Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia talk:Copyright

2009-03-09T15:39:35Z

MackHein: /* requesting change */ new section

== Dual users ==
As a dual user (and now a dual administrator) of Conservapedia and CreationWiki, I have some questions that I think every registered user of multiple Wikis should ask himself--and here is the best place to put the answers.

What obligations does a dual user labor under?

May a dual user submit content--and by "content" I mean ''that user's own words''--directly to Conservapedia and to another Wiki?

If a dual user has already submitted content to another Wiki--say, CreationWiki--then how long does he have to submit that content to Conservapedia before having to do an extensive rewrite?

How extensive a rewrite would be required to avoid all questions of liability?

In asking these questions, I realize at once that some content requires an extensive rewrite because the "target audience" is not the same, and has different values and, for lack of a better term, needs. But if that situation does not apply, then a dual user might be tempted to submit exactly the same words to both projects. If a user is going to do that, then how many days apart may he do that and still stay within a legal definition of "a simultaneous submission"?

I am glad to have the opportunity to open a discussion on a topic of vital importance to Conservapedia. A firm policy on dual-user rights and obligations will go far to ensure that Conservapedia can get good content submitted to it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:15, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: Other Wikis embrace, mistakenly in my opinion, the [[copyleft]] approach. We do not. As a dual user, I suggest submitting to Conservapedia first because our copyright is less restrictive than other Wikis. If you submit to other Wikis first, then they might insist that impose the burdensome [[copyleft]] conditions on reuse of that material elsewhere. We impose no such requirements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

* Just on the broader point of comparing it to Wikipedia's license... [[Differences with Wikipedia]] and [[Wikipedia copyright]] both currently say that contributing material to Wikipedia prevents the author from re-using their work elsewhere. This is manifestly untrue. By U.S. law, authors automatically own the copyright to their work, and the GFDL has no clauses that reassign copyright ownership to anyone else.    If I write a poem all by myself, license it under the GFDL, and post it to Geocities, then I still own the copyright. The same holds for Wikipedia.     Wikipedia authors can and do [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multi-licensing multiply-license] their works under other licenses in addition to the GFDL, which can include licenses that are more restrictive than the GFDL. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: That's '''not''' correct to the extent your work has been edited on other Wikis. I don't know if you are right about your unedited original work and what Wikipedia or other Wikis may require as a condition of submission there. The provisions governing submission on those websites would need to be checked.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::I should think that any contributor who built his contribution on his own machine, or otherwise re-created his original submission ''prior to any edits'', would satisfy the original-submission requirement. Happily, any Wiki has a history section that preserves the source code of every version of every article since its creation, or perhaps fifty edits back. All that a user has to do is look back to how his article looked ''before anyone else edited it'' (not counting immediate reverts) and then view and copy the source. I maintain that a contributor who does that, should be able to dual-submit. But I agree--once the article has been edited by another person, it's not that submitter's original work product anymore.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: As I (not a legal type - this comes from my experience as an artist and a writer in dealing with copyrights) understand it there are two issues here - original work and deritive work. In the case of original work, unless you assign the copyright or "irrevocably waive and relinquish all copyrights"[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Copyright&oldid=89370#II] you own the copyright. You are free to license it however you want. You can put it on a gdfl wiki and you can publish it in a book, and that is not an issue (some publishers may want exclusive publishing rights in which case having published the material at a wiki means they won't be interested in it). The only thing you have to be aware of is that someone else can come along and use the material in a way granted by the gdfl and they are not violating your copyright. If the material is a deritive work - it is edits based on other edits of someone else's work, while you own the copyright to the ''edit'', you have to abide by the licensing of the parent work - if it is gdfl, then that means if you want to publish the material you have edited, then it is also under the gdfl. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:17, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think both Terry and Mtur are right. Thanks also to Interiot for alerting us to this aspect of the issue.

: By the way, those you who have influence with other wikis might persuade them to abandon their burdensome "copyleft" or gdfl licensing requirements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Could you remove that disconcerting "irrevocably waive and relinquish all copyrights" bit here? As an artist that kind of scares me. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I've clarified it for you, but I don't see how to change what's in quotations without allowing people to cause problems in protesting copying of their entries. Do you have a suggestion consistent with the purpose of a wiki?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== From Wikipedia on multi licensing ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multi-licensing Wikipedia:Multi-licensing]
<blockquote>All text edits to Wikipedia fall under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) with the copyright being retained by the original author.</blockquote>
This edit[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Differences_with_Wikipedia&curid=11868&diff=89683&oldid=89350] is not correct in that manner.
<blockquote> 1. We allow broader reuse of our material than Wikipedia does. By entering information on Wikipedia you are actually losing rights to your own material to the extent anyone else edits it, as you cannot then copy your entry for use elsewhere without complying with Wikipedia's burdensome copyright restrictions.</blockquote>
You still own the original material even after it has been edited. (ps: could you make that a wiki style numbering instead? It should make your life easier if you ever want to insert a point between it or if you use a local style sheet to change how ordered lists are presented) --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
: OK, you're right. I made it this: "you irrevocably consent to the display, copying, reuse or editing of your information, edits and entries, with or without attribution." And I'll fix the numbering also. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:: That is ''much'' better. Thank you. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Can Wikipedia (or any Wiki) Stop Copying of Entries? ==

