghanistan who were given anti-aircraft missiles to fight the Soviet invaders.

A report by the CIA of the critical domestic economic problems and social discontent Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev provided a look what the sources of his principal dilemma-the very reforms needed to deal with the problems would threaten preservation of the [[nomenklatura]] and put at risk Gorbachev’s ability to maintain the power to bring about [[Perestroika]].<ref>CIA Assessments of the Soviet Union: [https://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/russia/enter.html Chapter 5, Enter Gorbachev ], Douglas J. MacEachin, CIA Publications, 1996.</ref> Gorbachev requested a Summit with Reagan in Reykjavik in October 1986 to discuss the stresses competition from the Reagan’s defense posture was having on Soviet military spending and economy, and Gorbachev’s ability to carryout his plans of restructuring Communist control. Gorbachev told the [[Politburo]] in preparation for the Summit, "Our goal is to prevent the next round of arms race. If we do not do this ... will pulled into an arms race beyond our power, and we will lose this race, for we are presently at the limit of out capabilities."<ref>Notes of Politburo Meeting 4 October 1986, [http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/ Gorbachev's instructions for the group preparing for Reykjavik]</ref>
===Dealing with the Soviets===
Gorbachev, weakened by his nation's economic malaise, frightened by SDI, and committed to reforming the Soviet system before it collapsed, realized he had to end the Cold War to save Communism. Reagan proved willing to deal, but had to face three sources of criticism inside the U.S. The political right represented by the ''[[National Review]]'' and columnists such as [[George F. Will]] feared it was all a Soviet trap. Reagan used his enormous influence within the conservative movement to disarm these critics before disarming the Russians. Second were the "realists", led by Nixon and Henry A. Kissinger, who thought Reagan was going too far. The third group comprised segments of the intelligence community and military; they did not believe that the Soviet Union was as weak as Reagan and secretary of state, George P. Shultz, believed. Reagan, reelected in a landslide and at the peak of his power, pushed ahead with a series of agreements that effectively weakened the Soviet Empire and made it clear America had the initiative.<ref>James Mann, ''The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan'' (2009)</ref>

By the late 1980s, the Soviet Union began unilateral force cuts and troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe, and by May 1989 an unprecedented series of disclosures by senior Soviet officials revealed actual reductions in defense spending for the 1986-1990 and 1991-1995 Five Year Plan periods.<ref> Christopher Wilkinson NATO Review, [http://www.nato.int/docu/review/1991/9102-4.htm Soviet Defense Spending], NATO's Economics Directorate No. 2 - April 1991, Vol. 39 p. 16-22</ref> Genrikh Grofimenko, a former adviser to [[Leonid Brezhnev]], said "Ninety-nine percent of the Russian people believe that [the US] won the Cold War because of your president's insistence on SDI".<ref>Peter Schweizer, ''Reagan’s War''.</ref>

===[[Containment]] and the Iranian initiative===
[[Image:C26887-26.jpg|right|250px|thumb|President Reagan being sworn in for second term in the rotunda at the U.S. Capitol, 1/21/85]] In 1985, after Reagan won reelection to his second term, the focus turned from reviving the domestic economy to several foreign policy matters which had been lingering throughout the decade. One such matter involved Iran, a long time ally of the Western Allies since 1941 that had experienced an Islamic Revolution in 1979 after President Carter announced [[Human Rights]] had superseded [[Containment]] as the primary focus of American foreign policy. Since 1980, Iran had been enmeshed in a brutal trench war with neighboring Iraq which was emerging as a potent military threat in the region to other allies. Members of the National Security Council staff, along with CIA Director [[William Casey]], persuaded Reagan much could be gained and several problems could be addressed simultaneously with an overture to Iran to restore relations.

The objective of the plan was fourfold:
#Take steps to restore good relations with the [[Islamic Republic of Iran]] which was becoming increasingly hostile to the West;
#Take measures to convince Iran that Israel could become a friend and ally;
#Insurance against Iraq becoming too strong which would become a threat to [[Kuwait]] or [[Saudi Arabia]];
#Provide funding for other operations to continue the policy of containment in the Western Hemisphere, most notably [[Nicaragua]], and the violence the Soviet/Cuban/Nicaragua connection was creating in [[El Salvador]] and [[Honduras]].

There were humanitarian aspects to the proposal as well; (1) the [[Iran-Iraq War]] had stalemated for nearly six years and Reagan was advised that he was in the unique position as President to help facilitate bringing a senseless war with much suffering to an end; (2) the suffering of the people of the Central American Republics at the hands of Soviet-inspired subversion which had in the decade of the '80s established a beachhead in North America; (3) Iran perhaps could be persuaded to use its good offices to influence hostage takers in [[Lebanon]] who had held several Western prisoners, many of them Christian Missionaries, for several years.

Reports had filtered back to Reagan that children as young as nine years old had been used by Iran to clear minefields.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), ''Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84''], Globalsecurity.org, retrieved 20 March 2007.</ref> In weighing Iraq's delicate Sunni/Shia balance and the growing threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, the NSC staff and Casey recognized the dangers of an Iraqi collapse as well as the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing its ruthless and inhumane tactics.<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq53.pdf NSDD 139, 5 April 1984].</ref>

The [[Boland amendment]], a Vietnam era-style Congressional impingement on the legitimate foreign policy prerogatives of the Executive via the power of the purse, was used to deny Reagan's recommitment to the [[Truman Doctrine]] which had been adhered to by every President, Democratic and Republican alike since Truman, with the exception of [[President Carter]] whose [[human rights]] policy had brought one of the active belligerents, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], to power. In three of the active Soviet fronts, [[Afghanistan]], [[Nicaragua]], and [[El Salvador]], some Congressional Democratic leaders were openly sympathetic to Soviet foreign policy.<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/591eifow.asp ''One Weekend in April, A Long Time Ago ... What John Kerry thought about the Sandinista in Nicaragua''], Hugh Hewitt, The Weekly Standard, 09/09/2004.</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060331222819/www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/7/234527.shtml ''Kerry: 'I'm Proud I Stood Against Reagan''] Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, 7 June 2004.</ref> So the decision was made to fund [[Containment]] of Soviet objectives on an active front in North America with sales of TOW missiles to Iran. Israel provided the TOWs because the [[Boland Amendment]] forbade direct US funding and it was a welcome opportunity for Israel to build bridges to a much needed friend in the Middle East.

The operation was known as the "[[Iran-Contra affair]]." After word got out about the operation in November 1986, investigations were made, leading to the convictions of several members of the Reagan administration. President Reagan himself testified before the Tower Commission that he had poor recollection of the details of the operation due in part to the heavy pain medications he had been on in that period.

===Cold War victory===
[[Image:300px-ReaganBerlinWall.jpg‎|right|275px|thumb|"Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"]] Reagan is credited for ending the [[Cold War]] in victory for the United States. Historian Tony Judt in ''Postwar'' credits Soviet leader [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], while the political scientist Jan Kubik presents a viewpoint that credits [[Pope John Paul II]].<ref>[http://praguepost.com/articles/2007/02/28/letters-to-the-editor.php]</ref> Other historians contend structural weaknesses within the Communist bloc meant Reagan's actions were inconsequential to the end of [[communism]]. This is the view adopted by [[Russia]]ns themselves, and many political historians, citing ''[[perestroika]]'' and ''[[glasnost]]'' as beginning an inevitable slow fading of central power, and a collapse by irreconcilable differences between the central Soviet [[Politburo]] and the constituent republics, especially the [[Ukraine]].<ref>David Remnick, "Lenin's Tomb</ref> In the end, the consensus seems to point to all of the above, that hastened the demise of the Soviet Union; Internal factors, religious pressure brought by the Pope, Gorbachev's "Perestroika" and the united front of Ronald Reagan and [[Margaret Thatcher]], leading [[NATO]] and [[the West]] to embed a [[SDI|missile defense system]] in [[Western Europe]], and the economic superiority of [[Capitalism]], which simply out-spent and out-performed that of the Communist one.

One thing that cannot be quantified is Reagan's ability to give [[hope]], his never-ending optimism that good would indeed triumph over evil. Many see that as key to bringing extra confidence to those locked behind the "[[Iron Curtain]]" to press even harder for reforms.