One editor here has suggested that Wikipedia (and other Wikis) never own any rights in any of their entries, and that Wikipedia (and other Wikis) cannot stop any copying of their entries even if in violation of the GNU license. Wikipedians, do you have a view on this? (We don't want to copy any Wikipedia here but this is relevant to our own copyright policies).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Well, though I'm technically still a registered user of [[Wikipedia]], I must disclaim anything more than a passing acquaintance with Wikipedia's copyright policies.
:But I ''am'' an administrator at [[CreationWiki]], and I am in at least weekly contact with their Chief Bureaucrat, Christopher W. Ashcraft. He says that he won't accept any verbatim copies from Conservapedia to his site, and he has advised all of us on his end not to copy stuff that we did not write over here. (As to things we ''did'' write--well, he doesn't mind dual submissions, and he said that ''simultaneous'' submissions are perfectly permissible as a matter of law. But I think he would agree with you, Andy, that we must submit our own words ''before'' anyone else edited them.)
:Frankly, that's about all that matters. I'll tell you how I use Wikipedia: I go to their sources whenever possible, and where that's not possible, I rewrite. In fact, most of the time, I ''couldn't'' accept their content, because they have a POV that I don't share. And even as regards my dual submisions here and at CreationWiki, I can't always write exactly the same thing here and there. This project and CreationWiki have two different target populations and two different scopes.
:Now as to whether anyone can stop the copying: I suspect that they could. I'll give you an insight from another context: firmware for a wireless router. When the company that currently owns the Linksys name incorporated code from the [[Linux]] operating system in the firmware for their WRT-54G family of wireless combination access point/routers, the Free Software Foundation sent them a cease-and-desist order. Linksys concluded that they just couldn't keep that code proprietary anymore, so they released the code. The result has been the invention of a number of "alternative firmwares" for that device. But it has ''also'' set a precedent that "copyleft" provisions ''are'' enforceable.
:And even if they couldn't go to court--well, I'd certainly hate to see any of our dual users get blocked for unlawful copying. That kind of misunderatanding would truly be a crying shame.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
The original contributors are the copyright owners (Wikipedia contributions aren't a [http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-c.html "work for hire"], and there's no other agreement to transfer copyright ownership), and the copyright owners [https://message.computerlaw.com/GH_ShowArticle.asp?HID=35 are the only ones who have standing] to sue for infringement. Outside of court of course, standing isn't strictly adhered to, anybody can negotiate on behalf of the copyright owners, particularly if they believe they'll be able to find and assist the people who have standing by the time a lawsuit could occur.

That's just copyright law though, I guess non-copyleft licenses may behave [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 more like contracts], I don't know. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 12:32, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

==Photographs==

To place a photo on wikipedia, you have to have specific proof that you have the copyright holder's permission to post it. Here, you can post any photograph. That's a violation of copyright law. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 01:39, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:Are you sure? The Sysops monitor all photograph submissions, and insist that everyone provide that proof in a free-text field. We also warn people that photograph submissions not in accord with our guidelines are subject to deletion. [[Wikipedia]] offers a menu of copyright-rationale choices. Perhaps Conservapedia would be well-advised to construct something similar, if only to make things easier on uploaders. But "anyone can post" is not a violation ''per se''. ''Retaining'' a photograph in our image archive that we shouldn't have--now ''that'' might be a violation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== time to grow up? ==

Is Conservapedia mature enough yet to remove "To compare this with Wikipedia's more restrictive copyright policy, see [[Wikipedia copyright]]." from this page? We don't compare it to the copyright policy of the US government, or of paper encyclopaedia publishers, so comparing to Wikipedia here is not really helpful either.

I see this page is not presently protected, but it probably should be, as I believe only the site owner should change its copyright notice. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 21:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks, I protected it at your suggestion.

: As to your substantive comment above, Wikipedia's copyright requirements are burdensome. Conservapedia's copyright allows much broader and easier reuse. This is factual, well-supported, and no one seems to dispute it. Users should be aware of this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks. If Conservapedia is supposed to be an ''alternative'' to Wikipedia, it shouldn't need to compare itself on every page. Someone wanting to know under what conditions they are contributing here, or whether they can reuse something found here, doesn't need or want to read the comparison any more than at the end of point 1 (revocable) "This is different to material published by the US Government which is released to the public domain and can be used for any purpose without restriction." or "Encyclopaedia Brittannica does not allow reuse of their published material." --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 19:34, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

==Self-defense?==
This licence is simpler that the GFDL only at the expense of the vagueness inherent in the sentence "This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees." Much of the GFDL licence document is concerned with enumerating the precise conditions you must meet in order to be ''sure'' that that your right to use the material will not be revoked. By maintaining the right to revoke the licence under the poorly-defined grounds of "self-defense" users can't be sure that they actually have the right to use the material; Nor can they be sure that a use that is permitted at one time might be disallowed at a future time. In this sense the Conservapedia license is less free than the GFDL. I suggest that this clause is replaced with a BSD-style "no endorsement" clause.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 04:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:This encyclopedia is well appreciated, a needed response to Wikipedia's fatal flaws. I am for it. Nonetheless, Jalapeno is right. It is not really relevant that the GNU project is a left-wing, anti-American organization, or that the BSD license comes from the liberal fever swamps of Berkeley. The informal term "copyleft" may be etymologically annoying, but the idea the term represents is entirely sound. You just cannot have an open-source encyclopedia without a proper open-source license.

:There is a fundamental difference between an encyclopedia that allows free use of its material and one that restricts free use for the purpose of "stopping unauthorized copying or mirroring of entire parts of this site," as Conservapedia evidently does. If Conservapedia includes some old material that obstructs proper open-sourcedness, and if open-sourcedness (is that a word?) is a goal, then why not remove or sequester the old material? --[[User:Tannoce|Tannoce]] 08:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:: The [[GFDL]] copyright is the one that needs improvement to ease reuse. Our copyright has worked well and is much more free and easy-to-use, except when the use is obviously destructive as outlined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:46, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Migrating Solid Material to Wikipedia ==

As I read the above, GNU allows me to use my ''exact'' contribution elsewhere (but proving it was my contribution may be problemantic) but once others have ''collaborated'' on the article it may be "illegal" for me to cut and paste all or any edited portions of the article to Conservapedia, since it would now include other editor's contributions. Correct?

Therefore, if one wants to work with collaborators in developing a solid article on controversial issues subject to POV pushing at Wikipedia, one should start here at Conservapedia...collaborate...then copy the entire article over to Wikipedia, since there would be no restrictions on moving an entire article to Wikipedia or WikiInfo or any other GNU governed site. Is that correct?

Mostly, I'm looking for a safer ground to collaborate with editors who won't constantly disrupt the article by deleting facts that undermine their political position. Am I correct in my understanding that Conservapedia provides better safegaurds? For example, can a person who starts an article for collaboration unilaterally block a disruptive editor? Can one or more "approved" collaborators "guard" the article from someone who is disruptively trying to slant it in a different direction?

If all that I've described above is correct, I STRONGLY recommend that Conservapedia should have an article prominently linked here that encourages developing articles here with the intent of copying them over to Wikipedia (which surely has more traffic) once they are developed. Participating Editors then should, of course, watchlist the article on their Wikipedia accounts to help protect it from "blanking" of "inconvenient" facts.--[[User:MarthaVine|MarthaVine]] 11:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

: What you say is correct, but [[Wikipedia]] is a lost cause and I don't have any interest in trying to post good material there. [[Wikipedia]] does have lots of traffic but much of it is for non-educational (and sometimes biased) entries. If something good is posted to [[Wikipedia]], then I don't expect it to last there.

: However, feel welcome to copy your contributions to Wikipedia over to here, where we do not impose the silly copyright restrictions imposed by Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::At Wikipedia, it is possible for a group of contributors (whom you call "editors") to monopolize all collaboration on an article, even though this is expressly against Wikipedia policy. The abuse happens so frequently that Wikipedia '''itself''' calls it "tag-team editing".

::*''Tag teams can block other Wikipedians from making contributions'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Multiple_editors]

::Here, collaboration can take place among those who are sympathetic with the project's goals. Trustworthy articles are the primary goal, so if any liberals want to submit reliable information they are welcome. Unfortunately, about 90% of new users arrive here determined to subvert the project. Perhaps you would like to help reverse this trend.

::What you propose, however, in terms of a team preparing an article offsite for migration to Wikipedia, is best down on a wiki which uses a free license. I would be happy to work with you at www.churchwiki.net if you are on the level. Forgive my caution, but I'd like to make sure before I invest any time in this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:41, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Am I wrong to be sure that copying or migrating our articles to Wikipedia would be useless, because "THEY" would destroy it there anyway? {{unsigned|Jerryankeedoodle}}

== requesting change ==

In item 3, I recommend changing "the United States District Court sitting in the City of Newark, State of New Jersey" to "A COURT OF LAW IN TRENTON, NEW JERSEY". I would have made the change myself, but the page is protected.--[[User:MackHein|MackHein]] 11:39, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Hillary Rodham Clinton

2009-03-09T15:27:20Z

MackHein: wikilink an important term

[[Image:Hillary-6.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Hillary Rodham Clinton]]
'''Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton''' (b. 1947) is the [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State of the United States]], and the chief diplomat. From 2001 to 2008 she was [[United States Senate|Senator]] from [[New York]], and from 1993 to 2001 was [[First Lady]] of the United States of America during the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton Administration]]

In 2000, Clinton ran for the New York Senate seat vacated by the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] Senator [[Daniel Patrick Moynihan]]. Backed by the White House, she obtained the Democratic nomination for this Senate seat, and then won easily against [[Republican Party|Republican]] Rick Lazio (who entered the race when [[Rudy Giuliani]] withdrew). She ran for the [[United States Presidential Election, 2008 - Primaries|2008 Democratic Presidential Candidacy]], winning more primaries than any female politician in American history. On June 7th, 2008 she conceded defeat to [[Barack Obama]] after a closely challenged campaign, although she did not release her delegates until the convention itself.

It was an exemplary show of her lack of Christian morals when she barely raised an eyebrow upon learning of her husband's affair with another woman.

==Presidential Campaign 1992==

===Raising taxes on foreign corporations===
In the final 72 hour election crunch of the [[1992 Presidential election]] at Hillary Clinton's behest, the issues were framed as "raising taxes on foreign corporations." Hillary Clinton alleged that the Bush/Quayle ticket, the [[Republican Party]], and the Reagan coalition wanted to grant foreign [[corporation]]s doing business in the [[United States]] massive tax cuts. The Clinton campaign promised to thwart these efforts and grant the American taxpayers a [[tax cut]].<ref>''The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House'', Bob Woodward, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1994. [http://www.mediaresearch.org/mediawatch/1994/watch19940801.asp]</ref>

The result in the first 100 days after Clinton Administration won a plurality was a massive tax cut for foreign corporations through [[NAFTA]] and a [[tax increase]] on the American people.<ref>[http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clint_econ.html William Jefferson Clinton Memorial Library]. On Aug. 10, 1993, the largest tax increase in history was signed into law, raising taxes by almost $280 billion over five years. "Instead of middle-class tax relief, President Clinton chose to include in his $241 billion tax plan higher federal gasoline taxes, tax hikes on Social Security recipients, and steep income tax hikes on small business owners. The President even tried unsuccessfully to institute a brand new $71 billion [[BTU energy tax]] that would have cost the typical family nearly $500 per year." ''The President's Forgotten Middle Class,'' Joint Economic Committee, Majority Staff, 3/22/96.</ref>