Columnist Cal Thomas wrote about it like this:

{{cquote|'''''He proved he was right about the big things.'' Faced with editorial denunciations at home and massive demonstrations in [[Europe]] against his plan to put missiles there to offset a [[Soviet]] threat, Reagan went ahead and did it anyway. The Soviets could not keep pace with the buildup or Reagan's proposed missile defense system (derided by insincere and dangerous critics as "[[Star Wars]]"). ''When those critics could not bring themselves to admit they were wrong, they unpersuasively claimed the Soviet Union fell under its own weight.'' More accurately, Reagan pushed it onto "the ash heap of history," with the able assistance of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and [[Pope John Paul II]]. What Reagan did more than anything else - and it will be his lasting legacy - is replace [[despair]] with hope. Most people, even his detractors, felt a glow from being in his presence.

'''''He was the kindest, most gracious president I have met, and I have met them all since JFK. In his presence you felt he was interested in you and not himself. He was a good man.''''' <ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2004/06/07/ronald_reagans_wonderful_life]</ref>}}

[[Brian Mulroney]], the [[Canada|Canadian]] Prime Minister, Eulogized Reagan at his state funeral:
{{cquote|'''Some in the West during the early 1980s believed communism and democracy were equally valid and viable. This was the school of "[[moral equivalence]]." In contrast Ronald Reagan saw Soviet Communism as a menace to be confronted in the genuine belief that its squalid underpinning would fall swiftly to the gathering winds of [[freedom]]. Provided, as he said, that NATO and the industrialized democracies stood firm and united. They did. ''And we know now who was right.'''''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/mulroney.asp]</ref>}}

Former Reagan speech writer [[Peggy Noonan]] paid tribute to the fallen president in a [[Wall Street Journal]] editorial. In it, Noonan noted:
{{Cquote|'''Ronald Reagan told the truth to a world made weary by lies. He believed truth was the only platform on which a better future could be built. He shocked the world when he called the Soviet Union ‘evil,’ because it was, and an 'empire,' because it was that, too. He never stopped bringing his message to the people of the world, to Europe and China and in the end the Soviet Union. And when it was over, the Berlin Wall had been turned into a million concrete souvenirs, and Soviet communism had fallen. But of course, it didn’t fall. It was pushed. By Mr. Know-Nothing-Cowboy-Gunslinger-Dimwit. ''All presidents should be so stupid...'''''<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1679]</ref>}}

===Thatcher on Reagan===

Upon his death, [[Margaret Thatcher]], in very ill health from a series of strokes, insisted upon traveling to America to bid farewell to her old friend, and taped a stirring tribute to him:
{{cquote|'''As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president. Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles - and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively. ''When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do.'''''

'''When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew 'the Old Man' would never wear. When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership. And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding. ''Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth.'' Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform. Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's 'evil empire'.'''

'''But he realized that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors. So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation. ''Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted magnanimity - and nothing was more American.'''''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/thatcher.asp]</ref>}}

==Post-presidency==
[[Image:5.jpg|left|thumb|250px|President Bush presents the Medal of Freedom Award to Former President Ronald Reagan in the East Room of the White House, 01/13/93]] Reagan retired to California. He would occasionally involve himself in politics, including a speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention. On January 13, 1993 President George H. W. Bush awarded Reagan the Presidential [[Medal of Freedom]]. Reagan was becoming increasingly forgetful. In November 1994, he announced that he had been diagnosed in August with [[Alzheimer's disease]], a degenerative nerve disorder that annihilates the victim's mental capacity.

[[See Reagan's letter to the American people regarding his disease.]])

He died at his [[Los Angeles|Bel Air]] home on June 5, 2004 at age 93, making him the second-longest lived president in history after [[Gerald Ford]]. Reagan was buried at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library, located in Sima Valley, California, on June 11, 2004.<ref>[http://www.reaganfoundation.org/listviewf.aspx?session_args=NCrq/CB0Nbp/onw6gOr7mg==&p=LM2002EX&tx=13&h1=7&h2=3&sw=lm_exhibit&lm=libraryandmuseum&args_a=cms&args_b=32&argsb=N Exhibitions]</ref>

==Legacy==
There is growing consensus among scholars, both conservative and liberal, that he was the most influential president since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Reagan left a major imprint on American politics, diplomacy, culture, and economics.<ref>"As of this writing, among academic historians, the Reagan revisionists—who view the 1980s as an era of mixed blessings at worst, and of great forward strides in some renditions—hold the field," reports Doug Rossinow, "Talking Points Memo," in American Quarterly 59.4 (2007) p. 1279. For more historiographical support see: Troy (2009); Hayward (2009); Wilentz (2008); also Charles L. Ponce de Leon, "The New Historiography of the 1980s" in ''Reviews in American History,'' Volume 36, Number 2, June 2008, pp. 303-314; Whitney Strub, "Further into the Right: The Ever-Expanding Historiography of the U.S. New Right," ''Journal of Social History,'' Volume 42, Number 1, Fall 2008, pp. 183-194; Kim Phillips-Fein, "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and Making of History," ''Enterprise & Society'', Volume 8, Number 4, December 2007, pp. 986-988. </ref>

==Family==
In 1940 Reagan married actress Jane Wyman, who won an Oscar for her 1948 movie ''Johnny Belinda''. They had three children together: Maureen Elizabeth Reagan (1941-2001), who passed away from malignant [[melanoma]] within months of diagnosis, at age 60; Michael Edward Reagan(b. 1945-)<ref>Michael Reagan is the adopted son of Wyman and Reagan. See conservapedia.com: "[[Michael Reagan]]"</ref>, and Christine Reagan (June 26 & 27, 1947). She was born prematurely and survived only one day. The baby's death traumatized Wyman and she divorced Reagan in 1948.

In 1952 he married actress [[Nancy Reagan|Nancy Davis]] (b. 1921), whom he met in 1949. They remained married until his death in 2004. Together they had two children, Patricia "Patti" Ann Davis (b. 1952) and Ronald Prescott Reagan (b. 1958).

==Miscellaneous Facts==
*Reagan was the first and only divorced president.
*Reagan was the first president to break the so-called "[[Curse of Tippecanoe]]", ie, the first president elected in a twenty year cycle who did not die in office (although an attempt was made on his life in 1981).
*At 69, Reagan was the oldest man elected to the presidency for a first term.
*Reagan loved jelly beans.<ref>http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/trivia.shtml</ref> The blueberry flavor was made in his honor. [[Jelly Belly]] even created a [http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/bean_art_gallery.shtml Ronald Reagan [[portraits|portrait]] out of jelly beans.]
*After his death, some of his closest supporters wished to put him on the $10 bill.<ref>http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/08/news/economy/reagan_hamilton/index.htm</ref>
*Reagan played college football player [[George Gipp]] in the film ''Knute Rockne: All American'' (1940), and was affectionately known as "The Gipper" ever since.<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp]</ref>
*Reagan signed Proclamation 5018 declaring 1983 the [[Year of the Bible]].

== Quotes ==
*"I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=tzR2IgNgRK4C&pg=PA160&dq=I+have+wondered+at+times+what+the+Ten+Commandments+would+have+looked+like+if+Moses+had+run+them+through+the+US+Congress&ei=8GsPSrrnOI_CzATl8sGMCw Chapter 9 Page 160] The United States Congress by Ross M. English</ref>
*"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." - January 20, 1981
*"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." - January 20, 1981
*"We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look." - January 20, 1981
*"I've learned in Washington, that that's the only place where sound travels faster than light." - December 12, 1983
*"The challenge of statesmanship is to have the vision to dream of a better, safer world and the courage, persistence, and patience to turn that dream into reality." - March 8, 1985
*"I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: Go ahead, make my day." - March 13, 1985, in a speech threatening to veto legislation raising taxes.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref>
*"A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough." - December 5, 1990
*"If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here, to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." —Speech at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref>
*"...I know it's hard when you're up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp." - February 10, 1982
*"There is no question that we have failed to live up to the dreams of the [[Founding Fathers]] many times and in many places. Sometimes we do better than others. But all in all, the one thing we must be on guard against is thinking that because of this, the system has failed. The system has not failed. Some human beings have failed the system." - June 21, 1973
*"The work of volunteer groups throughout our country represents the very heart and soul of America. They have helped make this the most compassionate, generous, and humane society that ever existed on the face of this earth." - October 16, 1973
*"In America, our origins matter less than our destination, and that is what democracy is all about." - August 17, 1992<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/quotes/default.asp</ref>
*"It is freedom itself that still hangs in the balance, and freedom is never more than one generation from extinction." - Commencement address to The Citadel, 1993
*"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."<ref>New York Times, September 22, 1980</ref>
*"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.”
*"If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under" - Aug. 23, 1984<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ViUb1DLpnS4C&pg=RA1-PA373&dq=%22ever+forget+that+we+are+One+Nation+Under+God%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES William J. Federer, ed. ''Treasury of Presidential Quotations'' p 373</ref>
*"If you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=Xn4JEGVh-bYC&pg=PA93&dq=When+you+can%27t+make+them+see+the+light,+make+them+feel+the+heat.&ei=tvAlSsrrKZOCygS9_qycBw
Ronald Reagan: how an ordinary man became an extraordinary leader‎ - Page 93] by Dinesh D'Souza</ref>
*"I, too, have always believed that God's greatest gift is human life and that we have a duty to protect the life of an unborn child." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=65Sd1VzUBacC&q=We+have+the+duty+to+protect+the+life+of+an+unborn+child&dq=We+have+the+duty+to+protect+the+life+of+an+unborn+child&ei=rf5USpawCZnkygTa8LyVBw Ronald Reagan] by Office of the Federal Register</ref>
*"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=aF8YAAAAIAAJ&dq=Concentrated+power+has+always+been+the+enemy+of+liberty&ei=FE6PSuHhCYuSygSV-fCzBw War and conflict quotations P.105, by Michael C. Thomsett, Jean F. Thomsett]</ref>
*"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program."
*"some years ago, the federal government declared war on poverty, and poverty won."