===Domestic spying===

''The Hill'' magazine reported Hillary Clinton may have been involved in [[civil right]]s violations by monitoring [[illegal wiretap]]s and [[domestic spying]] on political opponents during the 1992 camapaign.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping], By Alexander Bolton, ''The Hill'', October 16, 2007.</ref> After the revelations came to light in a book entitled, ''Her Way'' [http://www.amazon.com/Her-Way-Ambitions-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0316017426] by Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at the ''[[New York Times]]'', and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, a [[Republican]] official remarked,
{{Cquote|it is rather unbelievable that [Hillary] Clinton would listen in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by [[terrorist]]s as they plot and plan to kill us.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping], By Alexander Bolton, ''The Hill'', October 16, 2007.</ref> }}

== Record as First Lady ==

During [[Bill Clinton]]'s presidency Hillary Clinton initially played an important role. Immediately after his [[inauguration]] in 1993, Hillary Clinton embarked on a [[radical]] program to create a national health care system. She headed a Health Care Task Force which submitted controversial and [[extremism|extreme]] proposals to revamp this health care, which constitutes about one sixth of the U.S. economy. She was sued by the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] for violations of the [[Federal Advisory Committee Act]], and the trial judge ruled against her and the Clinton Administration. An appellate court reversed this ruling but remanded it for further proceedings, which ultimately resulted in disclosures to comply with the law.

Hillary Clinton's friend [[Vincent Foster]] supervised the defense of the litigation, but died under mysterious circumstances at the height of the controversy; the death was officially ruled a suicide. The extreme proposals were overwhelmingly rejected by [[United States Congress|Congress]]. Subsequently, the Republicans won a landslide victory in 1994, taking over both Houses of Congress.

The remainder of Hillary Clinton's tenure as First Lady was largely devoted to combating what she perceived as conspiracies. The Clinton [[White House]], wracked by multiple scandals, abruptly fired longtime members of the White House Travel Office, leading [[Congress]] to vote for a restoration of their benefits. At one point confidential tax records of Republican opponents were discovered in the White House, and no legitimate explanation was ever provided.

===Accusations of improper recruiting for Health Care Task Force ===
:''Main article: [[Clinton health care plan]]''
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires every panel that includes non-government employees to have open meetings.
In January 1993, the ''[[Washington Times]]'' reported the problems with Hillary Clinton's closed door [[Healthcare Task Force]] meeting and the former Watergate crusader ignoring a post-Watergate reform. Rep. Bill Clinger (R-Pa.) demanded that the closed meetings stop. In February the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS) sued. In March, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled the task force violated the FACA. The ''Washington Times'' revealed that many task-force members Clinton claimed as federal employees were not. When a list of 511 names was released, the Times noted the list "did not meet the [GAO] request for dates of employment, salaries and detailed backgrounds." <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_8_18/ai_83699629 ''Enron vs. Hillary care: media double standard is at work''], Brent L. Bozell III, Insight on the News, March 4, 2002.</ref>

===Conspiracy theories and enemies list===
:''Main article: [[Vast right wing conspiracy theory]]
In 1995 there were approximately 1 million computers connected to the Internet. By the end of 1998, there were 50 million. In perspective, after the invention of television, it took more than 10 years before there were 50 million sets in the world. The same rise on the Internet took less than three years.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14676 Hillary Clinton, conspiracy theorist], Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com, February 11, 1999.</ref> This [[economic growth]] of the Internet Hillary Clinton branded as "a [[vast right-wing conspiracy]]." White House staffers were directed to write a report, at taxpayer expense, which included an enemies list of persons and organizations who subsequently endured IRS audits and harassment.<ref>Larry Klayman, WorldNetDaily 7/9/99. [http://www.alamo-girl.com/0311.htm]</ref>

In 2005, Clinton revived her campaign of Internet censorship under the guise of a vast right-wing conspiracy theory.{{fact}}

===Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction===

[[Hillary Clinton]] speaking on [[Saddam Hussein]]'s possession of [[Weapons of mass destruction]] said,
{{Cquote|I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he [Saddam] were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the [[Weapons of mass destruction|chemical and biological stocks]].<ref>[http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD]</ref>}}

Hillary Clinton further described the situation after weapons inspectors we're expelled during the time when America had two in the position of presidential leadership, "for the price of one."<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/11/02/two_for_the_price_of_one Two For the Price of One], By Charles Krauthammer, November 2, 2007.</ref>
{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his [[nuclear]] program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to [[terrorist]]s, including [[al Qaeda]] members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.<ref>[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6390 Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), October 10, 2002]. Retrieved from Zmag.org December 4, 2007.</ref>}}

===Reaction to Monica Lewinsky scandal===

[[Dick Morris]] and [[Eileen McGann]]
said that Clinton "loudly defended Bill and arranged for attacks on [[Monica Lewinsky]] when she knew the complete and sordid truth." <ref>http://www.newsmax.com/morris/Hillary_Unmasked_morris/2008/02/29/76871.html</ref> As the full extent of the scandal became known, however, Clinton forgave her husband, and the two appear to once again have a trusting, love-filled relationship. <ref>[http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/06/09/tem_monlede09.html]</ref>

== Record as U.S. Senator ==

In 2001, one of Hillary Clinton's first acts as U.S. Senator was to introduce a bill to abolish the [[Electoral College]]. This received insufficient support. No major legislation has been credited to Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was reported to be the biggest spender of any freshman senator in history.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_54/ai_84454903 Hillary Clinton's spending of taxpayer money], ''[[National Review]], April 22, 2002.</ref>
[[Image:070917graveconcern-x.gif|right|thumb|400px]]
Her current plans are reintroduce an [[extremism|extreme]] proposal again to [[socialism|socialize]] the health care system, this time by converting medical records into electronic form that can be easily monitored. She also pushes for universal health coverage, considered to be a step towards a [[Single Payer]], government-controlled system.