==Also See==
*[[How Ronald Reagan won the Cold War]]
* [[Ronald Reagan's First Inaugural Speech]]
*[http://www.conservapedia.com/Ronald_Reagan%27s_speech_on_KAL_007#Text_of_the_speech Ronald Reagan's Speech on KAL 007]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]

==Further reading==
see Bibliography for much more detailed guide.
* Berman, Larry, ed. ''Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency'' (1990), essays by academics
* Busch, Andrew E.; "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. Vol: 27. Issue: 3. 1997. pp 451+. [http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=HhHYNGdT18XmGxylZNJQhdSjrtry2j8zYD2pLstvcnSLFqC9JzvF!-313427117?docId=5000522864 online edition] by conservative
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime '' Public Affairs. (2nd ed 2000) 948 pp. best full-length biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power'' detailed biography
* Flamm, Michael and John Ehrman. ''Debating the Reagan Presidency'' (2009), key issues explained; includes primary sources
* Berman William C. ''America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush.'' (1994).
* Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies'' (2003)
* Campagna; Anthony S. ''The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations'' Greenwood Press. 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28144725 online edition], by conservative
* Cannon, Lou. ''Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio''. (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101553874 online edition]
* Ehrman, John. ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.'' (2005), by conservative historian
* Griscom Tom. "Core Ideas of the Reagan Presidency." In Thompson, ed., ''Leadership,'' 23-48.
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order'' (2001)
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-Conservative-Counterrevolution-1980-1989/dp/1400053579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258861343&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hulten Charles R. and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds. ''The Legacy of Reaganomics: Prospects for Long-Term Growth.'' (1994).
* Jones, Charles O. ed. ''The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance'' (1988) essays by political scientists
* [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"] ''Strategic Insights'', Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004)
* Kyvig, David. ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), scholarly essays on foreign policy
* Langston, Thomas S. "Reassessing the Reagan Presidency," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly,'' Vol. 34, 2004 [http://www.questia.com/read/5006516145?title=Reassessing%20the%20Reagan%20Presidency online edition]
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' (1996), short articles [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.'' (2004) by the conservative US ambassador to Moscow
* Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''(1): 75-88. Fulltext in SwetsWise and Ingenta; Reagan declared in 1985 that the U.S. should not "break faith" with anti-Communist resistance groups. However, his policies varied as differences in local conditions and US security interests produced divergent policies toward "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Mozambique, Angola, and Cambodia.
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis of the era
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) short, favorable biography by historian [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reagan Ronald. ''An American Life.'' (1990). his second autobiography
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by historian
* Sullivan, George.''Mr. President'' (1997). for middle schools
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan's America'' 2 Volumes (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15343830 vol 1 online][http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28729700 vol 2 online]
* Schweizer, Peter. ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism'' (2002), by conservative
* Thomas, Tony. ''The Films of Ronald Reagan'' (1980)
* Troy, Gill. ''Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s'' (2004). Study of Reagan's image.
* Troy, Gill. ''The Reagan Revolution: A Very Short Introduction'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Revolution-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0195317106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258861138&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2008), major narrative history by liberal historian who says Reagan transformed America

==Detailed Bibliography==
===Biographies===
* Benze, Jr. James G. ''Nancy Reagan: On the White House Stage'' (2005), [http://www.amazon.com/Nancy-Reagan-White-Modern-Ladies/dp/070061401X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317375&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Benze James G. "Nancy Reagan: China Doll or Dragon Lady?" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 20 (fall 1990): 777-90
* Cannon, Lou. ''President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime '' Public Affairs. (2nd ed 2000) 948 pp. full-length biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=88989671 online edition]
* Diggins, John. ''Ronald Reagan‎'' (2008), 528 pages, by leading conservative historian.
* D'Souza, Dinesh. ''Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader'' (1999), popular. [http://www.amazon.com/Ronald-Reagan-Ordinary-Became-Extraordinary/dp/0684848236/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317303&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Evans, Thomas W. ''The Education of Ronald Reagan: The General Electric Years'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Education-Ronald-Reagan-Conversion-Conservatism/dp/0231138601/ref=sr_1_5/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317183&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Morris, ''Edmund. Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan'' (1999), includes fictional material [http://www.amazon.com/Dutch-Memoir-Ronald-Edmund-Morris/dp/0375756450/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317223&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) short biography by historian [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=49534236 online edition]
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination'' (2005) detailed analysis by historian
* Sullivan, George.''Mr. President'' (1997). for middle schools
* Sutcliffe, Jane. ''Ronald Reagan‎'' (2008) 48 pages; for elementary school; [http://books.google.com/books?id=_H_u21ebGcsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:reagan&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=2009&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]

===Reagan before 1981===
* Brennan Mary C. ''Turning Right in the Sixties: The Conservative Capture of the GOP.'' University of North Carolina Press, 1995
* Burbank, Garin. "Governor Reagan and California Welfare Reform: the Grand Compromise of 1971." ''California History'' 1991 70(3): 278-289. Issn: 0162-2897
* Burbank, Garin. "Governor Reagan's Only Defeat: The Proposition 1 Campaign in 1973." ''California History'' 72 (winter 1993-94): 360-73.
* Burbank, Garin. "Speaker Moretti, Governor Reagan, and the Search for Tax Reform in California, 1970-1972" ''The Pacific Historical Review'' Vol. 61, No. 2 (May, 1992), pp. 193-214 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-8684%28199205%2961%3A2%3C193%3ASMGRAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E online in JSTOR]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power'' Public Affairs. detailed biography [http://www.amazon.com/Governor-Reagan-His-Rise-Power/dp/1586480308/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317275&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Dallek, Matthew. ''The Right Moment: Ronald Reagan's First Victory and the Decisive Turning Point in American Politics.'' (2004). Study of 1966 election as governor.
* DeGroot, Gerard J. "'A Goddamned Electable Person': the 1966 California Gubernatorial Campaign of Ronald Reagan." ''History'' 1997 82(267): 429-448. Issn: 0018-2648 Fulltext: in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco
* DeGroot, Gerard J. "Ronald Reagan and Student Unrest in California, 1966-1970." ''Pacific Historical Review'' 1996 65(1): 107-129. Issn: 0030-8684 Fulltext: in Jstor
* Drew, Elizabeth. ''Portrait of an Election: The 1980 Presidential Campaign.'' (1981).
* Ferguson, Thomas and Joel Rogers, eds. ''The Hidden Election: Politics and Economics in the 1980 Presidential Campaign,'' 1981.
* Germond, Jack W. and Jules Witcover. ''Blue Smoke & Mirrors: How Reagan Won & Why Carter Lost the Election of 1980''. (1981). Detailed journalism.
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan, 1964-1980: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order'' (2001)
* Hayward, Steven F. ''The Age of Reagan: The Conservative Counterrevolution: 1980-1989'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-Conservative-Counterrevolution-1980-1989/dp/1400053579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258861343&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hamilton Gary G., and Nicole Woolsey Biggart. ''Governor Reagan, Governor Brown: A Sociology of executive Power.'' (1984).
* Moore, Glen. "Ronald W. Reagan's Campaign for the Republican Party's 1968 Presidential Nomination." ''Proceedings and Papers of the Georgia Association of Historians'' (1992) 12[i.e., 13]: 57-70. Issn: 0275-3863

===Politics and Domestic issues ===
* Aldrich, John H., and David W. Rohde. ''Change and Continuity in the 1984 Elections.'' (1987)
* Amaker Norman C. ''Civil Rights and the Reagan Administration.'' Urban Institute Press, 1988
* Berman, Larry, ed. ''Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency'' (1990), essays by academics
* Berman William C. ''America's Right Turn: From Nixon to Bush.'' Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
* Birnbaum Jeffrey H., and Alan S. Murray. ''Showdown at Gucci Gulch: Lawmakers, Lobbyists, and the Unlikely Triumph of Tax Reform.'' 1987.
* Boskin Michael J. ''Reagan and the Economy: The Successes, Failures, and Unfinished Agenda.'' ICS Press, 1987.
* Brownlee, W. Elliot and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Reagan Presidency: Pragmatic Conservatism and Its Legacies'' (2003)
* Busch, Andrew E. ''Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 and the Rise of the Right,'' (2005) [http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1103/article_detail.asp online review by Michael Barone]
* Campagna; Anthony S. ''The Economy in the Reagan Years: The Economic Consequences of the Reagan Administrations'' Greenwood Press. 1994 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28144725 online edition]
* Cannon, Lou. ''Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio''. Public Affairs. (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=101553874 online edition]
* Cook, Daniel M. and Polsky, Andrew J. "Political Time Reconsidered: Unbuilding and Rebuilding the State under the Reagan Administration." ''American Politics Research''(4): 577-605. ISSN 1532-673X Fulltext in SwetsWise. Argues Reagan slowed enforcement of pollution laws and transformed the national education agenda.
* Derthick Martha, and Paul J. Quirk. ''The Politics of Deregulation.'' Brookings Institution, 1985
* Detlefsen, Robert R. ''Civil Rights under Reagan'' Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=85749844 online edition]
* Eads George C., and Michael Fix, eds. ''The Reagan Regulatory Strategy: An Assessment.'' Urban Institute Press, 1984
* Ehrman, John. ''The Eighties: America in the Age of Reagan.'' (2005)
* Evans Rowland, and Robert Novak. ''The Reagan Revolution.'' 1991.
* Ferguson Thomas, and Joel Rogers, ''Right Turn: The Decline of the Democrats and the Future of American Politics'' 1986.
* Germond Jack W., and Jules Witcover. ''Wake Us When It's Over: Presidential Politics of 1984.'' 1985.
* Marshall R. Goodman; ''Managing Regulatory Reform: The Reagan Strategy and Its Impact'' Praeger Publishers, 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=43165555 online edition]
* Greider William. ''The Education of David Stockman and Other Americans.'' 1982. Stockman was Reagan's budget chief
* Griscom Tom. "Core Ideas of the Reagan Presidency." In Thompson, ed., ''Leadership,'' 23-48.
* Hulten Charles R. and Isabel V. Sawhill, eds. ''The Legacy of Reaganomics: Prospects for Long-Term Growth.'' C.: Urban Institute Press, 1994.
* Johnson, Haynes. ''Sleepwalking through History: America in the Reagan Years'' (1991) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104836392 online edition]
* Jones, Charles O. ed. ''The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance'' (1988) essays by political scientists
* Karier, Thomas. ''Great Experiments in American Economic Policy: From Kennedy to Reagan'' (1997) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15083874 online edition]
* Laham, Nicholas. ''The Reagan Presidency and the Politics of Race: In Pursuit of Colorblind Justice and Limited Government'' 1998. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14220230 online edition]
* Levy, Peter B. ''Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush Years'' (1996), short articles [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77341841 online edition]
* Minarik Joseph J. ''Making America's Budget Policy. From the 1980s to the 1990s.'' M. E. Sharpe, 1990.
* Palmer, John L., and Isabel V. Sawhill. ''The Reagan Record,'' 1984. economics and sociology
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore.'' (2005), standard scholarly synthesis.
* Rayack; Elton. ''Not So Free to Choose: The Political Economy of Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan'' (1987) hostile critique[http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24670801 online edition]
* Sahu, Anandi P. and Ronald L. Tracy; ''The Economic Legacy of the Reagan Years: Euphoria or Chaos?'' Praeger Publishers, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59361760 online edition]
* Salamon Lester M., and Michael S. Lund. eds. ''The Reagan Presidency and the Governing of America'' 1985. articles by political scientists
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan's America'' 2 Volumes (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15343830 vol 1 online][http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=28729700 vol 2 online]
* Shirley, Craig. ''Reagan's Revolution: The Untold Story of the Campaign That Started It All'' (2005) on 1976 campaign; [http://www.amazon.com/Reagans-Revolution-Untold-Campaign-Started/dp/0785260498/ref=pd_cp_b_1?pf_rd_p=413864201&pf_rd_s=center-41&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0700614087&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0SWJK392VVCTPEDPDKJE excerpt and text search]
* Weatherford, M. Stephen and Mcdonnell, Lorraine M. "Ronald Reagan as Legislative Advocate: Passing the Reagan Revolution's Budgets in 1981 and 1982." ''Congress & the Presidency'' (2005) 32:1 pp 1-29. Fulltext in Ebsco; Argues RR ignored the details but played a guiding role in setting major policies and adjudicating significant trade-offs, and in securing Congressional approval.

===Foreign affairs===
* Arnson, Cynthia J. ''Crossroads: Congress, the Reagan Administration, and Central America'' Pantheon, 1989.
* Baucom Donald R. ''The Origins of SDI, 1944-1983.'' University Press of Kansas, 1992.
* Bell Coral. ''The Reagan Paradox: American Foreign Policy in the 1980s.'' Rutgers University Press, 1989.
* Beschloss Michael R., and Strobe Talbott. ''At the Highest Levels: The Inside Story of the End of the Cold War.'' 1993
* Busch, Andrew E.; "Ronald Reagan and the Defeat of the Soviet Empire" in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''. Vol: 27. Issue: 3. 1997. pp 451+.
* Dobson, Alan P. "The Reagan Administration, Economic Warfare, and Starting to Close down the Cold War." ''Diplomatic History''(3): 531-556. Fulltext in SwetsWise, Ingenta and Ebsco. Argues Reagan's public rhetoric against the USSR was harsh and uncompromising, giving rise to the idea that his administration sought to employ a US defense buildup and NATO economic sanctions to bring about the collapse of the USSR. Yet many statements by Reagan and Shultz suggest they desired negotiation with the Soviets from a position of American strength, not the eventual demise of the USSR.
* Draper, Theodore. '' A Very Thin Line: The Iran-Contra Affair'' (1991)
* Fitzgerald, Frances. ''Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars and the End of the Cold War''. political history of S.D.I. (2000). ISBN.
* Ford, Christopher A. and Rosenberg, David A. "The Naval Intelligence Underpinnings of Reagan's Maritime Strategy." ''Journal of Strategic Studies''(2): 379-409. Fulltext in Ingenta and Ebsco; Reagan's maritime strategy sought to apply US naval might against Soviet vulnerabilities on its maritime flanks. It was supported by a major buildup of US naval forces and aggressive exercising in seas proximate to the USSR; it explicitly targeted Moscow's strategic missile submarines with the aim of pressuring the Kremlin during crises or the early phases of global war. The maritime strategy represents one of the rare instances in history when intelligence helped lead a nation to completely revise its concept of military operations.
* Garthoff, Raymond L. ''The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War'' (1994), detailed narrative by a hostile critic [http://www.questia.com/read/29069917?title=The%20Great%20Transition%3a%20American-Soviet%20Relations%20and%20the%20End%20of%20the%20Cold%20War online edition]
* Haftendorn, Helga and Jakob Schissler, eds. ''The Reagan Administration: A Reconstruction of American Strength?'' Berlin: Walter de Guyer, 1988. by European scholars
* Hall, David Locke. ''The Reagan Wars: A Constitutional Perspective on War Powers and the Presidency'' Westview Press, 1991 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=87551275 online edition]
* [http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/aug/knopfAUG04.asp Jeffrey W. Knopf, "Did Reagan Win the Cold War?"] ''Strategic Insights'', Volume III, Issue 8 (August 2004)
* Kyvig, David. ed. ''Reagan and the World'' (1990), scholarly essays on foreign policy
* Lagon, Mark P. ''The Reagan Doctrine: Sources of American Conduct in the Cold War's Last Chapter'' (1994) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=9161896 online edition]
* LeoGrande, William M. ''Our Own Backyard: The United States in Central America, 1977-1992'' (1998)
* Matlock, Jack. ''Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.'' (2004) by the US ambassador to Moscow [http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-Gorbachev-How-Cold-Ended/dp/0679463232/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194316986&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2006 36(1): 75-88. Issn: 0360-4918 [http://www.questia.com/read/5015817882?title=The%20Reagan%20Doctrine%3a%20Principle%2c%20Pragmatism%2c%20and%20Policy online edition]
* Salla, Michael E. and Ralph Summy, eds. ''Why the Cold War Ended: A Range of Interpretations'' (1995). [http://www.questia.com/read/22889072 online edition]
* Schmertz, Eric J. et al eds. ''Ronald Reagan and the World'' (1997) articles by scholars and officeholders
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph My Years As Secretary of State'' (1993)
* Schweizer, Peter. ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism'' (2002)
* Suri, Jeremi. "Explaining the End of the Cold War: A New Historical Consensus?" ''Journal of Cold War Studies'' - Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 2002, pp. 60-92 in [[Project Muse]]
* Thomas W. Walker; ''Reagan Versus the Sandinistas: The Undeclared War on Nicaragua'' (1987) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=65710540 online edition]
* Wallison, Peter J. ''Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency.'' (2003). 282 pp.
* Wapshott, Nicholas. '' Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher: a political marriage‎'' (2007) 336 pages [http://books.google.com/books?id=5HOuTL508F0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:reagan&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=2007&as_maxm_is=12&as_maxy_is=2009&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]
* Wills, David C. ''The First War on Terrorism: Counter-Terrorism Policy during the Reagan Administration.'' 2004.