Since joining the Senate, Clinton has belonged to a conservative prayer group with the expressed purpose of "bringing Jesus back to Capitol Hill."<ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html</ref> A few of her collaborators in the group include Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan) and Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa).

===FEC fined campaign for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions===

In January 2006 Hillary Clinton's New York Senate 2000 campaign was fined $35,000 for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions. <ref>[http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20060126mur.html Federal Elections Commission] Press Release, January 26, 2006. </ref>

===Smoking gun videotape===

WorldNetDaily reports Hillary Clinton may face a felony conviction that carries with it a five year sentence for violations of Title 2 section 437 of the U.S. federal code, which states: "Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both." Peter Paul, a former friend and contributor to the Clintons, claims he donated $1.9 million to her Senate Campaign, which Hillary Clinton knew of and accepted, in violation of a $2000 limit on individual donations.<ref>[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55320 'Smoking gun' tape indicts Hillary] Art Moore, WorldNetDaily.com, April 21, 2007.</ref> Mr. Paul will present a "smoking gun" videotape <ref>[http://www.hillcap.org/default.php?page_id=2]</ref> of the event as evidence in an ongoing lawsuit involving the Hillary Clinton's fundraising activities in California.<ref>[http://www.hillcap.org/060817_second_amended_complaint.swf]</ref>

===Failure to reform earmark process===

The noted newspaper which covers legislative affairs, ''The Hill'', reported Hillary Clinton received more [[earmark]]s for Congressional [[pork barrel]] projects than only one other United States Senator. Reforming the earmark process had been among the Democrats top priorities in the [[110th Congress]], up until the time Democrats voted to rescind the rules aimed at reform that were passed in the first 100 hours of the new Congress in January. Ethics reform and the earmark process is widely attributed as the cause why Republicans lost control of both Houses of Congress after several members had been caught up in ethical scandals. ''The Hill'' reported Sen. Clinton received 26 earmarks worth about $148.4 million total, much going to [[The Pentagon|Pentagon]] contractors. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-can-boast-wealth-of-earmarks-2007-06-13.html Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks], By Roxana Tiron and Ilan Wurman, ''The Hill'', June 13, 2007.</ref>

===Voted against raising the minimum wage===

After voting to send troops to Iraq Hillary Clinton voted against funding the troops in Iraq. In May of 2007 Clinton voted against raising the minimum wage. <ref>[http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=12952&can_id=55463 Senate Concurrence on HR 2206] Title 8 Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, Record Vote Number 181, 05/24/2007. [http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=12952]</ref>

== Presidential campaign 2008 ==

===Alleged embellishment of career events===

{{quotebox|What is Mrs. Clinton doing? She is having the worst case of [[cognitive dissonance]] in the history of modern politics. She cannot come up with a credible, realistic path to the nomination. ... But she is a scrapper, a fighter, and she's doing what she knows how to do: scrap and fight. Only harder. So that she ups the ante every day. She helped Ireland achieve peace. She tried to stop NAFTA. She's been a leader for 35 years. She landed in Bosnia under siege and bravely dodged bullets. It was as if she'd watched the movie "[[Wag the Dog]]," with its fake footage of a terrified refugee woman running frantically from mortar fire, and found it not a cautionary tale about manipulation and politics, but an inspiration. - [[Peggy Noonan]] <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html</ref>}}

=== Hillary and Nixon ===

Hillary Clinton has often been compared to [[Richard Nixon]].<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/nixon_1968_clinton_2008.html
Nixon 1968, Clinton 2008], By John Ellis, RealClearpolitics.com, November 21, 2007.</ref> Columnist Robert Novak reported in November 2007 that a Clinton agent was spreading the word that the Clinton campaign had [[scandal]]ous information about Senator [[Barack Obama]] but was not using it for purposes of party harmony. The nature of the alleged scandal was not revealed to the source of the item, a well known Democrat, who said he thought Clinton wanted to avoid a Clinton-Obama clash that would benefit a third candidate, presumably former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee and Senator [[John Edwards]].<ref>Hillary's Nixonian TacticsAgainst Obama], by Robert Novak and Timothy P. Carney, ''Human Event'', 11/21/2007.</ref>

===Failure to condemn smear campaign===
Hillary Clinton failed to vote to condemn an unpopular smear campaign conducted by the [[radical]] [[leftist]] group [[MoveOn.org]].<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-20-senate-condemn_N.htm</ref> The [[U.S. Senate]] voted 72-25 to condemn<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html Senate Votes to Condemn MoveOn for Ad Attacking General Petraeus], [[FOX News]], September 20, 2007.</ref> the unmitigated attack upon a respected career soldier. The [[U.S. House of Representatives]] one week later by an overwhelming [[bipartisan]] consensus of 341-79 expressed popular discontent with the groups tactics.<ref>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/26/national/w095848D93.DTL</ref> A poll showed 58% of the American people expressed disapproval, with only 23% supporting<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/23_approve_of_moveon_org_petraeus_ad_58_disapprove</ref> debasement of the political dialog over a vitally important issue of national concern. Hillary Clinton was criticized by President [[George W. Bush]] for failing to take a stand against radical extremism in civic debate.

===No criminal background checks on donors or advisers===

On September 12, 2007, the ''[[L.A. Times]]'' reported Hillary Clinton's decision to begin [[criminal]] background checks on major donors in wake of the [[Norman Hsu]] scandal. Hsu contributed more than $1 million for Hillary Clinton’s New York Senatorial race and faces charges dating back 15 years that he fleeced investors out of $1 million. <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-hsu12sep12,1,2928455.story?coll=la-politics-campaign&ctrack=1&cset=true Campaigns feel the effects of Hsu case], By Dan Morain and Tom Hamburger, ''Los Angeles Times'', September 12, 2007.</ref> Less than one week earlier it was reported by [[MSNBC]], that Hillary Clinton was being advised by convicted criminal [[Sandy Berger]]<ref>[http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/April/05_crm_155.htm Former National Security Advisor Samuel Berger Pleads Guilty to Knowingly Removing Classified Information from the National Archives], United States Department of Justice Press Release, April 1, 2005.</ref> who plead guilty to [[theft]] of [[classified information]] from the [[National Archives]] in connection with requests for documents made by the National Commission investigating the [[September 11 terrorist attacks]] upon the [[United States]] (the [[9/11 Commission]]).
[[Image:Melting-Md.jpg‎|right|thumb|250px|Image depicting Clinton's concerns about her electability in the Presidential race.<ref>http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/cartoonarc/Melting.htm</ref>]]

===Electability===
A big concern in the Hillary Clinton camp was whether or not she was electable. An Electability Poll undertaken in June of 2007, in which the participants are asked in no certain order, a list of candidates from both parties, whether they would vote for candidate X or prefer someone else. Recent polling has revealed, of all major presidential candidates from both parties, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom a majority of 52% would not vote for, or would prefer someone else. <ref>[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/28/248165.aspx Poll: Is Hillary Electable?], by Mark Murray, ''NBC News'', June 28, 2007. Retrieved from MSNBC.com June 29, 2007.</ref> The poll results show majorities would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates, or possible candidates, to avoid voting for her.

===Promises made, promises broken===

In late August 2007 Senator [[Bill Nelson]] and other members of Florida's Congressional delegation protested the Democratic National Committee's scheme<ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_DEMOCRATIC_PRIMARY_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME Fla. Democrats warn of voting rights probe if state sanctioned], By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, Aug 23, 2007. Retrieved from ''St. Petersburg Times'' August 24, 2007.</ref> to deprive Floridians of equal voting rights protection<ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_DEMOCRATIC_PRIMARY_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME Fla. Democrats warn of voting rights probe if state sanctioned], By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, Aug 23, 2007. Retrieved from ''St. Petersburg Times'' August 24, 2007.</ref> in selection of delegates to the 2008 DNC Presidential nominating convention. A letter sent to DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], threatened legal action "to determine whether this could violate any state or [[federal law]]s governing and protecting individual [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights]].... It always has been a priority of our party to protect the rights of every eligible American to vote...We would hope the DNC will continue to honor this right."<ref>[http://www.nelsonforsenate.com/feature/dean/ Letter from Florida Congressional Democrats to DNC Chairman Howard Dean], August 22, 2007. Retrieved from nelsonforsenate.com/feature/dean/ September 13, 2007.</ref> The move prompted Hillary Clinton to pledge not to campaign in Florida.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html?ex=1346472000&en=d7f7216c6188da2e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States], By Jeff Zeeleny, ''New York Times'', September 2, 2007.</ref> A week later she was campaigning in Florida.<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/09/11/news/iowa/c07662f8adc84f9a8625735300091c7f.txt Candidates have events in Florida despite pledge], By Charlotte Eby, ''Sioux City Journal'', September 11, 2007.</ref>

===The nuclear option===
[[Barbara Olson]] in her 1990 book ''Hell to Pay'' <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0895262746/102-6782111-3076127?SubscriptionId=11NRD61HE570TCSR99R2]</ref> made a convincing case that the former Goldwater girl, raised in a Republican home, while working for the staff of the House Judiciary Committee preparing impeachment Articles against [[President Nixon]], studied Nixon very closely. Olson and others have now commented how Hillary Clinton built her political career by learning to think and act as Nixon did, and modeling herself after him. These writers cite instance after instance of such behavior. <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45138 Hillary's Secret War], The plan to silence Internet journalists, Joseph Farah, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', July 6, 2005.</ref> When Democratic competitor [[Barack Obama]] made a public statement vowing not to use [[nuclear weapons]], Hillary Clinton shot back,
{{Cquote|I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons}}reflecting Nixon's thoughts in ''The Real War'' :
{{Cquote|[[Eisenhower]] said... "You should never let the enemy know what you will do, but it's more important that you never let the enemy know what you will not do." }}
Nixon referred to it as "the [[Madman theory]],"
{{Cquote|... statements that appear to rule out the use of force, while perhaps meant to be unprovocative, will in fact provoke an antagonist to push for more. ...we should not make statements that we will never launch a preemptive strike. Whether or not we would ever exercise that option, we should always leave open the possibility that in extreme circumstances we might. <ref>[http://nobsnews.blogspot.com/1996/10/real-war.html#hole_card ''The Real War''], Richard Nixon, Warner Books, May 1980, pgs. 253 - 260.</ref>}}

===Health concerns===
Analyst [[Bay Buchanan]] suggests that
Hillary Clinton may suffer from a psychological condition and
that this should raise questions about her fitness for office. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20699 Analysis of Hillary Reveals 'Clinical Narcissism',] by Ericka Andersen, ''Human Events'', 05/14/2007.</ref> A recent book entitled ''The Extreme Makeover of Hillary Rodham Clinton'' <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Makeover-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/dp/1596985070]</ref> examines the Senator's instability, incoherent speeches as both student and First Lady, casual disregard for the law, and ever-changing opinion on the [[Iraq war]]. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20699 Analysis of Hillary Reveals 'Clinical Narcissism',] by Ericka Andersen, ''Human Events'', 05/14/2007.</ref>

These [[character flaw]]s, Buchanan writes, make Hillary overly dependent on [[guru]]s and outside experts, with no internal compass to guide her, displaying all the classic symptoms of “clinical narcissism.” The American Psychiatric Association describes this condition to include feelings of superiority, self-importance and “fantasies of unlimited success, fame or power.” The author further states, “We are not talking about self-infatuation, we are talking about a clinical condition that could make her dangerously ill-suited to become President and Commander in Chief.”