===Rhetoric, media and values===
* Aden, R. C. "Entrapment and Escape: Inventional Metaphors in Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric." ''Southern Communication Journal'' 54 (1989): 384-401
* Dallek, Robert. ''Ronald Reagan: The Politics of Symbolism.'' (1999)
* Denton Jr., Robert E. ''Primetime Presidency of Ronald Reagan: The Era of the Television Presidency'' (1988) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23088126 online edition]
* Diggins, John Patrick. ''Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History'' (2007) Reagan as follower of Emerson, by leading historian of ideas
* Jane Feuer; Seeing through the Eighties: Television and Reaganism'' Duke University Press, 1995 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98148093 online edition]
* FitzWater, Marlin . ''Call the Briefing! Bush and Reagan, Sam and Helen, a Decade with Presidents and the Press''. 1995. Memoir by Reagan's press spokesman.
* Goodnight, G. Thomas. "Ronald Reagan's Re-formulation of the Rhetoric of War: Analysis of the 'Zero Option,' 'Evil Empire,' and 'Star Wars' Addresses." ''Quarterly Journal of Speech'' 72 (1986): 390-414.
* Greffenius, Steven. ''The Last Jeffersonian: Ronald Reagan's Dreams of America''. June, July, & August Books. 2002.
* Hertsgaard, Mark. ''On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency'' 1988. criticizes the press
* Hoeveler, J. David. ''Watch on the Right: Conservative Intellectuals in the Reagan Era.'' University of Wisconsin Press, 1991.
* Houck, Davis, and Amos Kiewe, eds. ''Actor, Ideologue, Politician: The Public Speeches of Ronald Reagan'' (Greenwood Press, 1993) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Davis W. Houck&dcontributors=Davis+W.+Houck online edition]
* Jones, John M. "'Until Next Week': The Saturday Radio Addresses of Ronald Reagan" ''Presidential Studies Quarterly.'' Volume: 32. Issue: 1. 2002. pp 84+.
* Kengor, Paul. ''God and Ronald Reagan: A Spiritual Life'' Regan Books, 2004. ISBN.
* Kiewe, Amos, and Davis W. Houck. ''A Shining City on a Hill: Ronald Reagan's Economic Rhetoric, 1951-1989.'' 1991.
* Lewis, William F. "Telling America's Story: Narrative Form and the Reagan Presidency", ''Quarterly Journal of Speech''): 280–302
* Longley, Kyle, Jeremy D. Mayer, Michael Schaller, and John W. Sloan. ''Deconstructing Reagan: Conservative Mythology and America’s Fortieth President,'' (M.E. Sharpe, 2007. xviii, 150 pp. isbn 978-0-7656-1591-6.)
* Meyer, John C. "Ronald Reagan and Humor: A Politician's Velvet Weapon", ''Communication Studies'' 41 (1990): 76-88.
* Moore, Mark P. "Reagan's Quest for Freedom in the 1987 State of the Union Address." ''Western Journal of Communication'' 53 (1989): 52-65.
* Muir, William Ker. ''The Bully Pulpit: The Presidential Leadership of Ronald Reagan'' (1992), examines his speeches
* Noonan, Peggy. ''When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan'' (2001) memoir by a Reagan speechwriter
* Ormanm John. ''Comparing Presidential Behavior: Carter, Reagan, and the Macho Presidential Style'' Greenwood Press, 1987 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15388519 online edition]
* Ritter, Kurt W. ''Ronald Reagan: The Great Communicator.'' Greenwood, 1992. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29047567 online edition]
* Shogan, Colleen J. "Coolidge and Reagan: The Rhetorical Influence of Silent Cal on the Great Communicator", ''Rhetoric & Public Affairs'' 9.2 online at Project Muse; argues that Coolidge and Reagan shared a common ideological message, which served as the basis for modern conservatism. Even without engaging in explicitly partisan rhetoric, Reagan's principled speech served an important party-building function.
* Stuckey, Mary. ''Getting Into the Game: The Pre-Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.'' Praeger, 1989
* Stuckey, Mary. ''Playing the Game: The Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan.'' Praeger, 1990. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24414026 online edition]
* Thomas, Tony. ''The Films of Ronald Reagan'' (1980)
* Troy, Gill. ''Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s'' (2004). Study of Reagan's image.
* Michael Weiler and W. Barnett Pearce; ''Reagan and Public Discourse in America'' University of Alabama Press, 1992 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=59353372 online edition]
* Wills, Garry. ''Reagan's America: Innocents at Home''. (1987)

===Primary sources===
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistcial tables
* Reagan Ronald, and Richard G. Hubler. ''Where's the Rest of Me?'' (1965). first autobiography
* Reagan Ronald. ''An American Life.'' (1990). second autobiography [http://www.amazon.com/American-Life-Ronald-Reagan/dp/0743400259/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194317128&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Reagan Ronald. ''The Creative Society: Some Comments on Problems Facing America.'' 1968.
* Reagan Ronald. ''Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation.'' 1984.
* Reagan Ronald. ''Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan. 1981-1989.'' 8 vols. Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1982-91.
* Reagan, Ronald. ''Reagan, In His Own Hand: The Writings of Ronald Reagan That Reveal His Revolutionary Vision for America'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743219384/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Reagan, Ronald. ''The Reagan Diaries: Extended Selections‎'' ed. by Douglas Brinkley (2007)
* Skinner, Kiron K. et al, eds. ''Reagan's Path to Victory: The Shaping of Ronald Reagan's Vision: Selected Writings'' (2004), 450 radio talks from late 1970s

====Primary sources by Reagan associates====
* Anderson, Martin. ''Revolution: The Reagan Legacy'' (1990)
* Haig, Alexander. ''Inner Circles: How America Changed the World'' (1994). Haig was Secretary of State 1981-82
* Deaver, Michael, and Mickey Herskowitz. ''Behind the Scenes''. 1987. Memoir by a top aide.
* Meese Edwin. ''With Reagan: The Inside Story.'' Regnery Gateway, 1992.
* Niskanen William A. ''Reaganomics: An Insider's Account of the Policies and the People.'' Oxford University Press, 1988.
* Reagan, Nancy. ''My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy Reagan'' (1989)
* Reagan Maureen. ''First Father, First Daughter: A Memoir.'' 1989.
* Reagan Michael and Joe Hyams. ''On the Outside Looking In.'' 1988.
* Regan Donald T. ''For the Record. From Wall Street to Washington.'' 1988; Treasury Secretary and Chief of Staff
* Shultz, George P. ''Turmoil and Triumph My Years As Secretary of State'' 1993) Schulz was Secretary of State 1982-89
* Stahl, Lesley. "Reporting Live" (1999) memoir by TV news reporter
* Stockman David A. ''The Triumph of Politics: How the Reagan Revolution Failed.'' 1986. Stockman was Budget Director in 1981-82
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Foreign Policy in the Reagan Presidency: Nine Intimate Perspectives.'' University Press of America, 1993.
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Leadership in the Reagan Presidency: Seven Intimate Perspectives.'' 1992.
* Thompson Kenneth W., ed. ''Leadership in the Reagan Presidency, Part II: Eleven Intimate Perspectives.'' University Press of America, 1993.
* Weinberger, Caspar. ''In the Arena: A Memoir of the 20th Century'' (1991), by the Defense Secretary

===Government documents===
* Council of Economic Advisors. ''Economic Report of the President,'' (annual, 1981-1988), detailed analysis of economic issues
* U.S. Census Bureau, ''Statistical Abstract of the United States'' annual compilation of over 1000 tables of data.

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040614-646317,00.html Time Magazine Article on ''The All-American President'']
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html White House Official Page]
*[http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=537924&agid=2 The Passing of a Conservative] - by [[Alfred Regnery]]
*[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ Reagan's Presidential Library]
*[http://imdb.com/name/nm0001654/ Actor Bio At IMDB]
*[http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/ Official Memorial]
*[http://www.reagan.navy.mil/index.html USS ''Ronald Reagan'' CVN 76 official website]
*[http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Ronald_Reagan Quotations by Ronald Reagan]
*[http://reagan2020.us/ Reagan 2020] Reagan 2020 is the Internet's most comprehensive resource on Ronald Reagan.
*[http://www.acuf.org/principles/p_philos.asp "Our Philosophy of Government"] Speech by President Ronald Reagan, March 2, 1981
*[http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation] While president, Ronald Reagan penned this article for The Human Life Review, unsolicited.
{{DEFAULTSORT:Reagan, Ronald Wilson}}
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
{{USPresidents}}
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:California Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:United States History]]
{{Conservatism}}
[[category:1960s]]
[[category:New Deal]]
[[category:Actors]]
[[category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:United States Veterans]]
[[Category:Fiscal Conservatives]]
[[Category:Tax Revolts]]
[[Category:Former Liberals]]
[[Category:Irish-Americans]]

Kirsten Gillibrand

2011-06-29T00:04:58Z

LeonardO: Undo revision 884070 by FreakyLocz14 (talk) (vandalism)

{{Officeholder
|name=Kirsten Gillibrand
|image=Gillibrand.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=Jonathan Gillibrand
|religion=Roman Catholic
|offices=
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=New York
|terms=January 26, 2009 - Present
|preceded=[[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=New York
|district=20th
|terms=January 4, 2007 – January 26, 2009
|preceded=John E. Sweeney
|former=n
|succeeded=Scott Murphy
}}
}}

'''Kirsten E. Gillibrand''' (born December 9, 1966) (pronounced JILL-uh-brand) is a first-term United States senator from [[New York]]. Gillibrand served in the United States House of Representatives from January 3, 2007, to January 26, 2009, when she resigned to become a U.S. Senator. Gillibrand was appointed by NY Governor [[David A. Paterson|David Paterson]] on January 23, 2009 to the United States Senate for the term ending January 3, 2013, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of [[Hillary Clinton]]. This appointment took effect upon her resignation from the House of Representatives on January 26, 2009. Gillibrand took the oath of office on January 27, 2009. At forty-two years old she is the youngest member of the Senate.

Gillibrand is one of the most aggressive fund-raisers in the country, and prospective opponents have dropped out of the 2010 primary. Harold Ford, a former Congressman from Tennessee who lost a Senate bid there after voters reacted against his notoriously corrupt Memphis family was a notable challenger of her in the race until he dropped his bid to challenge her.
==Career==
From an upstate New York family long involved in politics, she graduated from Dartmouth College (1988) and UCLA Law School. At Dartmouth learned Chinese, spent a semester in China, and wrote a senior project on the topic, "The History of Tibetan Resistance to the Chinese Occupation of Tibet 1950-1988."

She is a Catholic, and is married with two children. Her husband, Jonathan Gillibrand, is a British citizen who works in finance.

Gillibrand worked for both Republicans and Democrats, and clerked for a senior federal judge --a Reagan appointee-- before working for a major law firm in New York City.

==Election==
Gillibrand was elected in 2006 after defeating incumbent Republican John E. Sweeney. She won by 6% of the vote.

==House==
Gillibrand is considered a [[Blue Dog Democrat]] for her conservative credentials, including a 100% rating from the [[NRA]], supports offshore drilling, and voted against the $700 billion bailout. However, she supports civil liberties and has a 100% rating from the [[ACLU]]. She supported redeployment of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, and voted with the Bush administration and against her own party leadership on funding the Iraq war.<ref> See [http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/01/23/kirsten_gillibrand/ Joe Conason, "Kirsten Gillibrand. Really? Why New York Gov. David Paterson chose a senator with conservative views that clash with his own." ''Salon'' Jan. 23, 2009]</ref> She favors the English language-only movement as well as abortion rights; she has supported balanced budget amendments, and opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Gillibrand is considered one of the Democratic Party's most active and aggressive grass roots campaigners, using her huge $4.6 million war chest to garner 65% of the vote in the 2008 election.

==U.S. Senate==
Gillibrand was nominated to fill the seat vacated by Hillary Clinton after she became Secretary of State in the [[Obama Administration]]. Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late president, had been considered the frontrunner until she mysteriously dropped out of the contest on Jan. 22. The choice of Gillibrand was a stunning blow to liberal forces in New York, who never dreamed she would displace their favorites. "She is on the right-wing of our Congressional delegation," said Danny Cantor, a liberal leader. "People change, and we’re going to be optimistic and hope she does too."<ref>Quoted in [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/nyregion/24gillibrand.html?ref=nyregion Michael Powell and Raymond Hernandez, "Gillibrand Is a Centrist With a Tenacious Style," ''New York Times'' Jan. 24, 2009] </ref>

Many staffers and supporters of Clinton have joined her team, which proposes to raise $70 million for her statewide reelection campaigns in 2010 and 2012. Gillibrand is not well known in New York City, the liberal stronghold where Democratic primaries are won and lost. However she has already amassed a huge war chest and no major opponents for the primary are in sight.

==ACORN==
After countless stories of election fraud by the group ACORN, Kirsten Gillibrand was one of seven Democrats that voted to continue funding [[ACORN]]. The vote failed and ACORN was stripped of funding in the Senate <ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27153.html Senate denies ACORN funding, Politico, September 14, 2009]</ref> Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government said, "The ACORN Housing Corporation has long been pushing the very loose-lending policies that helped destroy the housing industry. And now it has been exposed for working with prostitutes, as well. Yet, these seven Senators [Gillibrand] have knowingly voted to keep sending taxpayer money to a highly corrupt organization of pushers and pimps," <ref>[http://politicomafioso.blogspot.com/2009/09/alg-condemns-7-senators-for-voting-to.html ALG Condemns 7 Senators,Politico Mafioso, September 16, 2009]</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/one_item_and_teasers/gillibrand.htm Senator Kirsten Gillibrand - Official Senate Homepage]
*[http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=412223 Senator Kirsten Gillibrand - GovTrack.us]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Gillibrand, Kirsten}}

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:2010 Midterm Elections]]
[[Category:New York]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]

GOProud

2011-06-29T00:04:14Z

LeonardO: Undo revision 884069 by FreakyLocz14 (talk) (You do not revert an official reversion.)