===Abuse of Mother Teresa===

Hillary Clinton was chastised by a [[Catholic]] Advocacy group for using an image of [[Mother Teresa]] in a campaign ad. Clinton continues to support abortion. <ref>[http://www.fidelis.org/gw3/articles-news/articles.php?CMSArticleID=1456&CMSCategoryID=10 Fidelis Covered by Catholic News Agency on Mother Teresa Video Controversy], ''Catholic News Agency,'' 05-18-2007.</ref> The U.S. Catholic-based advocacy group Fidelis, an organization working with people of faith to defend the [[sanctity of life]], [[traditional marriage]], and [[religious liberty]] rights, called for Hillary Clinton to remove the image of Mother Teresa from their campaign video. In a press release the group declared the video, narrated by her Bill Clinton,
{{Cquote|is wholly inappropriate, disrespectful and disturbing ...using an image of blessed Mother Teresa as a political tool, especially given their radically different views on abortion...Mother Teresa tirelessly fought to protect unborn children, while Hillary Clinton staunchly supports [[abortion]] on demand in all nine months of pregnancy, including [[partial birth abortion]] and [[taxpayer funding of abortion]]}}

When the image of Hillary and Mother Teresa appears in the video the former president is heard saying “Hillary, in effect, was the face of America … in India;” the video then cuts to a clip of the former first lady addressing the 1995 Beijing Conference where an effort was made to declare abortion a fundamental “human right.”

===Skipping flyover country===

Hillary's strategists felt they could win the nomination by skipping Iowa as flyover country. <ref>[http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070524/NEWS09/705240387/1001&lead=1 Aide advises Clinton: Skip Iowa,] Thomas Beaumont, ''Des Moines Register'', May 24, 2007. </ref> Hillary Clinton's once close friend, political pundit Dick Morris, declared that she will campaign on the "Mom Strategy." Morris says this "gives her a credible way to tack to the left on the war." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238117,00.html Hillary's New Strategy]: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann.</ref> Hillary Clinton did exactly that on the ABC television show ''The View'' in early 2007. She was asked if being a mom gives "a would-be President kind of an edge up on, say, a male rival?" Hillary replied, "Well, you know, nobody's ever been in a position to ask that question, 'cause we've never had a mother who ever ran for or held that position." Hillary's claim was false. Ellen McCormack, mother of three daughters and one son, and also a grandmother, ran for President in 1976 on a platform that included opposition to abortion.<ref>http://www.constitutioncenter.org/timeline/html/cw12_12310.html</ref>

===PolitiFact awards===
Hillary received a "Pants on Fire" award from [[PolitiFact]] for saying Obama "basically threatened to bomb Pakistan."<ref> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/375/ Et tu, Clinton?</ref>

Hillary received a second "Pants on Fire" award from [[PolitiFact]] for this false statement to a Washington, D.C. crowd on March 17th, 2008. <ref> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/411/ Video shows tarmac welcome, no snipers</ref> {{cquote| I remember landing under sniper fire.}}

==Arkansas==
During the 1970s and '80s, the Clintons invested in the [[Whitewater Development Corporation]] which later became the subject of a federal investigation, [[prosecution]]s and [[conviction]]s. Jim and Susan McDougal, and then-Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker were convicted of multiple counts of financial [[fraud]], even though President Clinton testified for four hours for the defense.<ref>Once upon a Time in Arkansas, [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/docs/clintondepo.html Transcript of Clinton's Sworn Deposition], PBS.</ref>

On the evening Bill Clinton lost his bid for a Congressional seat in 1974, Hillary is reported to have shouted in a rage at Clinton's campaign manager Paul Fray, calling him a "Jew bastard". The incident was reported in a book published by Harper Collins in 2000 entitled, ''State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton''. <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/State-Union-Complex-Marriage-Hillary/dp/0060193921]</ref> The author, Jerry Oppenheimer, cites three witnesses to the incident. <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200007/ai_n8910772 Did Hillary commit a hate crime?], Human Events, July 28, 2000. </ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,344475,00.html Hillary faces voters' wrath for alleged ethnic slur], Michael Ellison, London Guardian, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000718.shtml Hillary’s Manners], Joseph Sobran, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15015 I agree with Clinton!], Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily, July 20, 2000.</ref>

==Legal Services Corporation==
Hillary Clinton was appointed by President [[Jimmy Carter]] to head the controversial [[Legal Services Corporation]] (LSC) in 1978 and remained on the Board til 1983. <ref>[http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=225 Thwarting the Will of Congress: How the Legal Services Corporation Evaded, Diluted, and Ignored Reform], Testimony of Kenneth F. Boehm before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, House Judiciary Committee, February 28, 2002. </ref>
Under Hillary Clinton's leadership, the LSC began moving away from its legislated task of providing poor people with free lawyers and began an [[activist]] agenda to influence [[public policy]] through [[class action lawsuit]]s. One case involved bringing lawsuits to force New York's Transit Authority to hire [[heroin]] addicts. The LSC also violated its own rules by organizing political campaigns against a state referendum and against Ronald Reagan. <ref>Michael Barone , [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/barone070899.asp ''Taking Hillary seriously], ''Jewish World Review'', July 8, 1999. </ref>