'''GOProud''' is a gay rights group that consists of [[RINO]]s. They consider themselves conservatives who believe in [[limited government]], individual liberty, free markets, national defense and a strong foreign policy. Per their website "We believe that every individual should be equal under the law." This stance would include the right to gay marriage. Some people believe the group has more in common with conservatism than the [[libertarian]] wing. Traditional conservatism is defined by social issues; God, heterosexual marriage, etc. As such, GOProud divides the conservative movement which is now evident in the annual [[CPAC]] convention and the refusal of social conservative groups to attend an event that promotes [[homosexuality]] from GOProud. The co-founders of GOProud are Jimmy LaSalvia and Christopher Barron, a political director for [[Planned Parenthood]].<ref>[http://www.gaypatriot.net/2005/11/16/breaking-news-log-cabin-loses-political-director-to-planned-parenthood/ BREAKING NEWS: LOG CABIN LOSES POLITICAL DIRECTOR TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD, Gay Patriot, November 16, 2005]</ref> In a rejection of the [[homosexual agenda]], the CPAC board of directors voted to exclude GOProud from future CPAC conferences.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=263673 GOProud out at annual summit of conservatives]</ref>

==Leftist Policies==
*Christopher Barron calls Cleta Mitchell, a conservative lawyer fighting same-sex marriage in D.C., a "nasty [[bigot]]." <ref>[http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/10/this-is-too-much-for-me/ This is Too Much For Me, Red State, February 10, 2011]</ref>
*GOProud attacks conservative [[Tim Pawlenty]] for his support of Don't Ask Don't Tell. <ref>[http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/08/reciprocal-courtesy-on-a-bridge-too-far/ Reciprocal Courtesy On a Bridge Too Far, Red State, February 2011]</ref>
*GOProud calls conservative leader [[Jim DeMint]] "outrageous and bizarre" for suggesting the barring of openly [[gay]] teachers from school. <ref>[http://www.goproud.org/jim-demint-trying-his-best-to-make-alvin-greene-look-sane/ Jim DeMint: Trying His Best to Make Alvin Greene Look Sane, GOProud, October 5, 2010]</ref>
*GOProud attempts to [[dilute]] the [[Biblical]] condemnation of [[homosexuality]] as a [[sin]] and an [[abomination]] unto [[God]].
*GOProud supports attempts to force the [[military]] to allow openly [[homosexual]] men and women to serve.

==See Also==
* [[Log Cabin Republicans]]

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
* [http://www.goproud.org Official website]

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:Endosymbiotic hypothesis

2011-06-28T18:29:51Z

LeonardO:

==Falsifiability==

I take issue with the claim that the endosymbiotic hypothesis is not falsifiable. Off the top of my head, it strongly predicts that a) we should find similarities between mitochondria and chloroplasts and their hypothesized "relatives" in the bacterial kingdoms, and b) that such organelles should have two layers of plasma membrane rather than one. Finding evidence against either of these would falsify the theory. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 17:47, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

I essentially performed a massive surgery on this page. The original was good, but I felt that it needed an academic face-lift. I'm also a little more knowledgeable on this subject than the first author, though they did do a superb job for someone that (I'm assuming) lacked advanced training in biology. I can safely say that MOST university professors would be comfortable with their students using this article as a quick reference. [[User:Professor|Professor]] 01:57, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:Professor, I did some additional surgery too plus a graft. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:23, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::Conservative, your surgery included the complete deletion of some parts, for example the "evidence" paragraph. I am sure that you had your reasons, but I believe that it is better for Conservapedia that when the complete deletion of some parts is required, a full, detailed reason should always be provided in the talk page, lest we are accused of censorship. Self-respecting conservatives do not engage in that kind of thing, and we must lead by example. So, what was the reason for the deletion of entire sections from the article? Were they poorly sourced? Were they demonstrably untrue? Do you have reason to believe it was parody? Again, I am not criticizing, but I think it will ultimately benefit Conservapedia if there is some transparence and openness behind the decisions of admins.
::By the way, how is your new satire article coming along? You mentioned you were working on something, and I am looking forward to it :)
::Respectfully,
::--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 07:37, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
::::Evobabble is not science. Conservapedia doesn't want the adherents of the religion of atheism to put in their atheist origins myth which is evolution. Conservapedia is not a big fan of astrology and evolution. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:58, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::I was entirely accurate in the article. The evidence that was burned (Godwin's law, anyone?) represents a wealth of scientific knowledge that has been accumulated over a century. I agree that symbiotic theory is a key argument used by evolution proponents, but I don't think that warrants the blatant disregard of scientific fact. Whether we agree with the theory or not, surely we can respect the massive amount of time and research that has been devoted to better understanding ourselves and other organisms. [[User:Professor|Professor]] 13:07, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I am not buying your "wealth". Please read: [[Evolution]] and [[Atheism]]. Are you an atheist? Do you have proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:47, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, I know perfectly well why you deleted that material, I am not asking you to explain it to me; all that I am asking for is that, in the spirit of openness, you acknowledge the complete deletion of a section in the log and in the talk page, clearly providing the reason for why it is deleted. It is very easy to be accused of censorship, and we do not want to provide any ammo to those who criticize us. And... you didn't reply for what concerns your next satire article :) --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 14:29, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

Stephen Fry

2011-06-28T15:37:51Z

LeonardO:

[[File:Stephen Fry.png|thumbnail|250px|right|Stephen Fry
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stephen_Fry.png Wikimedia Commons], see [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stephen_Fry.png license agreement]) ]]
'''Stephen Fry''' is a [[England|English]] comedian, actor and writer, born 24 August 1957 (age {{age|1957|8|24}}).

He has published several books and hosts the [[television|TV]] [[comedy]] quiz show ''[[QI]]''. He is perhaps best known for his comedy partnership with [[Hugh Laurie]], with whom he appeared in the popular series ''[[Blackadder]]'' alongside [[Rowan Atkinson]]. He also played the role of ''Gordon Dietrich'' in the film [[V for Vendetta]].

Fry is a self-described [[liberal]], [[atheist]], a well known [[homosexual]] and has [[bipolar disorder]].

A picture of an overweight Stephen Fry can be found [http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/familyhistory/get_started/wdytya_s2_celeb_gallery_03.shtml HERE] In 2009, the ''Mail Online'' reported that Stephen Fry went from being "appallingly corpulent" to having a weight where he can "at last bear to look at himself in the mirror again".<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1194024/STEPHEN-FRY-How-I-lost-stones-just-months.html</ref> However, in March of 2011, Stephen Fry appeared to be once again overweight.<ref>http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/stephen_fry_backs_tiny_norfolk_theatre_1_842092</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Atheism and obesity]]
== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Fry, Stephen}}

[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Comedians]]
[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Broadcasters]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category: Homosexuals]]

Ted Haggard

2011-06-28T15:34:12Z

LeonardO: Undo revision 883834 by TedHaggardsLover (talk) (Work of vandal)

'''Ted Haggard''' is a former [[Pastor]] of the [[New Life Church]] in [[Colorado Springs]], [[Colorado]] and a founder of the [[Association of Life-Giving Churches]]. He was leader of the [[National Association of Evangelicals]] from 2003 until November 2006 when he stepped down after a scandal.

In November 2006, he was removed or resigned from his leadership positions after allegations of [[homosexual]] sex and drug abuse were made by Mike Jones, a male [[prostitute]]. Originally, Haggard denied knowing Mike Jones, but later acknowledged that was not the case. He also admitted that some accusations, such as his purchasing [[methamphetamine]], were true. He confessed to "[[sexual immorality]]" in the following days, but still maintained that aspects of Mike Jones' testimony were untrue.

:"The fact is I am guilty of sexual immorality. And I take responsibility for the entire problem. I am a deceiver and a liar. There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life," he said.<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2630268] Ousted Evangelist Confesses to Followers</ref>

The man who accused him was quoted as saying afterwards<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227159,00.html] Evangelical Leader Admits to Buying Meth, Receiving Massage From Gay Escort</ref> "It made me angry that here's someone preaching about gay marriage and going behind the scenes having gay sex,". (It should be noted that Haggard supported homosexual civil unions, but not marriage <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/06/04/groups_gay_marriage_issue_not_congresss] Gay marriage issue not Congress's</ref> and had earlier gone on record supporting the court decision in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'' believing that government should not interfere in the private lives of homosexuals. <ref>''Christianity Today'' magazine, Nov. 2005, Pg. 45</ref>)

==Rehabilitation==

On February 6, 2007, Tim Ralph, one of four ministers who oversaw three weeks of intensive counseling for Haggard, stated that Haggard "is completely [[heterosexual]]." Ralph later explained himself further saying that therapy "gave Ted the tools to help to embrace his heterosexual side."

In February of 2008, Haggard requested that his oversight and counseling by the New Life Church recovery program be ended.<ref>http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/07/haggard-ends-teams-oversight-of-restoration/</ref> The representatives of New Life Church agreed to his request, but Pastor Brady Boyd issued a statement<ref>http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3422</ref> saying they believe that the termination of the relationship is premature without elaborating. Earlier in the process, church leaders had said they assumed that Haggard's recovery could take several years, and in the 2008 statement, they remained convinced that he should not return to any church ministry.

==References==
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227159,00.html
<references />

{{DEFAULTSORT:Haggard, Ted}}

[[Category:Clergy]]

Francis Collins

2011-06-28T15:33:57Z

LeonardO: Undo revision 883833 by TedHaggardsLover (talk) (Work of vandal)

'''Dr. Francis Collins''' (born April 14, 1950), a former [[atheist]] who converted to [[Christianity]], is the current director of the National Institutes of Health. He was appointed by President [[Barack Hussein Obama]] in 2009. [[Pope Benedict XVI]] has also appointed him to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Formerly, Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project at the National Human Genome Research Institute.

He is the author of "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" and is a speaker for the Veritas Forum at college campuses. He cites C.S. Lewis's writings on Christianity in turning him away from atheism, which he now renounces as the least rational worldview.

==Views==
Collins promotes [[theistic evolution]], which he calls BioLogos. He believes a non-literal interpretation of creation as it appears in Genesis. However, he believes the fine-tuning of the physical constants and the existence of a Moral Law prove the existence of a loving God.

[[Creation Ministries International]] declared concerning Collins theistic evolutionary views:
{{cquote|All Christians, creationists included, can find much to like in ''[[The Language of God]]''. Collins’ personal story is fascinating. His intention in writing the book is excellent: to spread the word that faith is reasonable. Like Collins, we want to see an end to the widespread false impression that faith and science are incompatible. However, we must sadly conclude that most of Collins’ arguments—his means to the laudable ends that we all want to further—are going down the wrong path. Instead of creating a harmony between faith and science, theistic evolution subsumes the authority of Scripture to the authority of the latest scientific paper, leaving philosophical confusion in its wake.<ref>http://creation.com/harmony-and-discord-a-review-of-francis-collins-book-the-language-of-god</ref>}}

BeliefNet wrote concerning Collins' views on abortion:
{{cquote|In a 1998 book he co-authored, Principles of Medical Genetics, he considers a bioethical situation where a genetic counselor is discussing with a (married) mother, 8 weeks pregnant, whether to abort her child because there’s a 7 to 8 percent chance the child will have a mild learning disability. Should the mother indicate an interest in aborting, Collins and his two co-authors commend to the counselor a stance of “respect for [patient] autonomy” and “nondirective counseling.” In other words, the medical professional in this context should be morally neutral.<ref> http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpriests/2009/07/francis-collins-on-abortion.html</ref>}}

Collins is also an advocate for therapeutic cloning without the use of embryonic stem cells.

== External links ==
http://biologos.org/about

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

The Language of God, 2006

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

Stephen Fry

2011-06-28T15:33:39Z

LeonardO: Undo revision 883832 by TedHaggardsLover (talk) (Work of vandal)

[[File:Stephen Fry.png|thumbnail|250px|right|Stephen Fry
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stephen_Fry.png Wikimedia Commons], see [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stephen_Fry.png license agreement]) ]]
'''Stephen Fry''' is a [[England|English]] comedian, actor and writer, born 24 August 1957 (age {{age|1957|8|24}}).

He has published several books and hosts the [[television|TV]] [[comedy]] quiz show ''[[QI]]''. He is perhaps best known for his comedy partnership with [[Hugh Laurie]], with whom he appeared in the popular series ''[[Blackadder]]'' alongside [[Rowan Atkinson]]. He also played the role of ''Gordon Dietrich'' in the film ''V for Vendetta''.

Fry is a self-described [[liberal]], [[atheist]], a well known [[homosexual]] and has [[bipolar disorder]].

A picture of an overweight Stephen Fry can be found [http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/familyhistory/get_started/wdytya_s2_celeb_gallery_03.shtml HERE] In 2009, the ''Mail Online'' reported that Stephen Fry went from being "appallingly corpulent" to having a weight where he can "at last bear to look at himself in the mirror again".<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1194024/STEPHEN-FRY-How-I-lost-stones-just-months.html</ref> However, in March of 2011, Stephen Fry appeared to be once again overweight.<ref>http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/stephen_fry_backs_tiny_norfolk_theatre_1_842092</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Atheism and obesity]]
== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Fry, Stephen}}

[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Comedians]]
[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Broadcasters]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category: Homosexuals]]

Stephen Fry

2011-06-28T15:23:52Z

LeonardO: Undo revision 883830 by TedHaggardsLover (talk) (vandalism)

[[File:Stephen Fry.png|thumbnail|250px|right|Stephen Fry
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stephen_Fry.png Wikimedia Commons], see [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stephen_Fry.png license agreement]) ]]
'''Stephen Fry''' is a [[England|English]] comedian, actor and writer, born 24 August 1957 (age {{age|1957|8|24}}).

He has published several books and hosts the [[television|TV]] [[comedy]] quiz show ''[[QI]]''. He is perhaps best known for his comedy partnership with [[Hugh Laurie]], with whom he appeared in the popular series ''[[Blackadder]]'' alongside [[Rowan Atkinson]]. He also played the role of ''Gordon Dietrich'' in the film ''V for Vendetta''.

Fry is a self-described [[liberal]], [[atheist]], a well known [[homosexual]] and has [[bipolar disorder]].

A picture of an overweight Stephen Fry can be found [http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/familyhistory/get_started/wdytya_s2_celeb_gallery_03.shtml HERE] In 2009, the ''Mail Online'' reported that Stephen Fry went from being "appallingly corpulent" to having a weight where he can "at last bear to look at himself in the mirror again".<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1194024/STEPHEN-FRY-How-I-lost-stones-just-months.html</ref> However, in March of 2011, Stephen Fry appeared to be once again overweight.<ref>http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/stephen_fry_backs_tiny_norfolk_theatre_1_842092</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Atheism and obesity]]
== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Fry, Stephen}}

[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Comedians]]
[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Broadcasters]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category: Homosexuals]]

Holy See

2011-06-28T11:49:48Z

LeonardO:

[[Image:Holy See.gif|right|thumb|Vatican State Flag]]
The '''Holy See''', from the Latin ''Sancta Sedes'', Holy Chair, is the see of the [[Pope]], the bishop of [[Rome]]. It is the central government of the [[Catholic Church]] (The authority, jurisdiction, and governmental functions associated with the papacy).

The Pope governs the Catholic Church through the Roman Curia. The Holy See maintains formal diplomatic relations with 175 sovereign states, the [[European Union]], and the [[Sovereign Military Order of Malta]]. Also there are special relations with [[Russia| Russian Federation]], (Mission with an Ambassador) and the [[Palestine Liberation Organization]] (PLO), (Office with a Director).

The Holy See is a member of the [[International Atomic Energy Agency]] (IAEA) and the [[Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons]] (OPCW). It participates also in various International Intergovernmental Organizations and Bodies, and in various Regional Intergovernmental Organizations and Bodies.

Among others The Holy See is also a permanent observer of the following groups:

[[United Nations]] (UN)

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ([[UNESCO]])

International Organization for Migration (IOM)

International Labour Organization (ILO)

[[Organization of American States]] (OAS)

[[World Trade Organization]] (WTO)
[[Image:Sistene Chapel.jpg|right|thumb|Sistine Chapel]]

== The Roman Curia ==

The [[Roman Curia]] is considered to be where the Pope is, with the Chancery, Tribunals, and officials whom he employs in the Government of the Catholic Church.

''In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors. CHRISTUS DOMINUS, 9.'' <ref> [http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/index.htm The Roman Curia] </ref>

The Roman Curia includes the Secretariat of State, nine Congregations, three Tribunals, 11 Pontifical Councils, and other main offices.

One of the major Curial institutions is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the [[Faith]], which oversees Catholic church doctrine.

== The papal garrison ==
[[Image:Sistine.jpg|right|thumb|Michelangelo, The Last Judgement]]
The visitors to Rome, who pose for a photograph in front of the [[Swiss]] soldiers on guard at the gates of [[Vatican City]], are familiar with the history of these troops who take an oath of loyalty to the Pope. The Swiss Guards' official date of birth is January 22nd, 1506.

Every day they are engaged in mounting guard at the entrances to the Apostolic Palace and in the [[Sistine Chapel]]. However, the most important meeting is the one which takes place in the Vatican every year on May 6th, on the occasion of the "Swearing in" of the new recruits.

== See also ==

*[[Pope Benedict XVI]]
*[[Pope John Paul II]]
*[[Sistine Chapel]]

== External links ==

*[http://uk.geocities.com/hashanayobel/uvw/vatican.htm VATICAN CITY]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm Holy See] Catholic Encyclopedia.
*[http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/MV_Home.html Vatican Museums Online]
*[http://www.pellegrinocattolico.com/ctv/frame.htm The Vatican State] Italian web site.
*[http://catholic.net/good_news/template_channel.phtml?channel_id=28 Good News]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category: Religion]]
[[Category: Christianity]]
[[Category: Catholic Church]]