Hillary Clinton failed the District of Columbia [[Bar Exam]] in the 1970s.<ref>[http://mediamatters.org/items/200706010006 On Today, Bernstein omitted key fact in purported disclosure of Clinton's D.C. bar exam failure: It's not news], ''[[MediaMatters]]'' June 1, 2007. Retrieved from MediaMatters.org October 4, 2007.</ref>

==Accusations of stolen gifts==
When the Clintons left the White House, they were accused of taking furniture that belonged not to them, but to the White House. It was explained that the movers inadvertently packed the wrong items. Most of the articles were quietly returned. <ref>"Clinton Shipped Furniture Year Ago," Washington Post, February 10, 2001.</ref>

==Goldwater girl==

Speaking at [[Selma]], Alabama's First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the "bloody Sunday" freedom march Hillary Clinton declared: "As a young girl I had the great privilege of hearing [[Martin Luther King|Dr. King]] speak in Chicago. The year was 1963....[Dr. King] called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the [[civil rights]] pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union." In her memoirs Hillary Clinton described herself in 1964 as "an active Young Republican" and "a [[Barry Goldwater|Goldwater]] girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit." Columnist [[Robert Novak]] observed, "As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined [[Solid South|Southern Democratic]] [[segregation]]ists opposing the historic [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights act of 1964]] inspired by King."<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/03/12/hillary,_king_and_goldwater Hillary, King and Goldwater], by Robert D. Novak, [[Townhall.com]], March 12, 2007.</ref>

==After the 2008 election==
After [[Barack Obama]] won the election, Hillary was widely speculated to be offered a role in the upcoming Obama Administration. On 1 December 2008 Obama announced that he was nominating Hilary to become his [[Secretary of State]], succeeding [[Condoleezza Rice]] in January 2009.

==See also==
*[[Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Hillary Clinton|Articles about '''Hillary Clinton''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==External links==
*[http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990809/kaminer Hillary's No Liberal], Wendy Kaminer, ''The Nation'', July 22, 1999 (August 9, 1999 issue).

==References==

{{reflist|2}}

{{liberalism}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Hillary Rodham}}

[[Category:Former United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:First Ladies]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Obama Administration]]
[[Category:Liberals]]

Howard Stern

2009-01-01T18:05:54Z

MackHein: not a lie. stern, like many liberals, praises Reagan regularly

'''Howard Stern''' is a [[United States of America|American]] radio personality, notable for his crude and vulgar humor.

Known for his use of scatological and sexist humor, the self-proclaimed "King of All Media" has been dubbed a "shock jock" for his use of shocking or unorthodox content as a promotional draw as well as his highly controversial comments that have included misogynistic remarks and frequent bigoted remarks about various religious and ethnic groups.

He is best-known for his national radio show, which for many years was syndicated on FM radio stations (and a few AM stations) throughout the [[United States]] until his last broadcast via terrestrial radio on December 16, 2005. Up until this point, Stern had worked for Viacom's CBS Radio division (previously known as Inifinity), who, in turn, syndicated his program through various broadcasters. One such broadcaster, Clear Channel Communications, stopped airing the Stern Show after a controversial 2004 broadcast that featured racist and sexist dialogue. After a brief hiatus, Stern began broadcasting via the subscription-based [[Sirius]] satellite radio service in January of 2006. Although Stern had a weekly audience of more than ten million when on terrestrial radio, on satellite Stern's audience is in the three million range.

Stern's show often has such guests as exotic dancer, "little people" (midgets), pornographic actors, regular actors, musicians and comedians. Some of the more unorthodox topics of the Stern show include details of homosexual practices, and talking or trying to talk female guests into disrobing, and of course constant flatulence jokes.

Stern is well known for his [[liberal]] [[Socialism|socialist]] political views. He is staunch supporter of radical [[environmentalism]], socialized medicine, and taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and embryo experimentation that involves the cloning and destruction of human embryos and fetuses. Stern often talks of his admiration of [[Ralph Nader]] and [[Al Franken]]. Stern also praises the popular [[Ronald Reagan]] as many liberals do in public, even though they disagree with most of what Reagan stood for. He is a supporter of socialist activist [[Michael Moore]] and was very vocal in his endorsement of Moore's leftist propaganda film ''Fahrenheit 9/11'' which was released in June of 2004. Moore was even a guest on Stern's show the week of the film's release and called into the show a day before the 2004 presidential election. Moore appeared on Stern's show again on June 18, 2007, to promote socialized medicine, a program Stern is very supportive of.

On July 25, 2006, Stern launched into a tirade against [[Connecticut]] Senator [[Joe Lieberman]]. He attacked Lieberman's past support of indecency laws and his current support of the [[War on Terror]] <ref>http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/07/26/9212/</ref>. In February of 2007, Stern announced on his radio show that he is supporting [[Hillary Clinton]] for president.

==References==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Stern, Howard}}

[[Category:Radio Shows]]
[[Category:Broadcasters]]

User:MackHein

2009-01-01T17:59:10Z

MackHein: about me

Hi. I'm Mack, and I live in New York. Like other members of the Hein family, I subscribe to deeply conservative values. I am a Bible-reading, God-fearing Christian and enjoy snowmobiling and skeet shooting.